Jon Price's "Scientific Studies"
geewizz
John Price evidentially does not know who paid for these "scientific studies."
I imagine he thinks that the US Govt, the FDA or NIH or NIMH paid for these
studies. These studies were actually paid for by pharmacetical companies. The
FDA has no funds for supporting any kind of "scientific studies". NIH pays for
BASIC research in biomedical investigation. All studies on drugs, both before
and after approval by the FDA, are paid for by the drug companies. There are a
few limited studies done by NIMH or NIH on precription drugs but they don't
amount to a hill of beans.
In the Louisville, KY newspaper, the "Courier Journal" it was reported on Oct.
9, 1994 (during the Prozac related Wesbecker trial) by Dr. Nancy Lord that, in
the clinical trials many "strange" happenings ocurred. There were many
examples but I will quote one. "A man deteriorated markedly on Prozac and said
he had developed the urge to harm himself and the urge to "smash things." He
was advised to quit the clinical trials and to quit Prozac, which he did.
Then, his case said, "Prozac did not help patient". No reference at all to the
deterioration.
The first "Scientific Study" that John Price quotes was done by Harvard.
Interesting. It was at Harvard that Dr. Martin Teicher published his report on
the six obsessively suicidal patients. Dr. Teicher then testified at two
trials against Prozac. But no more. He found that his Grant money was not
being renewed. End of story.
The second "Scientific Study" showed that people who received high doses of
antidepressants and who had had a preciption filled in the 30 days before they
committed suicide were also at higher risk than those who had received low
doeses. This goes along with both "The Essential Guide to Preciption Drugs"
1997 edition where the doc and pharmacologist state that all antidepressants
can induce suicidal ideation. It is interesting to note that Dr. Ronald Fieve
(the Prozac Lover), states in his book "Prozac" that between 1 and 6 % of
people who were NOT suicidal, developed suicidal thoughts while on the SSRI's
or on the tricyclics. However, Dr. Fieve stated that no patient who was taking
an MAO developed such suicidal ideation. How are the MAO's different from the
other antidepressants. THEY DO NOT ACT ON SERETONIN. Interesting.
The third study says that increased suicidal ideation and/or agitation have
been reported in a small proportion of individuals receiving Prozac or other
SSRIs. This study came out of ISRAEL - far from our pharmacetical companies
reach. Wonder who funded that one? This is the important question. All else
on these sutdies is irrelevant.
So on down the line with these studies. If you feel suicidal during the study,
you are asked to quit. What a joke.
Depsite the "cold fission" fiasco, I still have faith in the BASIC scientific
studies being done at colleges and university in the U.S. But drug studies,
forget it.
In the book "The Shadow Syndrome", the author states that he attended a
scientific conference where a paper was presented on BuSpar. After the paper
was read, a basic research scientist who was by now an old man and who had been
at his bench for 50 years, said "This paper is too simple. We still don't know
if the serotonin level is actually raised by BuSpar or if the "downstream"
serotonin neurotransmitters are actually being LOWERED.
Prozac is the most prescribed and least understood drug in history. No one
even knows how much serotonin is in the brain, much less how much it should be
raised (or is it actually being lowered).
To all of you out there who have had their life blown apart by Prozac, who
watched a loved one you knew for over 40 years, suddenly change their
personality, my heart goes out to you. Let us never give up our fight. GW
Peter
In article <33a97...@204.167.245.31>, geewizz <gee...@invalid.adr>
writes
<snip>
>How are the MAO's different from the
>other antidepressants. THEY DO NOT ACT ON SERETONIN. Interesting.
Do please tell me something about the inhibition of monoamine oxidase in
the synaptic cleft?
Do you know of the probenecid studies showing low 5-HIAA in impulse
disorders, including depression?
Moving on, and to show that I recognise that 5-HT is not the sole
mediator of depression, do please tell me about DA and NA theories of
depression? Read any Zacharko <sp?>?
Do please tell me how it is that adverse reactions to fluoxetine - and
paroxetine, etc. for that matter - are not typical? How is it that, for
anecdotal example, a patient in my unit is glad to be in receipt of
fluoxetine, and that he no longer feels suicidal?
Similarly, but in a different area of pharmacotherapy, do you recall the
reasons for W/D clozapine from the market, and what do you think of
alanzapine?
<snip>
--
Peter
Harmon
geewizz <gee...@invalid.adr> wrote in article
<33a97...@204.167.245.31>...
> In the Louisville, KY newspaper, the "Courier Journal" it was reported on
Oct.
> 9, 1994 (during the Prozac related Wesbecker trial) by Dr. Nancy Lord
that, in
> the clinical trials many "strange" happenings ocurred. There were many
> examples but I will quote one. "A man deteriorated markedly on Prozac and
said
> he had developed the urge to harm himself and the urge to "smash things."
He
> was advised to quit the clinical trials and to quit Prozac, which he did.
> Then, his case said, "Prozac did not help patient". No reference at all
to the
> deterioration.
The purpose of a clinical trial is to determine the safety and efficacy of
an investigational drug. Adverse events are documented and sent to various
governmental agencies (eg, the FDA in the States). The agencies then
determne if the drug should or should not be available to the general
public in their countries based upon the clinical evidence. There are
always some unforseen adverse events which occur with large scale clinical
trials (using THOUSANDS of patients). However, Prozac is considered a
relatively "safe" drug by the international medical community.
> It is interesting to note that Dr. Ronald Fieve
> (the Prozac Lover), states in his book "Prozac" that between 1 and 6 % of
> people who were NOT suicidal, developed suicidal thoughts while on the
SSRI's
> or on the tricyclics.
How do you know that the suicidal thoughts were because of Prozac or the
TCAs? They may have developed these thoughts even if they were not on any
meds (especially if you're referring to severely depressed patients). Do
you know the incidence of suicide ideation in a depressed population of
patients who are NOT on meds? My guess is that it would be somewhere
between 10 and 25%. Thus, an incidence of less than 10% would show that the
drugs are beneficial, IMHO.
>However, Dr. Fieve stated that no patient who was taking
> an MAO developed such suicidal ideation.
What's interesting (and hard to believe) is your statement that: "no
patient who was taking an MAO developed suicidal ideation." In fact, I
don't believe it (unless you're referring to a very small or skewed
population).
<rest snipped>
Sue Harmon
Tim McNamara
In article <33a97...@204.167.245.31>, gee...@invalid.adr (geewizz) wrote:
> Prozac is the most prescribed and least understood drug in history. No one
> even knows how much serotonin is in the brain, much less how much it
should be
> raised (or is it actually being lowered).
A rather sweeping generalization, don't you think? As a matter of fact,
if you read through the Physician's Desk Reference (a
non-critically-reviewed compendium of data from the pharmaceutical
companies themselves; paid for, as I understand it, by those same
companies) the biochemical actions of many if not most medications are
fairly poorly known. Prozac is hardly alone in this.
> To all of you out there who have had their life blown apart by Prozac, who
> watched a loved one you knew for over 40 years, suddenly change their
> personality, my heart goes out to you. Let us never give up our fight. GW
I find it interesting that you choose Prozac specifically, but do not talk
about Paxil, Zoloft, Luvox, etc. These medications are substantially
identical in their actions to Prozac. Is there something special about
Prozac?
Tim
--
Just a box of rain, I don't know who put it there.
Believe it if you need it or leave it if you dare.
-Robert Hunter
Cognitee
I have seen a number of people comment on drugs as if they were very
knowledgeable. I suspectmost of it is superficial B.S. But, perhaps you
should join the sci.med group as well, if you are a counselor with the
formal knowledge of a real doctor !!
As I've said in the past, I would rather see drugs legalized than
prescription privieldges given to counselors or "therapists". It would
probably be better to hand out hand-guns to school children than to give
clinical or counseling psychologists such priviledges (if one is concerned
with the long-term good of the society). There are not even reasonably
reliable diagnoses for most disorders. Such persons, lacking science in
their own field, should certainly be given NO FURTHER "privileges" (or
power or money !!)
In article <V7lViIAt...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
For a critique of the counseling/psychotherapy field and SOLUTIONS, see my web page: http://www.future.net/~bradj/it.html
John M Price
Here is the affiliation of the authors of the studies I put up.
Yes Eli-Lily is in there. So what? Or is the accusation that they do
sloppy research due to the obvious fact that the research did not come out
the GeeWizz way?
And I did only glance at the GeeWizz piece - on dejanews - as I saw Brad
mentioning a Peter article, under my nam, with no post of mine in sight!
I have eliminated the abstracts - they are around. And there is an order
glitch - due to my skipping a line, and catching it at the end. Hence the
order here matches the first post, but the numbering does not.
Here they are:
1. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Warshaw MG; Keller MB.
Address: Brown University School of Medicine, Providence, RI 02912, USA.
Title: The relationship between fluoxetine use and suicidal behavior in
654 subjects with anxiety disorders.
Journal: Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1996 Apr, 57(4):158-66.
Unique ID: 96185214.
2. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Jick SS; Dean AD; Jick H.
Address: Boston Collaborative Drug Surveillance Program, Boston University
Medical Center, Lexington, MA 02173.
Title: Antidepressants and suicide [see comments].
Journal: Bmj (Clinical Research Ed.), 1995 Jan 28, 310(6974):215-8.
Unique ID: 95170404.
4. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Tueth MJ.
Address: Department of Psychiatry, University of Florida, Gainesville
32608.
Title: Revisiting fluoxetine (Proxac) and suicidal preoccupations.
Journal: Journal of Emergency Medicine, 1994 Sep-Oct, 12(5):685-7.
Unique ID: 95081530.
3. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Anderson GM; Segman RH; King RA.
Address: Yale Child Study Center, Yale University School of Medicine, New
Haven, CT, USA.
Title: Serotonin and suicidality: the impact of fluoxetine
administration. II: Acute neurobiological effects.
Journal: Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 1995,
32(1):44-50.
Unique ID: 95347944.
11. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Tollefson GD; Rampey AH Jr; Beasley CM Jr; Enas GG; Potvin JH.
Address: Psychopharmacology Division, Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli
Lilly and Company, Lilly Corporate Center, Indianapolis, Indiana
46285.
Title: Absence of a relationship between adverse events and suicidality
during pharmacotherapy for depression.
Journal: Journal of Clinical Psychopharmacology, 1994 Jun, 14(3):163-9.
Unique ID: 94299904.
5. (MEDLINE result)
Author: King RA; Segman RH; Anderson GM.
Address: Yale Child Study Center, Yale School of Medicine, New Haven, CT
06520-7900.
Title: Serotonin and suicidality: the impact of acute fluoxetine
administration. I: Serotonin and suicide.
Journal: Israel Journal of Psychiatry and Related Sciences, 1994,
31(4):271-9.
Unique ID: 95181135.
6. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Tollefson GD; Fawcett J; Winokur G; Beasley CM Jr; Potvin JH;
Faries DE; Rampey AH Jr; Sayler ME.
Address: Psychopharmacology Division, Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli
Lilly and Company, Indianapolis, Indiana 46285.
Title: Evaluation of suicidality during pharmacologic treatment of mood
and nonmood disorders.
Journal: Annals of Clinical Psychiatry, 1993 Dec, 5(4):209-24.
Unique ID: 94146879.
7. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Goldstein DJ; Rampey AH Jr; Potvin JH; Masica DN; Beasley CM Jr.
Address: Lilly Research Laboratories, Eli Lilly and Company, Indianapolis,
IN 46285.
Title: Analyses of suicidality in double-blind, placebo-controlled
trials of pharmacotherapy for weight reduction.
Journal: Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1993 Aug, 54(8):309-16.
Unique ID: 94075254.
8. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Tollefson GD.
Address: Department of Clinical Investigation and Regulatory Affairs
(Psychopharmacology), Eli Lilly and Company, Lilly Research
Laboratories, Indianapolis, IN 46285.
Title: Adverse drug reactions/interactions in maintenance therapy.
Journal: Journal of Clinical Psychiatry, 1993 Aug, 54 Suppl:48-58;
discussion 59-60.
Unique ID: 94075262.
9. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Crundwell JK.
Address: Department of Psychology, University of Lancaster, Bailrigg,
England.
Title: Fluoxetine and suicidal ideation--a review of the literature.
Journal: International Journal of Neuroscience, 1993 Jan, 68(1-2):73-84.
Unique ID: 94342014.
10. (MEDLINE result)
Author: Cornelius JR; Salloum IM; Cornelius MD; Perel JM; Thase ME; Ehler
JG; Mann JJ.
