Continuing Evidence of Antidepressant Harm & Lack of Benefits
Virtualoso
affected. Yet.[excerpts]
Wyeth notes increased suicidal behavior in children taking Effexor
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Business Writer
In what is known as a "Dear Doctor" letter, Madison-based Wyeth is
telling health professionals that clinical studies of the long-acting
version, Effexor XR, found a higher incidence in children of "hostility
and suicide-related adverse events, such as suicidal ideation and
self-harm." ...
"You should be alert to signs of suicidal ideation in children and
adolescent patients prescribed Effexor or Effexor XR (and) reassess the
benefit-risk balance" for each patient, the Wyeth letter states.
The caution comes after U.S. and British regulators in June said no one
under 18 should take GlaxoSmithKline's popular antidepressant Paxil
because it could increase a child's risk of suicide attempts. Pediatric
patients already taking Paxil were told to stop use gradually, under a
doctor's supervision.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is investigating how
newer antidepressants affect children. Even though Eli Lilly & Co.'s
Prozac is the only antidepressant approved for treating children some
doctors are prescribing other medicines for patients under 18. That's
why the FDA has asked makers of antidepressants to submit data from any
studies they have done on their safety and effectiveness in children.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan noted many antidepressant makers have been
testing them on children under an FDA initiative that grants drug
companies an extra six months' marketing exclusivity for doing so.
Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American
medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of
Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported
thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a
dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in
those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with
generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed
behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
Wyeth sent the letter to thousands of psychiatrists, general
practitioners, other physicians and pharmacists, spokesman Doug Petkus
said.
The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves
depression or anxiety in children.
Effexor was first approved in 1993; along with the once-a-day Effexor
XR, it now generates $2.1 billion in annual sales for Wyeth, making it
the company's biggest-selling drug.
Independent pharmaceutical analyst Hemant Shah of HKS & Co. in Warren,
N.J., said that because the pediatric safety question involves all
antidepressants, it shouldn't hurt sales of Effexor.
Wyeth shares closed up 3 cents at $44.35 on Wednesday on the New York
Stock Exchange. [excerpts]
Wyeth notes increased suicidal behavior in children taking Effexor
By LINDA A. JOHNSON, Associated Press Business Writer
In what is known as a "Dear Doctor" letter, Madison-based Wyeth is
telling health professionals that clinical studies of the long-acting
version, Effexor XR, found a higher incidence in children of "hostility
and suicide-related adverse events, such as suicidal ideation and
self-harm." ...
"You should be alert to signs of suicidal ideation in children and
adolescent patients prescribed Effexor or Effexor XR (and) reassess the
benefit-risk balance" for each patient, the Wyeth letter states.
The caution comes after U.S. and British regulators in June said no one
under 18 should take GlaxoSmithKline's popular antidepressant Paxil
because it could increase a child's risk of suicide attempts. Pediatric
patients already taking Paxil were told to stop use gradually, under a
doctor's supervision.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is investigating how
newer antidepressants affect children. Even though Eli Lilly & Co.'s
Prozac is the only antidepressant approved for treating children some
doctors are prescribing other medicines for patients under 18. That's
why the FDA has asked makers of antidepressants to submit data from any
studies they have done on their safety and effectiveness in children.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan noted many antidepressant makers have been
testing them on children under an FDA initiative that grants drug
companies an extra six months' marketing exclusivity for doing so.
Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American
medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of
Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported
thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a
dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in
those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with
generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed
behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
Wyeth sent the letter to thousands of psychiatrists, general
practitioners, other physicians and pharmacists, spokesman Doug Petkus
said.
The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves
depression or anxiety in children.
Effexor was first approved in 1993; along with the once-a-day Effexor
XR, it now generates $2.1 billion in annual sales for Wyeth, making it
the company's biggest-selling drug.
Independent pharmaceutical analyst Hemant Shah of HKS & Co. in Warren,
N.J., said that because the pediatric safety question involves all
antidepressants, it shouldn't hurt sales of Effexor.
Wyeth shares closed up 3 cents at $44.35 on Wednesday on the New York
Stock Exchange.
[Based on excerpts for Associated Press "business news" release]
In what is known as a "Dear Doctor" letter, Madison-based Wyeth is
telling health professionals that clinical studies of the long-acting
version, Effexor XR, found a higher incidence in children of "hostility
and suicide-related adverse events, such as suicidal ideation and
self-harm."
"You should be alert to signs of suicidal ideation in children and
adolescent patients prescribed Effexor or Effexor XR ...", the Wyeth
letter states.
The caution comes after U.S. and British regulators in June said no one
under 18 should take GlaxoSmithKline's popular antidepressant Paxil
because it could increase a child's risk of suicide attempts. Pediatric
patients already taking Paxil were told to stop use gradually, under a
doctor's supervision.
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration currently is investigating how
newer antidepressants affect children. Even though Eli Lilly & Co.'s
Prozac is the only antidepressant approved for treating children some
doctors are prescribing other medicines for patients under 18. That's
why the FDA has asked makers of antidepressants to submit data from any
studies they have done on their safety and effectiveness in children.
FDA spokeswoman Susan Cruzan noted many antidepressant makers have been
testing them on children under an FDA initiative that grants drug
companies an extra six months' marketing exclusivity for doing so.
Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American
medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of
Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported
thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a
dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in
those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with
generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed
behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
Wyeth sent the letter to thousands of psychiatrists, general
practitioners, other physicians and pharmacists, spokesman Doug Petkus
said.