Address: Department of Psychiatry, Western Psychiatric Institute and
Clinic, University of Pittsburg Medical Center, PA 15213.
Title: Fluoxetine trial in suicidal depressed alcoholics.
Journal: Psychopharmacology Bulletin, 1993, 29(2):195-9.
Unique ID: 94120043.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
The only good thing ever to come out of religion was the music.
- George Carlin _Brain Droppings_
Peter
In article <good_brad-190...@dial009.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>I have seen a number of people comment on drugs as if they were very
>knowledgeable. I suspectmost of it is superficial B.S.
You would. You're a parapro, not a biological psychologist.
>But, perhaps you
>should join the sci.med group as well,
Is this an NG that you avoid? <g>
>if you are a counselor with the
>formal knowledge of a real doctor !!
You forgot something. That I have a qualification <read M.Sc.> in
experimental neurophysiology.
You didn't know something. That I was taught by Paul Willner, otherwise
known as Professor Depression.
Oh, and Brad, Paul is a *real* professor. In both of his last 'chairs'
he succeeded in completely avoiding administrative functions. So that he
can concentrate on research. You know, microelectrodes, electrode
pullers, lab. assistants, glacial acetic acid, neuroleptics, anti-
depressants, anxiolytics, hypnotics, Skinner boxes, keeping up with
contemporary developments in the literature, conferences, collaborative
meetings in other universities, sabbaticals in other countries <yours,
for example>....
...how about you?
>As I've said in the past, I would rather see drugs legalized than
>prescription privieldges given to counselors or "therapists".
I would prefer to see neither, period. The thought of therapists handing
meds out is unappealing. To say the very least. The increase in
accidental illnesses from either category is at least avoidable.
>It would
>probably be better to hand out hand-guns to school children than to give
>clinical or counseling psychologists such priviledges
<Hand-grenades in playgrounds... ...hmmm... ...well, the path statement
seems to belong to Brad.> Well, I wouldn't go quite so far as to say
this, but I agree with your sentiment. I prefer chemicals to be dished
out by people trained to fully understand the effects <wanted and
unwanted> they bring. That means non-CNS as well as CNS effects, and I
don't mean 'psychological' as in the phenomenal sense of the word.
>(if one is concerned
>with the long-term good of the society). There are not even reasonably
>reliable diagnoses for most disorders. Such persons, lacking science in
>their own field, should certainly be given NO FURTHER "privileges" (or
>power or money !!)
Errrm. Look, you may have special problems in America, such as
diagnoses-rampant syndrome <aka DSM>, where the Brits tend to be
somewhat conservative, you may have therapists specialising in every
hurt, real and imagined, whereas soul doctors tend to be thinner on the
ground here. Oh, and you have SRA and 'children who abuse' <there's an
excellent US web page on this, and it shocked me>.
We even have lots of parapros, social medicine, and behavioural science
by the lorry-load.
Anyhow, you didn't answer the questions that I posed. What do you think
of the probenecid method of counselling <g>.
--
Peter
John Grohol PsyD
What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
(see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
My problem with the SSRIs and marketing literature which
accompany such meds is the simple lies and mis-statement of
facts which occur in an effort to bolster the arguments for
prescribing their brand of medication over a competitors'.
The lies have gotten so wide-spread that now it is common
practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
in their brain.
Huh? When did this research get published which proved such
a causal relationship??
Those kinds of lies are reinforced by the pharmcos which
produce slick graphics and "educational" brochures which
basically say the same thing. Many doctors simply buy into
the marketing information because they are too busy or too
disinterested to actually look up and read the studies themselves.
They pass the misinformation on to their patients. The patients
feel they need to have an SSRI then, because, after all,
they are simply fixing a "chemical imbalance." (No matter
that there are no tests given to diagnose such an imbalance
ahead of time or that we don't know what a "balanced" brain
for any given individual should be.)
This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
to push their drugs.
-John
--
Mental Health Net Psych Central
http://www.cmhc.com http://www.grohol.com
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
I am a professional psychology and counseling instructor -- a well-known
PROFESSION. I know you are NO medical doctor (and I do not see your
degree as even roughly equivalent, poopy butt). I know you are just
completely power-hungry, self-centered, self-content, conceited, libelous
and "nuts." It is no wonder you were once a condidate for moderator, but
withdrew becasue you could stand exercizing self-control while waiting to
be elected !!!
In article <cC4H8TAZ...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
geewizz
In article <timmcn-1906...@dialup-301.minn.net>, tim...@minn.net
says...
>
>In article <33a97...@204.167.245.31>, gee...@invalid.adr (geewizz) wrote:
>
>
>> Prozac is the most prescribed and least understood drug in history. No one
>> even knows how much serotonin is in the brain, much less how much it
>should be
>> raised (or is it actually being lowered).
>
>A rather sweeping generalization, don't you think? As a matter of fact,
>if you read through the Physician's Desk Reference (a
>non-critically-reviewed compendium of data from the pharmaceutical
>companies themselves; paid for, as I understand it, by those same
>companies) the biochemical actions of many if not most medications are
>fairly poorly known. Prozac is hardly alone in this.
That is true, in so far as it goes. However, other drugs do not claim, like
Prozac and the other SSRI's, to be "SELECTIVE". FProzac and the other
SSRI's claim that their drug only raises serotonin. This is a false claim.
When serotonin is raised, the other neurotransmitting agents such as dopamine
and norepinephrine (not to mention the adrenalin system) have their own
respond. Raising serotonin can also raise dopamine or norepinephrine. Prozac
and the other SSRI's are about as selective as a "shotgun blast." At least the
other drugs in the PRD do not try to make some ridiculous unproven claim.
These "scientific studies" remind me of the "scientific studies" done by the
tobacco companies in the 1950's. Every study they did said that smoking did
not cause lung cancer or heart attack. Of course, those studies were paid for
by the tobacco companies but many people believed them. Now the tobacco
companies have to pay $350 BILLION. (Oh, what a tangled web we weave when
first we practice to deceive. Sir Walter Scott -- Marion VI)
>> To all of you out there who have had their life blown apart by Prozac,
who
>> watched a loved one you knew for over 40 years, suddenly change their
>> personality, my heart goes out to you. Let us never give up our fight. GW
>
>I find it interesting that you choose Prozac specifically, but do not talk
>about Paxil, Zoloft, Luvox, etc. These medications are substantially
>identical in their actions to Prozac. Is there something special about
>Prozac? Tim
No, their is nothing special about Prozac, other than that it is a killer like
all the SSRI's. I just use the name "Prozac" to refer to the whole group of
"killers". GW
From GW
Death: Prozac (without feeling) Author - GW
Cognitee
I am not, nor have I ever been, anything other than a professional in the field.
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
The field is psychology. (I am a professional in the field of
psychology. A field too many know too little about here !!!) ALSO,
someone has misread records. I have taken only graduate courses at the U
of MN.
In article <FRgx4hA5...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In article <good_brad-200...@dial008.future.net>, Cognitee
> <good...@hotmail.com> writes
> >I am not, nor have I ever been, anything other than a professional in the
> >field.
>
> Which field was that, Brad? The cow field outside of my parent's new
> home? _The Field_ of Irish cellulose fame? Kakania? How did your recent
> undergraduate courses at UMN go?
>
> Mind you don't tread in another cow pat, they can be awfully smelly, old
> chap. <g>
>
> <snip>
>
> --
> Peter
> <Set, again.>
Peter
> I am a professional psychology and counseling instructor -- a well-known
>PROFESSION. I know you are NO medical doctor
I didn't claim to be a medical doctor. In fact I'd rather not be, since
a good number of them are short on molecular knowledge.
Why didn't you answer my question, Bradley?
>(and I do not see your
>degree as even roughly equivalent, poopy butt).
(Ah, more from Kakania of Viennese nursery fame)
>I know you are just
>completely power-hungry, self-centered, self-content, conceited, libelous
>and "nuts."
Wow, not only can you read minds across several thousand miles of water,
but you also have a mirror placed on this side, in which you see
yourself reflected. Hmmmm.
>It is no wonder you were once a condidate for moderator, but
>withdrew becasue you could stand exercizing self-control while waiting to
>be elected !!!
More mind reading. Does 'para' stand for parapsychologist, and does this
mean that you will be joining the Koestler institute soon? <g>
<snip, you didn't read it properly anyhow, it seems>
--
Peter
<Set, again.>
Peter
John M Price
In article <33aaf...@204.167.245.31> geewizz <gee...@invalid.adr> wrote:
[snip]
: That is true, in so far as it goes. However, other drugs do not claim, like
: Prozac and the other SSRI's, to be "SELECTIVE". FProzac and the other
: SSRI's claim that their drug only raises serotonin. This is a false claim.
No, this is a false statement by you. They state that the reuptake is
inhibited.
: When serotonin is raised, the other neurotransmitting agents such as dopamine
: and norepinephrine (not to mention the adrenalin system) have their own
: respond. Raising serotonin can also raise dopamine or norepinephrine. Prozac
: and the other SSRI's are about as selective as a "shotgun blast." At least the
Really, you do have the binding studies to refer us to for that rather
ignorant statement?
Put 'em up.
: other drugs in the PRD do not try to make some ridiculous unproven claim.
[snip]
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Atheist# 683
"As the most participatory form of mass speech yet developed, the
Internet deserves the highest protection from government intrusion."
- U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania
Dolores K. Sloviter, chief judge, U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals
U.S. District Judge Ronald L. Buckwalter &
U.S. District Judge Stewart Dalzell, presiding
geewizz
In article <33AAAC...@cmhc.com>, joh...@cmhc.com says...
>
>What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
>drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
>(see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
>at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
>
>For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
>were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
>new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
>was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
>been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
>profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
>many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
>side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
>Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
The tricyclics have mostly gone generic so their is no money in them. Why push
a dead horse.
>My problem with the SSRIs and marketing literature which
>accompany such meds is the simple lies and mis-statement of
>facts which occur in an effort to bolster the arguments for
>prescribing their brand of medication over a competitors'.
>The lies have gotten so wide-spread that now it is common
>practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
>that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
>in their brain.
>
>Huh? When did this research get published which proved such
>a causal relationship??
There is no such research because it would take years - enough years that by
then the SSRI's would be generic. Remember - only the drug companies sponser
research on drugs.
>Those kinds of lies are reinforced by the pharmcos which
>produce slick graphics and "educational" brochures which
>basically say the same thing. Many doctors simply buy into
>the marketing information because they are too busy or too
>disinterested to actually look up and read the studies themselves.
>They pass the misinformation on to their patients. The patients
>feel they need to have an SSRI then, because, after all,
>they are simply fixing a "chemical imbalance." (No matter
>that there are no tests given to diagnose such an imbalance
>ahead of time or that we don't know what a "balanced" brain
>for any given individual should be.)
>
>This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
>It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
>to push their drugs.
>
>-John
There is also real harm when a patient suffers one of the 151 adverse reactions
to Prozac that are listed in the Physicians Desk Reference, the majority of
which are listed as either "frequent" or "infrequent" not RARE.
From GW
Death: Prozac (without feeling) author - GW
They say that knowledge is power. I used to think so, but I now know that they
meant money. . .Every guinea is a philsopher's stone . . . Cash is virtue.
(Byron: Letter to Douglas Kinnaird)
Larry C. Lyons
In article <good_brad-200...@dial008.future.net> Cognitee,
good...@hotmail.com writes:
>I know you are just
>completely power-hungry, self-centered, self-content, conceited, libelous
>and "nuts."
While I obviously do not subscribe to any fraudian (um freudian - is that
a slip here :) beliefs, this might be an excellent example of a defense
mechanism.
Larry C. Lyons | email: mailto://sol...@mnsinc.com
| Home Page: http://www.mnsinc.com/solomon
My opinions alone, no one else will take responsibility for them!
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
Cognitee
Dear Larry Lyons,
According to Meehl, defense mechanisms are among the most reliably
identified phenomenon in all of clinical psychology. They (again,
according to Meehl), better than anything else, yield agreement in ratings
between clinicians. Dismissing all of Freud is beyond simple ignorance.
It is unthinking presumptuousness. Read: the book, The Scientific
Credibility of Freud's Theory and Tharapy, by Fisher and Greenberg (1977)
(the first major review of the literature bearing on Freud's theory, since
Sears in the 50s). 2/3 of all the data having bearing on Freud support
his ideas !! There is evidence of both an "anal", "oral", and a neurotic
("phallic") constellation of behaviors: Behaviors Freud would predict
would co-occur (or correlate) *DO* and they do at a good level. AND,
there are no good explanations for this except some combination of
cognitive developmental and neo-Freudian theory !!!
So much for your credibility !!! You simply are ignorant. Start
looking into things yourself and thinking for yourself. This is the first
step out of abject ignorance from being a brown-nosing ass kisser.
In article <5oh2h9$3...@news1.mnsinc.com>, Larry C. Lyons
<NoS...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
--
Cognitee
P.S. I think I am objective enough to guess that many of the people who
read Peter find him partly incoherent and otherwise off-the-wall (and also
seizing with hostility). I was simply trying to give his irrational
behavior some rational explanation. It is possible he is just "nuts" ,
largely due to some inherented brain anomaly or neurotransmiter imbalance.
Peter
In article <good_brad-200...@dial022.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Peter,
> The field is psychology. (I am a professional in the field of
>psychology. A field too many know too little about here !!!) ALSO,
>someone has misread records. I have taken only graduate courses at the U
>of MN.
You are a professional in the field of psychology? Does this mean that
you are a /Psychologist/? If so, please give me your licence number,
state board, and APA membership number.
Or are you a *psychologist* in the same way that your friend 'Doctor
Richard X Frager' <he with the questions, pun, pun> is a *Doctor*?
Tell me, how is it that I recall that you were found to be registered
for undergraduate courses at UMN last year - and BTW, I do have a tiny
bit of inside gossip - and why were you so coy when the matter was
broached, hinting that there perhaps might be another Bradley Jesness? A
son perhaps?
--
Peter
In article <4chmvk$i...@cu.comp-unltd.com>, B Jesness <spa...@imt.net> writes
>Sci.BRAD is the only true sci.psychology.psychotherapy you can find
>(i.e. that confronts pressing science concerns w/o which "therapy"
>cannot be a science).
Peter
>In article <good_brad-200...@dial008.future.net> Cognitee,
>good...@hotmail.com writes:
>>I know you are just
>>completely power-hungry, self-centered, self-content, conceited, libelous
>>and "nuts."
>
>While I obviously do not subscribe to any fraudian (um freudian - is that
>a slip here :) beliefs, this might be an excellent example of a defense
>mechanism.
<Perhaps his remarks reflect lack of control... ...so dependent on his
external locus of control, the internet...?>
It astonishes me that he thinks his crystal ball to be so powerful.
It astonishes me that he poked his cheeky face into a thread on
biological psychology, about which I have yet to see him write even a
coherent sentence.
>Larry C. Lyons | email: mailto://sol...@mnsinc.com
> | Home Page: http://www.mnsinc.com/solomon
>
>My opinions alone, no one else will take responsibility for them!
>========================================================
>Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
>========================================================
---
Peter
On 19 Jan 1996 04:11:52 GMT in an article <Peer Counselors, not (typically)
"therapists"> 'B J <br...@future.net>' wrote:
>I recommend: silence, which would be a somewhat more
>appropriate and somewhat more effective option). -- the brain stem
Peter
In article <good_brad-210...@dial001.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>P.S. I think I am objective enough to guess that many of the people who
>read Peter find him partly incoherent and otherwise off-the-wall (and also
>seizing with hostility).
Most interesting. You are once again attributing to me the very qualities
that have been spotted in you. By quite a few posters.
>I was simply trying to give his irrational
>behavior some rational explanation.
Taken to REBT then, Brad?
>It is possible he is just "nuts" ,
Diagnosing without a licence, Mister Jesness?
>largely due to some inherented brain anomaly or neurotransmiter imbalance.
I'll tell you what, you describe the inherited brain anomaly and/or
neurotransmitter imbalance you attribute to my supposed illness,
professor Jesness. Then discuss my symptoms in a technical manner. Oh,
and remember, diagnosis by modem is doomed to failure...
...do you remember the proprietor of the cyber cafe who *met* and banned
you, for your baaaad, baaad behaviour? The one convinced that you are a
paranoid schizophrenic?:
In article <322F26...@cyberx.com>, Brian Hagerty
<bhag...@cyberx.com> writes
Subject: Re: jesness, 206.8.152.20 and .26
Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 14:15:37 -0500
>Hi, I own CyberX, a cybercafe, and the two IP addresses above are
>machines in my store that Jesness has used to post nonsense to the
>group.
>He came in my store again this morning, and I told him he couldn't use
>our machines any more, so you shouldn't be getting any unpleasant
>traffic from those IP addresses.
>Just curious--he's obviously a paranoid schizophrenic. Why does anyone
>pay any attention to his posts? From what I saw in the group today (and
>I've never been in it before), he hasn't been cross-posting lately, so
>why not just let him be white noise? There's no way you're going to be
>able to shut this guy down forever, especially as places like cybercafes
>become more popular. I talked to him because I'm that way, but I'd bet
>that a lot of cybercafe owners aren't going to be able to/want to police
>their users.
>Anyway, as I said, you shouldn't get any more of his traffic from my
>network.
>--Brian Hagerty
>Owner, CyberX
>http://www.cyberx.com/
You see? What is more, even though he had little idea of your history, he
knew perfectly well that you crosspost inappropriately.
Neo-Freudians my, foot. Scientist my, foot. Psychologist, my foot. 42
y.o. professor, my foot. Renowned ethologist, my foot. Counselling
instructor, my foot.
--
Peter - my foot.
Cognitee
Dear Libelous, Disgusting Peter, (sicko):
I am a professional in the field of psychology. I am a college
psychology instructor, a ** well-recognized ** **** profession ****. End
of discussion.
Perhaps you would ask physicists or professors for their "licenses" too.
Not all professionals have licenses. There are other ways of being
credentialed or certified.
I have attended graduate courses at the U of MN (and ONLY *graduate*
courses). I was NOT in any program, but the courses where graduate level
-- I displayed the course names and course numbers (graduate course
numbers) at one time, in responding to similar harassment and abuse from
you or your "pals". I cannot help that in your attempt to pry into my
life and harass nme **PERSONALLY** that some bureaucrat misread the
record. It is no doubt because I am not in a degree program, but just
getting continuing education. I will be happy to sue you for libel,
Peter, if you persist. It is amazing the personal abuses you have
attempted from England. Your abusiveness and that of others has made me
urge all to be anonymous here. **IRONICALLY**: YOU and your kind, with
your abusive behaviors, are what prevents "better people" form being
here. Ironically you blame me. But I am not abusive in any sense like
you and some of your "moderator" friends are. I confine my discussion to
topics and issues IN the newsgroup !!!
In article <hlq4VDAV...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
I will diagnose some things at will !!!! I am a professional who can
"diagnose" knowledge/learning/education problems, as I did with Larry
Lyons !! He can follow the "prescription" I gave him or suffer in a
life-long way !!! I have been certified as a professional in this field
!!
I have every right to use the full English language as you do -- MORE,
we bailed your *** BUTTS out *** in WW II AND WW I (otherwise you would
be speaking German, right now) !!!! I will say again that, judging by
your newsgroup behavior, you appear to be "nuts".
There is no good evidencew that a Cyber Cafe owner ever confronted me.
He confronted **someone** , but ** NOT ME ** !!! I cannot help that I
apparently have some wierd friends. Did you even find out whether the
fellow confronted ever SAID he was me ?? I doubt he did.
In conclusion Peter, as a counseling instructor I can tell you: you
are not fit for a human service profession. Your conduct shows no proper
regard for people and you are abusive of people *personally* (being
liblous and prying into personal matters *and* trying to solicit similar
abuses from others). You are libelous. I am not. YOU are bad, legally
speaking and morally speaking, and I am not. You abuse me personally and
in irrelevant ways; I never conduct myself this way. I address what is in
the newsgroup only !!!!!!!!! Learn some propriety, bugger.
In article <HuBBnVA5...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
Paul Bernhardt
In article <good_brad-220...@dial004.future.net>,
good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> I have every right to use the full English language as you do -- MORE,
> we bailed your *** BUTTS out *** in WW II AND WW I (otherwise you would
> be speaking German, right now) !!!! I will say again that, judging by
> your newsgroup behavior, you appear to be "nuts".
>
IMHO, the above a long and terribly arrogant reach to justify a person's
position?
It has been better than 50 years since the US allied with England, et al.
It's time to give it a rest. They were brave in a way we didn't understand
while bombs hailed down on their homes. We were isolated an ocean away
risking only the soldiers we sent over. Never forget we were acting in our
own self interest. A Europe unified, combined with a US zeitgeist of
isolationism, spelled disaster for US trade interests.
> There is no good evidencew that a Cyber Cafe owner ever confronted me.
> He confronted **someone** , but ** NOT ME ** !!! I cannot help that I
> apparently have some wierd friends. Did you even find out whether the
> fellow confronted ever SAID he was me ?? I doubt he did.
You should learn to read better. Reread the message from CyberX and you
will see that he had no doubt that he was kicking out a person named
Jessness whose posts were identified as yours and came from his machines.
His diagnosing you is certainly suspect, given his lay status. But I'll
assume his statement means: This Jessness guy is a bit different, maybe
mentally ill.
<snip>
> Learn some propriety, bugger.
There you are with your homosexual references again. Brad, you really
should stop this sexually abusive behavior. It doesn't help your cause a
bit.
> >
> > In article <322F26...@cyberx.com>, Brian Hagerty
> > <bhag...@cyberx.com> writes
> > Subject: Re: jesness, 206.8.152.20 and .26
> > Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 14:15:37 -0500
> >
> > >Hi, I own CyberX, a cybercafe, and the two IP addresses above are
> > >machines in my store that Jesness has used to post nonsense to the
> > >group.
> >
> > >He came in my store again this morning, and I told him he couldn't use
> > >our machines any more, so you shouldn't be getting any unpleasant
> > >traffic from those IP addresses.
> >
> > >Just curious--he's obviously a paranoid schizophrenic. Why does anyone
> > >pay any attention to his posts? From what I saw in the group today (and
> > >I've never been in it before), he hasn't been cross-posting lately, so
> > >why not just let him be white noise? There's no way you're going to be
> > >able to shut this guy down forever, especially as places like cybercafes
> > >become more popular. I talked to him because I'm that way, but I'd bet
> > >that a lot of cybercafe owners aren't going to be able to/want to police
> > >their users.
> >
> > >Anyway, as I said, you shouldn't get any more of his traffic from my
> > >network.
> >
> > >--Brian Hagerty
> > >Owner, CyberX
> > >http://www.cyberx.com/
> >
+=============================================================+
Victories, alas, are only victories. The truly rabid
and zealous crusader looks forward to
the next enraging defeat!--Obwon
Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
+=============================================================+
William R. Jones
Brad...
Perhaps you can clear up the difference between two asterisks, four
asterisks, and slashes.
> Dear Libelous, Disgusting Peter, (sicko):
> I am a professional in the field of psychology. I am a college
> psychology instructor, a ** well-recognized ** **** profession ****. End
> of discussion.
> >
Harmon
I am a non-professional who has lurked on this newsgroup infrequently,
but I'd like to respond to one of the messages which I've recently read.
I'm quoting from a quote, since I didn't see the original message:
> John Grohol PsyD wrote:
> > What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
> > drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
> > (see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
> > at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
> > For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
> > were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
> > new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
> > was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
> > been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
> > profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
> > many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
> > side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
> > Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
Having just taken a pharmacology course (SUNY-HSC at Brooklyn, 1997), I
would like to respond by posting the following information (which was
taken directly from my review manual, 1997). In a population of
depressed patients on antidepresssants, perhaps the idea of an overdose
should be considered. Here is the information:
Tricyclic Dynamics: Overdose Toxicity: ...High Morbidity & Mortality: "3
C's" = Convulsions, Coma & Cardiotoxicity
MAO Inhibitor Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
Second Generation Drug Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
SSRI Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
I'm not implying that there is_no overdose toxicity for the other AD
groups; I'm only stating that it was not mentioned in my review manual.
Maybe someone familiar with research here could look it up?
> >it is common
> > practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
> > that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
> > in their brain.
I understand that this statement of "fact" was made by a PsyD (who is
privy to all sorts of information that we lay people lack) <g>
> > This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
> > It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
> > to push their drugs.
And, IMHO, the _real _harm done by statements from people such as these,
who are "authority" figures and who don't know anything about overdose
toxicities, is that blanket statements such as the one above, about it
"being common practice for doctors to lie to their patients,"
disseminate disinformation and lies in order to push their _services.
I apoligize to all the members of this newsgroup if I've insulted
anyone.
Sue Harmon
SOLUTION
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2421
Gene Douglas
We need to keep in mind that the Pharm. co's aren't the only people
pushing drugs. When a psychiatrist can see four people an hour if he
prescribes drugs, and one if he does not, he has the choice of
quadrupling his income or not. If he charges less for a 15 minute
appointment, the patient is likely to get the idea he is getting the
same standard of service, but paying less. Consequently, if all the
psychiatrist has to offer is a prescription, then that is what he is
likely to offer.
If he makes a deal with a hospital, which enhances his income for making
admissions, then he is likely to do that. His service, whenever he
drops by to see his patient, will be a diagnosis and a prescription.
Others may provide individual or group or family therapy, but the doctor
may not be too involved, or even knowledgable about that. When the
patient is dismissed, his service is likely to return to a monthly visit
and a prescription, so that is what the patient receives.
John Grohol PsyD wrote:
>
> What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
> drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
> (see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
> at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
>
> For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
> were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
> new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
> was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
> been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
> profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
> many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
> side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
> Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
>
> My problem with the SSRIs and marketing literature which
> accompany such meds is the simple lies and mis-statement of
> facts which occur in an effort to bolster the arguments for
> prescribing their brand of medication over a competitors'.
> The lies have gotten so wide-spread that now it is common
> practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
> that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
> in their brain.
>
> Huh? When did this research get published which proved such
> a causal relationship??
>
> Those kinds of lies are reinforced by the pharmcos which
> produce slick graphics and "educational" brochures which
> basically say the same thing. Many doctors simply buy into
> the marketing information because they are too busy or too
> disinterested to actually look up and read the studies themselves.
> They pass the misinformation on to their patients. The patients
> feel they need to have an SSRI then, because, after all,
> they are simply fixing a "chemical imbalance." (No matter
> that there are no tests given to diagnose such an imbalance
> ahead of time or that we don't know what a "balanced" brain
> for any given individual should be.)
>
> This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
> It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
> to push their drugs.
>
> -John
>
> --
Gene Douglas
Larry C. Lyons
In article good_brad <actually quite mediocre>@hotmail.com (Cognitee)
barely legibly writes:
>
>
>Dear Peter,
> I will diagnose some things at will !!!! I am a professional who can
>"diagnose" knowledge/learning/education problems, as I did with Larry
>Lyons !! He can follow the "prescription" I gave him or suffer in a
>life-long way !!! I have been certified as a professional in this field
What diagnosis? All I ever read was an immature temper tantrum.
<Sarcasm On>
Besides since you are not licensed in Virginia, I know that the "highly
ethical" Brad, with his enlightened attitutes towards the disabled
(remember the Tourette's Syndrome and the Autism comments Bradnee), you
would not do such an unethical thing.
</Sarcasm OFF>
Professional - you have got to be kidding. If any of my undergraduate
students (when I was still teaching that is) tried to pull some of your
bs routines in an oral or written exam, they'd have failed for sure.
Even the most incompetant professional therapist or counsellor I've ever
worked with has shown more professional acumen than you have
demonstrated. You have shown that you cannot adequately read research
reports, interpret the most basic of inferential statistics, or
understand the most elementary aspects of experimental design. While I
have only seen a bit of your therapeutic skills - or rather the lack
thereof -- they seem to follow the same trend. In other words you sir are
no professional, except to say that you have taken incompetance to a
professional level.
As for following your prescription, frankly given your level of
incompetance, if I follow the exact opposite of what you "prescribe," I
should end up doing quite well,
With utter and complete disregard,
Larry C. Lyons | email: mailto://sol...@mnsinc.com
| Home Page: http://www.mnsinc.com/solomon
My opinions alone, no one else will take responsibility for them!
========================================================
Life is Complex. It has both real and imaginary parts.
========================================================
geewizz
In article <33AF38...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not says...
>
>I am a non-professional who has lurked on this newsgroup infrequently,
>but I'd like to respond to one of the messages which I've recently read.
>I'm quoting from a quote, since I didn't see the original message:
>
>> > What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
>> > drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
>> > (see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
>> > at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
>> > For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
>> > were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
>> > new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
>> > was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
>> > been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
>> > profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
>> > many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
>> > side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
>> > Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
>
>would like to respond by posting the following information (which was
>taken directly from my review manual, 1997). In a population of
>depressed patients on antidepresssants, perhaps the idea of an overdose
>should be considered. Here is the information:
>
>Tricyclic Dynamics: Overdose Toxicity: ...High Morbidity & Mortality: "3
>C's" = Convulsions, Coma & Cardiotoxicity
>
>MAO Inhibitor Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>
>Second Generation Drug Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>
>SSRI Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>
>I'm not implying that there is_no overdose toxicity for the other AD
>groups; I'm only stating that it was not mentioned in my review manual.
>Maybe someone familiar with research here could look it up?
Strange, --In the Physicians desk reference convulsions, myocardial infract,
and coma are all listed as adverse reactions. This is for patients on a
"normal" dose, not an overdose. Check it out. Part of the big lie about the
SSRI's is that they are non-toxic in overdose.
Sue Harmon
>SOLUTION
>http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2421
I don't think that doctors "lie" to their patients. I think that doctors, just
like research scientists, psychologists and social workers, etc, just do not
know the answer to whether or not depression is a "biochemical brain
imbalance". Nature or nuture (or a combination) - genetics or hormonal
imbalance, insecurities in childhood which result in "biochemical imbalances"
in the brain. The question is up in the air and will be for sometime too.
Remember that their are "fads" in medicine just like in "regular" society.
Right now the fad is --- everyone with depression has a biochemical imbalance.
The drug companies like to push this idea and the psychiatrists like it too
because it makes their specialty seem like more of a "science" than it is. The
medical fad in the 1950's was to remove the tonsils. Now that is passe. The
fad in the 1970's was "encounter groups" to restructure the personality.
Remember, too, that a book in pharmacology receives most of its information
from pharmacists who receive their information from the pharmaceutical
companies who have a vested interest in pushing the drugs where the "grants"
are still being awarded. (the SSRI's, big money makers vs. the tricyclics, now
all generic and dead as a doornail for the pharmaceutical companies.) GW
P.S. Glad to have you on board and questioning-----
Death: Prozac (without feeling)
The cuelest lies are often told in silence. (R.L. Stevenson:"Virginibus
Puerique Liv.)
Cognitee
Dear Larry,
Please don't react defensively. As a professional college instructor,
I have given you a prescription for a better life and more quality
learning. Following my advice you would know better than to ever refer to
Freud in a "blanket" manner, disrespectfully. I can only hope that you
will come to true learning and develop your own knowledge more. Life will
be empty to live just pleasing others and regurgitating what you have been
told (like a parrot).
P.S. The reputation and myths laid down by Freud are still your "meal
ticket". Little good science has we-ll-established the field !!
In article <5on7cc$m...@news1.mnsinc.com>, Larry C. Lyons
<NoS...@mnsinc.com> wrote:
--
Peter
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
In article <good_brad-220...@dial004.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Libelous, Disgusting Peter, (sicko):
^^^^^^^
<and you speak of law, eh?>
> I am a professional in the field of psychology. I am a college
>psychology instructor, a ** well-recognized ** **** profession ****. End
>of discussion.
>
>Perhaps you would ask physicists or professors for their "licenses" too.
If doctors apply for jobs they must show the evidence. Ditto
psychologists, nurses, etc.. On the internet there is all manner of
spanner, where quacks and people seeking to misrepresent themselves are
concerned.
>Not all professionals have licenses. There are other ways of being
>credentialed or certified.
Professions typically involve career structures, grading structures,
examinations to specified standards, registration, chartering/licencing,
membership of professional societies, membership numbers,
certificates... ...does your case conform to these phenomena?
>I have attended graduate courses at the U of MN (and ONLY *graduate*
>courses). I was NOT in any program, but the courses where graduate level
>-- I displayed the course names and course numbers (graduate course
>numbers) at one time, in responding to similar harassment and abuse from
>you or your "pals". I cannot help that in your attempt to pry into my
>life and harass nme **PERSONALLY** that some bureaucrat misread the
>record.
No, it was not misread. I am here to tell you so. I do have some
pointers to legitimate means of clarifying the situation. I may use
them, should I fancy.
>It is no doubt because I am not in a degree program, but just
>getting continuing education.
Perhaps you could clarify this for me? Does this mean 'adult education',
Mister Jesness?
>I will be happy to sue you for libel,
>Peter, if you persist.
OK. I'm waiting for you. Here in England. What is more, I have tons of
pukka evidence on you. I think that between myself and others there is
ample evidence to sue you into bankruptcy.
Think about it. Do wish to be bankrupted?
>It is amazing the personal abuses you have
>attempted from England. Your abusiveness and that of others has made me
>urge all to be anonymous here.
Only yourself and Curio appear to feel the need to be anonymous on a
regular basis.
What does this tell you?
Neither of you can be anonymous. You both post agenda-specific material
that is recognisably yours. You both have distinctive styles of
corresponding, and narrow concerns.
>**IRONICALLY**: YOU and your kind, with
>your abusive behaviors, are what prevents "better people" form being
>here. Ironically you blame me. But I am not abusive in any sense like
>you and some of your "moderator" friends are. I confine my discussion to
>topics and issues IN the newsgroup !!!
I'll leave the next bit in. I'll include this too, and allow you to
reflect on the noun 'libel':
In article <good_brad-220...@dial004.future.net>, Cognitee
<good...@hotmail.com> writes
> P.S. Just keep playing with your sheep, bugger !!!!
See you in court.
>In article <hlq4VDAV...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> In article <good_brad-200...@dial022.future.net>, Cognitee
>> <good...@hotmail.com> writes
>> >Dear Peter,
>> > The field is psychology. (I am a professional in the field of
>> >psychology. A field too many know too little about here !!!) ALSO,
>> >someone has misread records. I have taken only graduate courses at the U
>> >of MN.
>>
>> You are a professional in the field of psychology? Does this mean that
>> you are a /Psychologist/? If so, please give me your licence number,
>> state board, and APA membership number.
>>
>> Or are you a *psychologist* in the same way that your friend 'Doctor
>> Richard X Frager' <he with the questions, pun, pun> is a *Doctor*?
>>
>> Tell me, how is it that I recall that you were found to be registered
>> for undergraduate courses at UMN last year - and BTW, I do have a tiny
>> bit of inside gossip - and why were you so coy when the matter was
>> broached, hinting that there perhaps might be another Bradley Jesness? A
>> son perhaps?
>> --
>> Peter
>> In article <4chmvk$i...@cu.comp-unltd.com>, B Jesness <spa...@imt.net> writes
>> >Sci.BRAD is the only true sci.psychology.psychotherapy you can find
>> >(i.e. that confronts pressing science concerns w/o which "therapy"
>> >cannot be a science).
>
--
Peter
Baaaaaa, Baaaaa, Baaaaa.
WITHOUT PREJUDICE
Peter
In article <bad_brad-220...@dial004.future.net>, Cognitee
<bad_...@hotmail.com> writes
>Dear Peter,
> I will diagnose some things at will !!!! I am a professional who can
>"diagnose" knowledge/learning/education problems, as I did with Larry
>Lyons !!
OK, if you are such a /professional/, kindly give me your licence
details, state board and membership details for the APA and APS. I'll
verify your statements.
>He can follow the "prescription" I gave him or suffer in a
>life-long way !!! I have been certified
Certified? Really?
>I have been certified as a professional in this field
>!!
Oh. Then you will be able to furnish me <in news, not e-mail> with the
appropriate details, so that I may contact the appropriate
certificating, professional and registration bodies.
<snip>
> I have every right to use the full English language as you do -- MORE,
>we bailed your *** BUTTS out *** in WW II AND WW I (otherwise you would
>be speaking German, right now) !!!!
My father was very fluent. 21 years ago I was fluent. Anyhow, I have
simply no idea how you can speak so.
Nearly 60 years after the whole of Europe was smouldering.
6 million Jewish people/gypsies/gays/others disliked by the Nazis in
death camps were about to die <including not a few British soldiers>.
At least 21 million Russians were about to die, some in battle, some
being outright murdered. To say nothing of Greece, Czechoslovakia,
Bulgaria, Romania, Hungary, Slovenia, Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia,
France, Belguim, the Netherlands, Norway, Finland, Africa, the middle
east...
At one point Britain stood alone, its cities pounded into dust, invasion
armies poised across the channel.
This was all because of a small circle of dictators who - like you -
believed that no one should hold views other than theirs:
In article <4chmvk$i...@cu.comp-unltd.com>, B Jesness <spa...@imt.net>
writes
>Sci.BRAD is the only true sci.psychology.psychotherapy you can find
>(i.e. that confronts pressing science concerns w/o which "therapy"
>cannot be a science).
Many years later Bradley Jesness posts self-aggrandising, cheap,
untherapeutic and childish comments about the most cataclysmic war in
history.
I expect the names Hans and Sophie Scholl mean nothing to you.
I did my term of active service, Bradley. In a moderately dangerous job.
It makes me shudder to think of just one person dying as the result of
aggression and violence.
It seems from your playground behaviour that you can only think of
scoring points. Have you no respect at all?
Well, it is in all of us. I suppose that you are to be no exception.
Better virtually/in news than on terra firma.
>I will say again that, judging by
>your newsgroup behavior, you appear to be "nuts".
>
> There is no good evidencew that a Cyber Cafe owner ever confronted me.
>He confronted **someone** , but ** NOT ME ** !!!
I don't believe you. The posts were yours. Brian Hagerty's description
of the poster is what you read, and you cannot expunge that part of the
record, no matter what. Besides, I could e-mail him again, couldn't I?
>I cannot help that I
>apparently have some wierd friends.
I see that you are losing your grip. Finally you admit to weird friends,
rather than members of your organisation, which is how you originally
depicted the male <you> Brian saw.
>Did you even find out whether the
>fellow confronted ever SAID he was me ?? I doubt he did.
You denied using Ties. Then, when banned, expressed anger. You'd deny
this too. You are.
> In conclusion Peter, as a counseling instructor I can tell you: you
>are not fit for a human service profession.
My supevisor describes me as very focussed, skilled and humane. However,
you obviously didn't read an earlier comment of mine; I am moving to
forensic, from the perspective of evidence collecting and profiling.
I'll also be unsubscribing after the result of the CFV is announced. I
only remain here to archive trollish posts and make them available to
other subscribers.
>Your conduct shows no proper
>regard for people and you are abusive of people *personally* (being
>liblous and prying into personal matters *and* trying to solicit similar
>abuses from others). You are libelous. I am not. YOU are bad, legally
>speaking and morally speaking, and I am not. You abuse me personally and
>in irrelevant ways; I never conduct myself this way. I address what is in
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ LOL! This is being kept
>the newsgroup only !!!!!!!!!
Oh sure. You have interfered with the internet accounts of how many
posters? You have abused how many posters? You have threatened how many
posters?
>Learn some propriety, bugger.
Coming after all that you have said, LOL, ROFL, ROFLOL, ROFLMAO.
For some minutes tears coursed down my cheeks. I was helpless with
laughter.
It's been a while since someone made me laugh so.
Thank you. You gave me pleasure.
Now will you please return to the subject of monoamine oxidase
inhibitors, reuptake inhibitors, serotonin specific receptor inhibitors,
pre- and post- synaptic autoreceptors, the quantal release of
neurotransmitters... ...or is this beyond your range of knowledge?
<snip>
>> In article <322F26...@cyberx.com>, Brian Hagerty
>> <bhag...@cyberx.com> writes
>> Subject: Re: jesness, 206.8.152.20 and .26
>> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 14:15:37 -0500
>>
>> >Hi, I own CyberX, a cybercafe, and the two IP addresses above are
>> >machines in my store that Jesness has used to post nonsense to the
>> >group.
>>
>> >He came in my store again this morning, and I told him he couldn't use
>> >our machines any more, so you shouldn't be getting any unpleasant
>> >traffic from those IP addresses.
>>
>> >Just curious--he's obviously a paranoid schizophrenic. Why does anyone
>> >pay any attention to his posts? From what I saw in the group today (and
>> >I've never been in it before), he hasn't been cross-posting lately, so
>> >why not just let him be white noise? There's no way you're going to be
>> >able to shut this guy down forever, especially as places like cybercafes
>> >become more popular. I talked to him because I'm that way, but I'd bet
>> >that a lot of cybercafe owners aren't going to be able to/want to police
>> >their users.
>>
>> >Anyway, as I said, you shouldn't get any more of his traffic from my
>> >network.
<snip
--
Peter
Cognitee
Dear Libelous Leslie,
You say: "Again you misrepresent your credentials. Nobody and no
organization has certified you as a professional in any field, unless you
hold some licensing or certification." (end quote) Well, Leslie,
obviously you are again just guessing and speculating to suit your biases
and to abuse me. You are a **harassing abuser** (your GROSS improprieties
have caused most of the ruckus in this newsgroup AGAIN AND AGAIN). The
worst in the newsgroup, EVER. Technically, I guess your last phrase
bails your miserable, mean, unethical, deplorable BUTT out. ** I DO hold
certification ** as an educator (and this is what I was referring to).
But, you are obviously a thug, so don't expect me to provide any details
EVER !!! Kiss it, baby. KISS IT !!!
Some day both you and Peter will "kiss my buttocks". You have tried to
"get" me, but in the process you have misbehaved (TO PUT IT MILDLY). You
will never get me in trouble. I am an ethical person, in good standing
with everyone. YOU, in contrast, are "skating on thin ice." I could sue
you at will. Go AWAY, ***** !! You are an example of why moderation will
fail. You are mean and unattractive. No one will follow you, except
those other unethical, censoring types, "proud" of their biases and
having clear vested interests. Your sole purpose of interacting with me
has *never been to be constructive* (the record would by and large CLEARLY
show this). Your main purpose has been to deflect discussion and suppress
"disliked" well-founded views. You are indeed a thug, *in all aspects*.
A female THUG.
P.S. Your statetment is kinda like: "either you are certified or not."
True Leslie !!; try rocket science next, if you have time in your low paid
job (of which you seem ashamed), dealing with brain-damaged motor problems
!!! -- as if any stupid psychologist could ever do rocket science. <I
am laughing, Leslie> You will never stop my <<LAUGHING>> <g>. Okay,
Buckwheat ??
I am in good standing with all my professional organizations. I could
get your butt kicked out, but I am merciful. Have a very good day !!
** What you have done under the guise of "aversive treatment" has been
unethical and abhorant to all. fortunatuterly you are not ande have never
been a counseling or clinical psychologist. You are credentialed in
"experimentasl" psychology -- educatede in the old times, likely in
absolutely useless stuff.
In article <33c82b7f...@news.pipeline.com>, lpa...@pipeline.com wrote:
> >good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
>
> >Dear Peter,
> > I will diagnose some things at will !!!! I am a professional who can
> >"diagnose" knowledge/learning/education problems, as I did with Larry
> >Lyons !! He can follow the "prescription" I gave him or suffer in a
> >life-long way !!! I have been certified as a professional in this field
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> >!!
> ^^^^^^
>
> Again you misrepresent your credentials. Nobody and no organization
> has certified you as a professional in any field, unless you hold some
> licensing or certification. An academic degree is just that -- an
> academic degree. Are you certified or licensed in anything? Do you
> claim to be able to 'diagnose' learning/education problems as a
> learnings disability specialist? Keep in mind that _those_
> professionals are generally state-licensed or certified. You obtained
> a masters in some branch of psychology, but that doesn't certify you
> for anything.
>
> > I have every right to use the full English language as you do -- MORE,
> >we bailed your *** BUTTS out *** in WW II AND WW I (otherwise you would
> >be speaking German, right now) !!!!
>
> Well, he _does_ speak German, and since you apparently didn't fight in
> WWII, I think it's pretty tacky to suggest that he owes you anything.
> Did you serve in Viet Nam, perhaps? If not, you should probably shut
> up altogether on that, since Peter served _his_ country.
>
> > I will say again that, judging by
> >your newsgroup behavior, you appear to be "nuts".
>
> Whereas you just appear to be .... hopeless?
> >
> > There is no good evidencew that a Cyber Cafe owner ever confronted me.
> >He confronted **someone** , but ** NOT ME ** !!! I cannot help that I
> >apparently have some wierd friends. Did you even find out whether the
> >fellow confronted ever SAID he was me ?? I doubt he did.
> > In conclusion Peter, as a counseling instructor I can tell you:
>
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> Digging yourself in deeper and deeper in terms of ethical misconduct,
> aren't you?
>
> >you
> >are not fit for a human service profession. Your conduct shows no proper
> >regard for people and you are abusive of people *personally* (being
> >liblous and prying into personal matters *and* trying to solicit similar
> >abuses from others). You are libelous. I am not. YOU are bad, legally
> >speaking and morally speaking, and I am not. You abuse me personally and
> >in irrelevant ways; I never conduct myself this way. I address what is in
> >the newsgroup only !!!!!!!!! Learn some propriety, bugger.
> >
> >
> >In article <HuBBnVA5...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
> ><Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> >> In article <good_brad-210...@dial001.future.net>, Cognitee
> >> <good...@hotmail.com> writes
> >> >P.S. I think I am objective enough to guess that many of the people who
> >> >read Peter find him partly incoherent and otherwise off-the-wall (and also
> >> >seizing with hostility).
> >>
> >> Most interesting. You are once again attributing to me the very qualities
> >> that have been spotted in you. By quite a few posters.
> >>
> >> >I was simply trying to give his irrational
> >> >behavior some rational explanation.
> >>
> >> Taken to REBT then, Brad?
> >>
> >> >It is possible he is just "nuts" ,
> >>
> >> Diagnosing without a licence, Mister Jesness?
> >>
> >> >largely due to some inherented brain anomaly or neurotransmiter imbalance.
> >>
> >> I'll tell you what, you describe the inherited brain anomaly and/or
> >> neurotransmitter imbalance you attribute to my supposed illness,
> >> professor Jesness. Then discuss my symptoms in a technical manner. Oh,
> >> and remember, diagnosis by modem is doomed to failure...
> >>
> >> ...do you remember the proprietor of the cyber cafe who *met* and banned
> >> you, for your baaaad, baaad behaviour? The one convinced that you are a
> >> paranoid schizophrenic?:
> >>
> >> In article <322F26...@cyberx.com>, Brian Hagerty
> >> <bhag...@cyberx.com> writes
> >> Subject: Re: jesness, 206.8.152.20 and .26
> >> Date: Thu, 05 Sep 1996 14:15:37 -0500
> >>
> >> >Hi, I own CyberX, a cybercafe, and the two IP addresses above are
> >> >machines in my store that Jesness has used to post nonsense to the
> >> >group.
> >>
> >> >He came in my store again this morning, and I told him he couldn't use
> >> >our machines any more, so you shouldn't be getting any unpleasant
> >> >traffic from those IP addresses.
> >>
> >> >Just curious--he's obviously a paranoid schizophrenic. Why does anyone
> >> >pay any attention to his posts? From what I saw in the group today (and
> >> >I've never been in it before), he hasn't been cross-posting lately, so
> >> >why not just let him be white noise? There's no way you're going to be
> >> >able to shut this guy down forever, especially as places like cybercafes
> >> >become more popular. I talked to him because I'm that way, but I'd bet
> >> >that a lot of cybercafe owners aren't going to be able to/want to police
> >> >their users.
> >>
> >> >Anyway, as I said, you shouldn't get any more of his traffic from my
> >> >network.
> >>
> >> >--Brian Hagerty
> >> >Owner, CyberX
> >> >http://www.cyberx.com/
> >>
> >> You see? What is more, even though he had little idea of your history, he
> >> knew perfectly well that you crosspost inappropriately.
> >>
> >> Neo-Freudians my, foot. Scientist my, foot. Psychologist, my foot. 42
> >> y.o. professor, my foot. Renowned ethologist, my foot. Counselling
> >> instructor, my foot.
> >> --
> >> Peter - my foot.
> >
Cognitee
P.S. Leslie, lover of certificates, holder of few !!! YOU GRUNT: Let's
hear you bark some more, pointlessly, wrongly. **Or**, you can follow my
suggestion and try to behave as you SUPPOSEDLY want others to (GIVEN that
you are a "moderation" <i.e. censorship> supporter). !! WHAT A
HYPOCRITE !! Have a GREAT DAY. AND: If you ever have anything against
me, that **IS** relevant to the group, please bring it up. Otherwise. GO
AWAY AND SHUT THE **** UP !!
THE TRUTH OF THE MATTER is that you have been the harshest, meanest
person in the entire newsgroup, ever. You care only about civility when
other express views you do not like. You have repeatedly supported liars
and the misconduct of others, as long as it was against people you didn't
like. Maybe we should censor you from the newsgroup FOR LIFE (something
Grohol apparently considered doing with me in his other "moderated"
newsgroups -- until it became politically damaging !!) (But, of course,
you know I am a ethical person who does not believe in censorship.)
You all are too deplorable to expect people to back you in moderating
any group. I shall <<laugh>> forever about your stupid nonsense.
Cognitee
Dear Peter,
I have provided plenty of information for any objective archive. You
are a villian. And, there is proof. (What will you do when "moderation"
fails?) I am innocent of even any simple wrong-doing (and certain not
guilty of breaking any law). There is no evidence of *any* wrong-doing or
ethical misconduct on my part. This is why I am still a member in good
standing with professional organizations. Despite frivilous and bogus
complaints, I am in *excellent* standing with all the powers-that-be.
They cannot afford to oppose a just and righteous man, just because they
don't like the evidence and views he presents. Too bad people in the
newgroup couldn't stick with that rule.
In article <492+TgBn...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
Cognitee
P.S. I regret providing you with any information about myself. I am
sorry you know my name. You and your kind solicited abuses on me and my
family !! I surely will give you no information. Get it in court, if
*YOU* want to be sued. I would be happy to see you there. I am ready !!
You can ask and ask and I will never give you anything. I am not obliged
to give you further information by any standard of good-behavior. You are
obviously out only to abuse me. ALL CAN SEE THAT. You shall help the
"moderation" vote fail. Congrats! You do not even have political sense,
much less the sense of a "helper".
KISS IT, Petey !! *K* *I* *S* *S* *I* *T* Bugger !!!
In article <492+TgBn...@brentano.demon.co.uk>, Peter
<Pe...@brentano.demon.co.uk> wrote:
--
John M Price
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu> Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote:
: In article <good_brad-220...@dial004.future.net>,
: good...@hotmail.com (Cognitee) wrote:
: >
: > I have every right to use the full English language as you do -- MORE,
: > we bailed your *** BUTTS out *** in WW II AND WW I (otherwise you would
: > your newsgroup behavior, you appear to be "nuts".
: IMHO, the above a long and terribly arrogant reach to justify a person's
: position?
: It has been better than 50 years since the US allied with England, et al.
Just to pick at a nit, I think after we got over their burning down the
White House, we were on good terms. Granted they, and every other power
near the sea, were truly amazed during our civil war when they saw their
navies were obsolete, but what the hey.... And in keeping with the Hong
Kong Fever, as it were, we were allied with the Crown during the opium
wars, though I think we played little if any part. We certainly did not
condemn them.
: It's time to give it a rest. They were brave in a way we didn't understand
: while bombs hailed down on their homes. We were isolated an ocean away
: risking only the soldiers we sent over. Never forget we were acting in our
: own self interest. A Europe unified, combined with a US zeitgeist of
: isolationism, spelled disaster for US trade interests.
Also, don't forget that at first it was only stuff. The lend-lease deal
and all that. That was even supported by the citizenry of the US, as we
all could, and lots did, keep and bear arms, families sent over arms to
aid in the cause. Some actually got them back from articles in _The
American Rifleman_ (No, I am no longer a member.). I am not sure on other
supplies.
: > There is no good evidencew that a Cyber Cafe owner ever confronted me.
: > He confronted **someone** , but ** NOT ME ** !!! I cannot help that I
: > apparently have some wierd friends. Did you even find out whether the
: > fellow confronted ever SAID he was me ?? I doubt he did.
: You should learn to read better. Reread the message from CyberX and you
: will see that he had no doubt that he was kicking out a person named
: Jessness whose posts were identified as yours and came from his machines.
: His diagnosing you is certainly suspect, given his lay status. But I'll
: assume his statement means: This Jessness guy is a bit different, maybe
: mentally ill.
:
: <snip>
: > Learn some propriety, bugger.
: There you are with your homosexual references again. Brad, you really
: should stop this sexually abusive behavior. It doesn't help your cause a
: bit.
[snip of cybercafe post]
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Atheist# 683
Prove all things; hold fast the valuable.
- 1Thes5:21
Harmon
I originally wrote:
>Tricyclic Dynamics: Overdose Toxicity: ...High Morbidity & Mortality: "3
>C's" = Convulsions, Coma & Cardiotoxicity
gee...@invalid.adr (geewizz) replied:
"Strange, --In the Physicians desk reference convulsions, myocardial
infract,
and coma are all listed as adverse reactions. This is for patients on a
"normal" dose, not an overdose. Check it out. Part of the big lie about
the
SSRI's is that they are non-toxic in overdose."
In my original post, I commented that there is a high morbidity and
mortality from overdose toxicity of TCAs. I thought that it was apparent
that the high morbidity and mortality rate caused the decrease in
popularity of TCA. Certainly, physicians should be aware of it when
considering prescribing the TCAs. I never said SSRIs were non toxic.
Harmon
Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
Harmon wrote:
>
> I am a non-professional who has lurked on this newsgroup infrequently,
> but I'd like to respond to one of the messages which I've recently read.
> I'm quoting from a quote, since I didn't see the original message:
>
> > John Grohol PsyD wrote:
> > > What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
> > > drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
> > > (see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
> > > at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
> > > For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
> > > were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
> > > new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
> > > was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
> > > been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
> > > profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
> > > many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
> > > side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
> > > Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
>
> Having just taken a pharmacology course (SUNY-HSC at Brooklyn, 1997), I
> would like to respond by posting the following information (which was
> taken directly from my review manual, 1997). In a population of
> depressed patients on antidepresssants, perhaps the idea of an overdose
> should be considered. Here is the information:
>
> Tricyclic Dynamics: Overdose Toxicity: ...High Morbidity & Mortality: "3
> C's" = Convulsions, Coma & Cardiotoxicity
>
> MAO Inhibitor Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>
> Second Generation Drug Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>
> SSRI Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>
> I'm not implying that there is_no overdose toxicity for the other AD
> groups; I'm only stating that it was not mentioned in my review manual.
> Maybe someone familiar with research here could look it up?
>
> > >it is common
> > > practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
> > > that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
> > > in their brain.
>
> I understand that this statement of "fact" was made by a PsyD (who is
> privy to all sorts of information that we lay people lack) <g>
>
> > > This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
> > > It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
> > > to push their drugs.
>
> And, IMHO, the _real _harm done by statements from people such as these,
> who are "authority" figures and who don't know anything about overdose
> toxicities, is that blanket statements such as the one above, about it
> "being common practice for doctors to lie to their patients,"
> disseminate disinformation and lies in order to push their _services.
>
> I apoligize to all the members of this newsgroup if I've insulted
> anyone.
>
David van der Want
In article <33B0EB...@spam.not> Harmon <donts...@spam.not> writes:
>From: Harmon <donts...@spam.not>
>Subject: Question About Moderation
>Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 02:59:02 -0700
Howzit Sue,
>Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
I don't know if it would be but I would sincerely hope so. It raises some
really provacative issues. Also you have a right to receive responses from
people in this group many of whom are involved in prescribing anti-depressant
medication.
I have snipped out much of the post and interspersed my comments:
>> Having just taken a pharmacology course (SUNY-HSC at Brooklyn, 1997), I
>> would like to respond by posting the following information (which was
>> taken directly from my review manual, 1997). In a population of
>> depressed patients on antidepresssants, perhaps the idea of an overdose
>> should be considered. Here is the information:
>>
>> Tricyclic Dynamics: Overdose Toxicity: ...High Morbidity & Mortality: "3
>> C's" = Convulsions, Coma & Cardiotoxicity
>>
>> MAO Inhibitor Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>>
>> Second Generation Drug Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
>>
>> SSRI Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
Your source is not entirely accurate. Sure it is looking at overdose toxivity
but still there are eroors. The most glaring of which is the potential
toxicity of the MAO inhibitors. When ingested in combination with foodstuffs
containing Tyramine, these drugs can be dangerous. Foodstuffs which contain
Tyramine include chocolate, sour cream, red wine and cheese.
>>
>> I'm not implying that there is_no overdose toxicity for the other AD
>> groups; I'm only stating that it was not mentioned in my review manual.
>> Maybe someone familiar with research here could look it up?
>>
>> > >it is common
>> > > practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
>> > > that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
>> > > in their brain.
When a psychiatrist tells a patient that anything causes depression he is
distorting the truth. Nobody knows what causes depression or any of the other
mental illnesses. All we can say is that a shortage of seratonin in the
synaptic clefts in the brain is associated with depressed behaviour. It is not
possible to infer a causal relationship here; all we have is a correllation.
The fact that seratonin and is involved in a whole host of other brain
functions is a complicating factor here. Thank heaven that there is not a
single spot in the brain labelled "Depression centre" which we can manipulate
at will.
Whether the drug companies are lying or not no-one can say. The language that
is used is obfuscating though. For example; a drug is said to have effects and
side effects. Poppycock. A drug has effects full stop. We just label those
that are undesirable as side-effects in accordance with the intent of the
drug. The fact that seratonin is involved in a host of other para-sympathetic
functions means that we will be interfering with these irrespective of our
intent in taking or prescribing the drug.
>>
>> I understand that this statement of "fact" was made by a PsyD (who is
>> privy to all sorts of information that we lay people lack) <g>
I think the statement was made to point out that the list drugs that are
commonly in use is not determined solely by the efficacy of the medication.
There is an economic reality here. Psychoactive medication is a multi-million
dollar global industry and all sorts of veryt influential people have a vested
interest in seeing that certain drugs succeed econmically and that certain
other don't. It would be naive to think that the market forces will dictate
that the best drug is the most econimically viable. We have a system based on
scientific inquiry which attempts to ensure that only those drugs which are
not overly harmful are prescribed. However, our scientific method is based on
certain assumptions, for example a correllation between two phenomena (a
shortage of seratonin and depressed behaviour) can be used to manipulate one
of the phenomena involved. So we increase the amount of Seratonin available
and so hope to manipulate the depressed behaviour. However, the brain is a
system where everything effects and is effected by everything else so
increasing seratonin also (in the case of the tricyclics) increases the amount
of acetylycholine with the resultant side effects of constipation, dizziness,
irregular heartbeat, dry mouth, tinnitus and so on.
So caveat emptor applies not only to motor cars and foodstuffs but to
medication as well!
>>
>> > > This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
>> > > It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
>> > > to push their drugs.
>>
>> And, IMHO, the _real _harm done by statements from people such as these,
>> who are "authority" figures and who don't know anything about overdose
>> toxicities, is that blanket statements such as the one above, about it
>> "being common practice for doctors to lie to their patients,"
>> disseminate disinformation and lies in order to push their _services.
I don't fully follow your argument here but you seem to be claiming tht the
quote you supply is pushing psychological services as oppossed to
pharmacological intervention?? I don't think so. I do think that many doctors
first response to a depressed person is to whip ot the prescription pad and
start toying with the brain's ecology. I think this is detrimental. Don't you?
>> I apoligize to all the members of this newsgroup if I've insulted
>> anyone.
I would be very surprised if you have offended anybody. We are accustomed to
far more intense criticism than you have given! <g>
Cheers
David van der Want
University of PRetoria
South Africa
Harmon
David van der Want wrote:
>
> I don't know if it would be but I would sincerely hope so. It raises some
> really provacative issues. Also you have a right to receive responses from
> people in this group many of whom are involved in prescribing anti-depressant
Thanks for your answer, David. How do Ed and the others feel?
Ed Anderson
Harmon wrote:
>
> Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
<snip post>
Hi, Sue. I think it would pass, though this is a judgement call since
it walks the line of being a little too pharmacological at the expense
of psychological. We have a clause that reads "[discussion of]
psychopharmacological or other biological treatments, as they relate to
psychotherapy [is acceptable]." Since your post is so druggy, it runs
into some trouble here. However, the larger point I think you are
making is that some psychologists are unfair to their medical
colleagues. In that sense, I think the post is acceptable, since it
relates to the therapist ethics, career issues, and the relationship
between psychotherapy and other fields -- all of which are specifically
named in the charter as being acceptable.
However, since John Grohol (to whose post you objected) is one of the
proposed moderators, you might run into trouble if he was the moderator
who was randomly assigned your post...<s> Just kidding; John (again, in
spite of what Brad says) is a fair person, and he'd be able to set aside
his personal feelings and make a good call. And there is always the
appeals process, wherein *all* the moderators have to agree that a post
is unacceptable for it to be rejected...
Ed
p.s. I'm not a proposed moderator; I only helped craft the charter...
Paul Bernhardt
In article <33B0EB...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:
> Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
I am not a moderator, but as I understand the rules, the post would pass
as there is no reason to reject it.
Paul
John M Price
In article <dvdwant.18...@libarts.up.ac.za> David van der Want <dvd...@libarts.up.ac.za> wrote:
: In article <33B0EB...@spam.not> Harmon <donts...@spam.not> writes:
: >From: Harmon <donts...@spam.not>
: >Subject: Question About Moderation
: >Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 02:59:02 -0700
: Howzit Sue,
: >Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
Your post has not hit here, unless it is another thread. But I think I
saw it at UCD.
And based on the stuff I see here, yes, I would approve it.
: I don't know if it would be but I would sincerely hope so. It raises some
: really provacative issues. Also you have a right to receive responses from
: people in this group many of whom are involved in prescribing anti-depressant
: medication.
: I have snipped out much of the post and interspersed my comments:
: >> Having just taken a pharmacology course (SUNY-HSC at Brooklyn, 1997), I
: >> would like to respond by posting the following information (which was
: >> taken directly from my review manual, 1997). In a population of
: >> depressed patients on antidepresssants, perhaps the idea of an overdose
: >> should be considered. Here is the information:
: >>
: >> Tricyclic Dynamics: Overdose Toxicity: ...High Morbidity & Mortality: "3
: >> C's" = Convulsions, Coma & Cardiotoxicity
: >>
: >> MAO Inhibitor Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
: >>
: >> Second Generation Drug Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
: >>
: >> SSRI Dynamics: (No overdose toxicity mentioned.)
: Your source is not entirely accurate. Sure it is looking at overdose toxivity
: but still there are eroors. The most glaring of which is the potential
: toxicity of the MAO inhibitors. When ingested in combination with foodstuffs
: containing Tyramine, these drugs can be dangerous. Foodstuffs which contain
: Tyramine include chocolate, sour cream, red wine and cheese.
This is not really associated directly with the MAOIs, but indeed is an
interaction. And you forgot beer. Pretty much any fermented food should
be looked at carefully.
: >> I'm not implying that there is_no overdose toxicity for the other AD
: >> groups; I'm only stating that it was not mentioned in my review manual.
: >> Maybe someone familiar with research here could look it up?
: >>
: >> > >it is common
: >> > > practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
: >> > > that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
: >> > > in their brain.
: When a psychiatrist tells a patient that anything causes depression he is
: distorting the truth. Nobody knows what causes depression or any of the other
: mental illnesses. All we can say is that a shortage of seratonin in the
: synaptic clefts in the brain is associated with depressed behaviour. It is not
: possible to infer a causal relationship here; all we have is a correllation.
I'll have to look, but I think there is an animal model or two.
: The fact that seratonin and is involved in a whole host of other brain
: functions is a complicating factor here. Thank heaven that there is not a
: single spot in the brain labelled "Depression centre" which we can manipulate
: at will.
: Whether the drug companies are lying or not no-one can say. The language that
: is used is obfuscating though. For example; a drug is said to have effects and
: side effects. Poppycock. A drug has effects full stop. We just label those
: that are undesirable as side-effects in accordance with the intent of the
: drug.
Excellent point. Chlorpromazine has antihistamine effects. That was its
primary job at first, and is occasionally still used as such. I recall a
paper about seven years ago that displayed drug effects as bar graphs, the
abscissa being the neurotransmitter affected, the ordinate rated as a
percent with DA as 100% (it looked at antipsychotics). Personally, this
is how they all should be, complete with the receptor subtypes charted as
well.
The fact that seratonin is involved in a host of other para-sympathetic
: functions means that we will be interfering with these irrespective of our
: intent in taking or prescribing the drug.
First, the sympathetic system is not in the CNS.
The parasmpathetic system uses acetylcholine as its first transmitter, as
does the sympathetic. The short effector neurons also use ACh. Only in
the case of the sweat glands do the long effector neurons of the
sympathetic NS use ACh. The rest use norepinephrine. As it has no
secondary effector neuron, one might say the adrenal medulla is
effectively the secondary neuron for the whole rest of the body.
: >> I understand that this statement of "fact" was made by a PsyD (who is
: >> privy to all sorts of information that we lay people lack) <g>
And who has the drug displays at the last two conferences fresh in mind.
: I think the statement was made to point out that the list drugs that are
: commonly in use is not determined solely by the efficacy of the medication.
Duh. Look only to Li+ or any 'orphan drug'.
: There is an economic reality here. Psychoactive medication is a multi-million
: dollar global industry and all sorts of veryt influential people have a vested
: interest in seeing that certain drugs succeed econmically and that certain
: other don't.
It is simple. If it has a patent, they want it to succeed. If the patent
has expired, they don't care, as it then can be used generically.
It would be naive to think that the market forces will dictate
: that the best drug is the most econimically viable. We have a system based on
: scientific inquiry which attempts to ensure that only those drugs which are
: not overly harmful are prescribed. However, our scientific method is based on
: certain assumptions, for example a correllation between two phenomena (a
: shortage of seratonin and depressed behaviour) can be used to manipulate one
: of the phenomena involved. So we increase the amount of Seratonin available
: and so hope to manipulate the depressed behaviour. However, the brain is a
: system where everything effects and is effected by everything else so
: increasing seratonin also (in the case of the tricyclics) increases the amount
: of acetylycholine with the resultant side effects of constipation, dizziness,
: irregular heartbeat, dry mouth, tinnitus and so on.
This is not a logical statement. The side effects you listed here are not
the result of increasing serotonin. They are the result of the lack of
specificity in the molecule used to increase 5HT. Hence the glee at the
specific drugs. Refer to your earlier statement. There you state it
correctly, here you twist it about. How you can have it both ways in the
same post is, well, confusing shall I say.
: So caveat emptor applies not only to motor cars and foodstuffs but to
: medication as well!
And doctors, lawyers, Indian chiefs, bakers, and even candlestick makers.
: >> > > This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
: >> > > It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
: >> > > to push their drugs.
: >>
: >> And, IMHO, the _real _harm done by statements from people such as these,
: >> who are "authority" figures and who don't know anything about overdose
: >> toxicities, is that blanket statements such as the one above, about it
: >> "being common practice for doctors to lie to their patients,"
: >> disseminate disinformation and lies in order to push their _services.
: I don't fully follow your argument here but you seem to be claiming tht the
: quote you supply is pushing psychological services as oppossed to
: pharmacological intervention?? I don't think so. I do think that many doctors
: first response to a depressed person is to whip ot the prescription pad and
: start toying with the brain's ecology. I think this is detrimental. Don't you?
Only if it is a GP that is doing it.
: >> I apoligize to all the members of this newsgroup if I've insulted
: >> anyone.
: I would be very surprised if you have offended anybody. We are accustomed to
: far more intense criticism than you have given! <g>
Yep. As I said, I would approve the post.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Atheist# 683
Nothing illustrates the social kinship of America and the late, great
Roman Empire better than the all-you-can-eat buffet. The Romans called
their buffet an orgy and threw in sex and a vomit trough. Hopefully we too
will reach this pinnacle someday.
- Greg Beets & Buzz Moran 'Hey! Hey! Buffet!'
Harmon
Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote in article
<Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>...
> In article <33B0EB...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:
> I am not a moderator, but as I understand the rules, the post would pass
> as there is no reason to reject it
Thanks. Now I have another question: Will Dr. Grohol's original post,
included at the end of this message, be accepted under moderation? If
you'll notice, it is not about "pharmacology as it relates to psychology."
I am somewhat confused because Dr. Grohol is the person who proposed the
change in wording of the charter in the first place.
Thanks.
Sue
SOLUTION
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2421
Here is Dr. Grohol's original post:
"What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
(see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
My problem with the SSRIs and marketing literature which
accompany such meds is the simple lies and mis-statement of
facts which occur in an effort to bolster the arguments for
prescribing their brand of medication over a competitors'.
The lies have gotten so wide-spread that now it is common
practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
in their brain.
Huh? When did this research get published which proved such
a causal relationship??
Those kinds of lies are reinforced by the pharmcos which
produce slick graphics and "educational" brochures which
basically say the same thing. Many doctors simply buy into
the marketing information because they are too busy or too
disinterested to actually look up and read the studies themselves.
They pass the misinformation on to their patients. The patients
feel they need to have an SSRI then, because, after all,
they are simply fixing a "chemical imbalance." (No matter
that there are no tests given to diagnose such an imbalance
ahead of time or that we don't know what a "balanced" brain
for any given individual should be.)
This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
to push their drugs."
-John
John M Price
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Harmon <donts...@spam.not> wrote:
: Thanks. Now I have another question: Will Dr. Grohol's original post,
: included at the end of this message, be accepted under moderation? If
: you'll notice, it is not about "pharmacology as it relates to psychology."
: I am somewhat confused because Dr. Grohol is the person who proposed the
: change in wording of the charter in the first place.
Yes, I'd approve it too.
You have to remember that folks in this profession do go to conferences.
It is not a bad idea for them to discuss their take on the advertisements
involved.
: Thanks.
You're welcome.
[snip of old post]
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Atheist# 683
Festivity Level 1: Your guests are chatting amiably with each
other, admiring your Christmas-tree ornaments, singing carols around
the upright piano, sipping at their drinks and nibbling hors
d'oeuvres.
Festivity Level 2: Your guests are talking loudly -- sometimes
to each other, and sometimes to nobody at all, rearranging your
Christmas-tree ornaments, singing "I Gotta Be Me" around the upright
piano, gulping their drinks and wolfing down hors d'oeuvres.
Festivity Level 3: Your guests are arguing violently with
inanimate objects, singing "I can't get no satisfaction," gulping down
other peoples' drinks, wolfing down Christmas tree ornaments and
placing hors d'oeuvres in the upright piano to see what happens when
the little hammers strike.
Festivity Level 4: Your guests, hors d'oeuvres smeared all over
their naked bodies are performing a ritual dance around the burning
Christmas tree. The piano is missing.
You want to keep your party somewhere around level 3, unless
you rent your home and own Firearms, in which case you can go to level
4. The best way to get to level 3 is egg-nog.
Harmon
John M Price <jmp...@calweb.com> wrote in article
<5oup3j$cu9$1...@news.calweb.com>...
> In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Harmon <donts...@spam.not> wrote:
> Yes, I'd approve it too.
>
> You have to remember that folks in this profession do go to conferences.
> It is not a bad idea for them to discuss their take on the advertisements
> involved.
Sorry, John. I'll need a better explanation of why Dr. Grohol's post would
be accepted on sppm. It was not about "pharmacology as it relates to
psychotherapy," but rather gives Dr. Grohol's OPINION of the greed and
dishonesty of doctors and drug companies. Read it again.
I'd like to hear from Ed and the others about this.
Thanks.
Paul Bernhardt
In article <dvdwant.18...@libarts.up.ac.za>,
dvd...@libarts.up.ac.za (David van der Want) wrote:
> In article <33B0EB...@spam.not> Harmon <donts...@spam.not> writes:
> >From: Harmon <donts...@spam.not>
> >Subject: Question About Moderation
> >Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 02:59:02 -0700
>
> Howzit Sue,
>
> >Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
>
> I don't know if it would be but I would sincerely hope so. It raises some
> really provacative issues. Also you have a right to receive responses from
> people in this group many of whom are involved in prescribing anti-depressant
> medication.
Note that Price has said that he would accept it. According to the rules
of our moderated group proposal, the post would get on based on that. Even
if the first moderator rejected it, an appeal would mean that Price would
be able to vote in favor which would mean it would be posted.
Ed Anderson
Sue Harmon wrote:
> : Sorry, John. I'll need a better explanation of why Dr. Grohol's
post would
> : be accepted on sppm. It was not about "pharmacology as it relates
to
> : psychotherapy," but rather gives Dr. Grohol's OPINION of the greed
and
> : dishonesty of doctors and drug companies. Read it again.
>
> : I'd like to hear from Ed and the others about this.
Well, I can't remember John's post in detail. In addition, I had an
email from him that discussed the same subject, and I'm not sure
whether I'm remembering the email or the post....
If there was nothing else in the post besides a criticism of greedy
pharmaceutical companies and doctors, then it would be my opinion that
it ought to be rejected, since that is no more "related to
psychotherapy" than is a pure discussion of psychopharmacology or
medical practice. The intent of the charter, I believe, was to allow
discussion about the *relationship* between therapy and other
disciplines, but not to discuss the other disciplines in and of
themselves.
On the other hand, maybe John tied his criticism of pharaceutical
companies and doctors into psychotherapy practice somehow. Or maybe
the post contained other material (e.g., a discussion of therapy
related material at the conference) that would make it "ok."
Above all, I want to echo what Silke said:
> In general, I think
> all of the moderators have agreed on a rather loose moderation style.
If
> in doubt, pass, is probably how I'll work if sppm ever comes about.
Psychotherapy interfaces with many, many other fields, and it will be
somewhat difficult to make explicit links to psychotherapy in *every*
post on a subject. In practice, the "off-topic" rule will probably be
applied somewhat loosely. In other words, there will be some leeway
given with respect to "staying on topic." Our topic, after all, has
rather vague parameters.
Ed
John M Price
In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Harmon <donts...@spam.not> wrote:
: <5oup3j$cu9$1...@news.calweb.com>...
: > In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Harmon <donts...@spam.not> wrote:
: > Yes, I'd approve it too.
: >
: > You have to remember that folks in this profession do go to conferences.
: > It is not a bad idea for them to discuss their take on the advertisements
: > involved.
: Sorry, John.
Apology accepted. But I am not sure I should extend it to the stuff
you've written about Brad, the FAQ, etc. You have clearly not done your
homework on those issues.
I'll need a better explanation of why Dr. Grohol's post would
: be accepted on sppm. It was not about "pharmacology as it relates to
: psychotherapy," but rather gives Dr. Grohol's OPINION of the greed and
: dishonesty of doctors and drug companies. Read it again.
No, I am not going to read it again. YOU should read the charter again.
There are at least two points which would pass this issue.
: I'd like to hear from Ed and the others about this.
Ed is not a moderator-elect. I am. Silke has already posted on this, she
is as well a moderator elect.
Now look to the appeal process.
: Thanks.
You're welcome.
--
John M. Price, PhD jmp...@calweb.com
Life: Chemistry, but with feeling! | PGP Key on request or by finger!
Email responses to my Usenet articles will be posted at my discretion.
Atheist# 683
The universal chaos has within it a diverse anarchy
giving rise to order and pattern.
- unknown
Harmon
John M Price wrote:
> Apology accepted. But I am not sure I should extend it to the stuff
> you've written about Brad, the FAQ, etc. You have clearly not done your
> homework on those issues.
No, John. I HAVE done my homework.
> : I'd like to hear from Ed and the others about this.
> Ed is not a moderator-elect. I am.
John, I really wish you would make an effort to read what I've written.
I said that I wanted to get Ed and the others' opinions. I mentioned Ed
because he seems to be a fair person, and I repect his judgment. Whether
or not he is a moderator is irrelevant.
Rolf Marvin B|e Lindgren
[Harmon]
| Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
You write, among other things:
| Having just taken a pharmacology course (SUNY-HSC at Brooklyn, 1997),
| I would like to respond by posting the following information (which
| was taken directly from my review manual, 1997). In a population of
| depressed patients on antidepresssants, perhaps the idea of an
| overdose should be considered. Here is the information:
if this isn't relevant, I don't know what is.
--
Rolf Lindgren | FAQ for sci.psychology:
| ftp://rtfm.mit.edu/pub/usenet/sci.psychology
Sofienberggt 13b | Student of psychology. Writes thesis on
N-0551 OSLO | team building, requested by the market forces.
Nancy Alvarado, Ph.D.
On 27 Jun 1997, John M Price wrote:
Harmon wrote:
>
> I'll need a better explanation of why Dr. Grohol's post would
> : be accepted on sppm. It was not about "pharmacology as it relates to
> : psychotherapy," but rather gives Dr. Grohol's OPINION of the greed and
> : dishonesty of doctors and drug companies. Read it again.
>
> No, I am not going to read it again. YOU should read the charter again.
> There are at least two points which would pass this issue.
>
> : I'd like to hear from Ed and the others about this.
>
> Ed is not a moderator-elect. I am. Silke has already posted on this, she
> is as well a moderator elect.
>
My recollection of the post in question is a bit hazy, but I think I would
have passed it too. I did not agree with what was said, since all trade
shows I've ever attended, in a variety of fields, have used similar
marketing methods, but moderation doesn't require that I agree with the
content.
Nancy (another moderator elect)
Rolf Marvin B|e Lindgren
[Harmon]
| Thanks. Now I have another question: Will Dr. Grohol's original post,
| included at the end of this message, be accepted under moderation?
John says, among other things::
| The lies have gotten so wide-spread that now it is common
| practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
| that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
| in their brain.
|
| Huh? When did this research get published which proved such
| a causal relationship??
this is relevant enough for me.
--
Rolf Lindgren, not a Ph.D | "The opinions expressed above are
Sofienberggt. 13b | not necessarily those of anyone"
N-0551 OSLO | ro...@ask.uio.no
Edna
In article <33B3A6...@spam.not>, Harmon
<URL:mailto:donts...@spam.not> wrote:
>
> John M Price wrote:
> > Apology accepted. But I am not sure I should extend it to the stuff
> > you've written about Brad, the FAQ, etc. You have clearly not done your
> > homework on those issues.
>
> No, John. I HAVE done my homework.
>
>
> > Ed is not a moderator-elect. I am.
>
> I said that I wanted to get Ed and the others' opinions. I mentioned Ed
> because he seems to be a fair person, and I repect his judgment. Whether
> or not he is a moderator is irrelevant.
Ok. I am not a moderator. In my opinion Grohol's original post is
relevant so is yours with an opposite view and I would expect to see
both posted in the moderated group.
--
Edna
Cognitee
Dear Sue,
Since it is understood that in the long run only one moderator needs to
approve of a post and presumably a moderator can okay his own posts, posts
by all moderators will no doubt be instantly approved. It is unlikely
that they will be subject to ANY post delays by one or more moderators
(delays that, for the rest of us, are of a length that is at each
moderator's discretion). It is also thus VERY unlikely a moderator would
ever get kicked off the "green list" and have their posts "examined" in
the first place, since they would never have a single post considered
censor-worthy (since they always approve their own). Anything a moderator
wants to do will no doubt go immediately to the newsgrpoup, just like it
is for all of us here now. Moderators truely do have a special status in
the new proposed group. They are not subject to regulation under their
rules !!! Some of the moderators are mean bastards and their true colors
may well show quickly if moderation passes. They will lay down their
judgments on others quite freely and in more than one way. Also, don't
forget: Power corrupts (this is much more true where there is a lack of
policies, no monitoring of policies, and no accountability).
In article <01bc8243$d777bea0$30ef26cf@mharmon>, "Harmon"
<donts...@spam.not> wrote:
> Paul Bernhardt <Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu> wrote in article
> <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>...
> > In article <33B0EB...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:
> > I am not a moderator, but as I understand the rules, the post would pass
> > as there is no reason to reject it
>
> Thanks. Now I have another question: Will Dr. Grohol's original post,
> included at the end of this message, be accepted under moderation? If
> you'll notice, it is not about "pharmacology as it relates to psychology."
> I am somewhat confused because Dr. Grohol is the person who proposed the
> change in wording of the charter in the first place.
>
> Thanks.
>
> Sue
> SOLUTION
> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/2421
>
> Here is Dr. Grohol's original post:
>
> "What is perhaps more interesting is the marketing efforts by
> drug companies to the doctors who prescribe such medications
> (see, for example, Mental Health Net, 2(6), 1997 editorial
> at http://www.cmhc.com/archives/editor20.htm).
>
> For instance, at the APA convention in San Diego, pharmcos
> were out in force pushing the usual mix of SSRIs and other
> new medications. But not one tricyclic antidepressant medication
> was on display, despite the fact that these medications have
> been shown to be equally as effective (but certainly less
> profitable and sexy than the SSRIs) as SSRIs and with just as
> many (but not quantitatively or qualitatively more)
> side effects (see, for example, Antonuccio, 1995;
> Breggin & Breggin, 1994; etc.).
>
> My problem with the SSRIs and marketing literature which
> accompany such meds is the simple lies and mis-statement of
> facts which occur in an effort to bolster the arguments for
> prescribing their brand of medication over a competitors'.
> The lies have gotten so wide-spread that now it is common
> practice for doctors to lie to their patients and tell them
> that their depression is *caused* by a chemical imbalance
> in their brain.
>
> Huh? When did this research get published which proved such
> a causal relationship??
>
> Those kinds of lies are reinforced by the pharmcos which
> produce slick graphics and "educational" brochures which
> basically say the same thing. Many doctors simply buy into
> the marketing information because they are too busy or too
> disinterested to actually look up and read the studies themselves.
> They pass the misinformation on to their patients. The patients
> feel they need to have an SSRI then, because, after all,
> they are simply fixing a "chemical imbalance." (No matter
> that there are no tests given to diagnose such an imbalance
> ahead of time or that we don't know what a "balanced" brain
> for any given individual should be.)
>
> This is the real harm being done by SSRIs and pharmcos today.
> It is the dissemination of disinformation and lies in order
> to push their drugs."
>
> -John
--
Cognitee
Dear Sue H.,
As far as I can tell, all posts by moderators can be oked by THEMSELVES
(see my response to your query below).
In article <01bc8280$db114c60$30ef26cf@mharmon>, "Harmon"
<donts...@spam.not> wrote:
> John M Price <jmp...@calweb.com> wrote in article
> <5oup3j$cu9$1...@news.calweb.com>...
> > In sci.psychology.psychotherapy Harmon <donts...@spam.not> wrote:
>
> > Yes, I'd approve it too.
> >
> > You have to remember that folks in this profession do go to conferences.
> > It is not a bad idea for them to discuss their take on the advertisements
> > involved.
>
> Sorry, John. I'll need a better explanation of why Dr. Grohol's post would
> be accepted on sppm. It was not about "pharmacology as it relates to
> psychotherapy," but rather gives Dr. Grohol's OPINION of the greed and
> dishonesty of doctors and drug companies. Read it again.
>
> I'd like to hear from Ed and the others about this.
>
> Thanks.
Cognitee
Dear Sue H.,
Your take on Ed, in my view, is largely correct. He is the best
regular and professional that is here (and the most reasonable
pro-moderation person I am aware of). UNFORTUNATELY, this is not good
enough. I am surprized at his inability to see glaring deficiencies in
the charter he proposed and his unwillingness to respond to criticisms and
act on them reasonably. I fear that, though Ed is the best of the
"moderation people", he too is blinded by biases and irrationally driven
by his wants. If the best of them is not reasonable, and willl no
accountability and much left to discretion, I can only say: "BE AFRAID."
All the moderation officers are much worse than Ed (with the exception of
Silke). (I would rather make Silke dictatorial "queen" than see the
present moderation proposal pass and be "enforced" -- to use the term
loosely -- by the proposed group of moderators.)
In article <33B3A6...@spam.not>, donts...@spam.not wrote:
> John M Price wrote:
> > Apology accepted. But I am not sure I should extend it to the stuff
> > you've written about Brad, the FAQ, etc. You have clearly not done your
> > homework on those issues.
>
> No, John. I HAVE done my homework.
>
> > : I'd like to hear from Ed and the others about this.
>
> > Ed is not a moderator-elect. I am.
>
> John, I really wish you would make an effort to read what I've written.
> I said that I wanted to get Ed and the others' opinions. I mentioned Ed
> because he seems to be a fair person, and I repect his judgment. Whether
> or not he is a moderator is irrelevant.
--
Cognitee
Dear Paul,
Tell me if I'm wrong, but in my understanding Grohol could okay his own
post (as moderator), couldn't he? If not, please cite the relevant rule.
In article <Paul.Bernhardt-...@news.cc.utah.edu>,
Paul.Be...@m.cc.utah.edu (Paul Bernhardt) wrote:
> In article <dvdwant.18...@libarts.up.ac.za>,
> dvd...@libarts.up.ac.za (David van der Want) wrote:
>
> > In article <33B0EB...@spam.not> Harmon <donts...@spam.not> writes:
> > >From: Harmon <donts...@spam.not>
> > >Subject: Question About Moderation
> > >Date: Wed, 25 Jun 1997 02:59:02 -0700
> >
> > Howzit Sue,
> >
> > >Under moderation, would the following post of mine be accepted?
> >
> > I don't know if it would be but I would sincerely hope so. It raises some
> > really provacative issues. Also you have a right to receive responses from
> > people in this group many of whom are involved in prescribing
anti-depressant
> > medication.
>
> Note that Price has said that he would accept it. According to the rules
> of our moderated group proposal, the post would get on based on that. Even
> if the first moderator rejected it, an appeal would mean that Price would
> be able to vote in favor which would mean it would be posted.
>
> +=============================================================+
> Victories, alas, are only victories. The truly rabid
> and zealous crusader looks forward to
> the next enraging defeat!--Obwon
>
> Paul C. Bernhardt, M.S. in Social Psychology (non-clinical)
> +=============================================================+
--