**** The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves
depression or anxiety in children. ****
Effexor was first approved in 1993; along with the once-a-day Effexor
XR, it now generates $2.1 billion in annual sales for Wyeth, making it
the company's biggest-selling drug.
Independent pharmaceutical analyst Hemant Shah of HKS & Co. in Warren,
N.J., said that because the pediatric safety question involves all
antidepressants, it shouldn't hurt sales of Effexor.
Wyeth shares closed up 3 cents at $44.35 on Wednesday on the New York
Stock Exchange.
Michael H.
"Virtualoso" <virtu...@dot.com> wrote in message
news:130920031932576823%virtu...@dot.com...
> Wyeth's Aug. 22 letter, written by Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American
> medical director for Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of
> Effexor XR's use against major depression, ... children reported
> thoughts about suicide, versus none in a comparison group getting a
> dummy pill.
>
> Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in
> those getting a placebo. In a study of patients under 18 with
> generalized anxiety disorder, some displayed abnormal or changed
> behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
>
Well I think this at least say's that they are doing something. :) There
goes the sugar pill debate...unless of course you want to use it
selectively.
I remember reading something about a study that was talking about the
metabolization of base sugars into neurotransmitters and that studied
alcoholics had a decreased capacity to process it and create them
effectively. This was pointing toward the "imbalance" that causes the
feeling of desire or not ok-ness as seen through the eyes of the
"imbalanced" or depressed etc etc. Sugar is the key. :) Sweet....
Peace
Michael H.
`F.H
>
> Harming the Guinea Pig Kids? At least the Bottom Line hasn't been
> affected. Yet.[excerpts]
Marathon:
A contest of endurance, an activity that requires prolonged effort or
endurance.
OBSTINATE, adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the
splendor and stress of our advocacy.
"But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it
truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do
this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
"Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths
exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view
wrong. It is delight in their dearly held opinions that makes them
assert that anyone who disagrees is bound to come to a bad end. But no
true seeker becomes embroiled in all this. Pass by peacefully and go a
stainless way, free from theories, lusts, and dogmas."
Majjhima Nikaya
Virtualoso
<disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> ... But no
> true seeker becomes embroiled in all this. Pass by peacefully and go a
> stainless way, free from theories, lusts, and dogmas."
Well, then... a "true seeker" is seeking just what, why, where and how?
Meanwhile, back on the action scene of brain drugs and the like, here's
a rather interesting and revealing examination by yet another teaching
psychiatrist, Dr. D. Healy:
[excerpts from http://www.pharmapolitics.com/feb2healy.html]
We are in an era, which is popularly portrayed as an "Evidence Based
Medicine" era. What can go wrong if we have clinical trial evidence to
demonstrate what works and what doesn't work, if we but adhere to this
evidence? What more can we do than that?
Arguably, the term "Evidence Biased Medicine" would be more
appropriate. Clinical trials in psychiatry have never showed that
anything worked. Penicillin eradicated a major psychiatric disease
without any clinical trial to show that it worked. You don't need a
trial to show something works. Anaesthetics work without trials to
show the point. Analgesics work and clinical trials aren't needed to
show this.
What clinical trials demonstrate are treatment effects. In some
cases, these effects are minimal. One may have to strain with the eye
of faith to detect the treatment effect. The majority of trials for
sertraline and for fluoxetine (Prozac) failed to detect any treatment
effect. This is not evidence that sertraline or fluoxetine do not
work. In clinical practice many are under no doubt that these drugs do
work. It is, rather, evidence of the inadequacy of our assessment
methods. To show that something works, we would need to go beyond
treatment effects to show that these effects produce a resolution of a
disorder in a sufficient number of people to outweigh the problems such
as dependence syndromes that these drugs also cause. If our drugs
really worked, we shouldn't have 3 times the number of patients
detained now compared with before, 15 times the number of admissions
and lengthier service bed stays for mood and other disorders that we
have now. This isn't what happened in the case of a treatment that
works, such as penicillin for GPI.
Aside from the inadequacy of our clinical trial methods, professors
of psychiatry are now in jail for inventing patients. A significant
proportion of the scientific literature is now ghost written. A large
number of clinical trials done are not reported if the results don't
suit the companies' sponsoring study. Over trials are multiply
reported so that anyone trying to meta-analyse the findings can have a
real problem trying to work out how many trials there have been.
Within the studies that are reported, data such as quality of life
scale results on antidepressants have been almost uniformly suppressed.
To call this science is misleading.
One of the other aspects of the new medical arena is that the most
vigorous and hostile patient groups of the antipsychiatry period have
been penetrated by the pharmaceutical industry. Other patient groups
have been set up de novo by companies. Part of the market development
plans for many drugs these days include the creation of patient groups
to lobby on behalf of a new treatment. Meetings are convened for
pharmaceutical companies specifically to advise and train on how to set
up such groups.
All of this is perhaps part of the normal rough and tumble between
clinical practice, science and business. But there is a further even
more important aspect of what is happening, which is contained in the
following quote from Max Hamilton: "it may be that we are witnessing a
change as revolutionary as was the introduction of standardization and
mass production in manufacture. Both have their positive and negative
sides".
Most of you who have used Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression. What
is this man on about when he talks about a revolutionary aspect to
using such a simple instrument as this. Note the date. 1972. Maybe
Hamilton is close enough to the events that were happening at the time
to see something that we cannot now see. Maybe as a communist, he was
sensitive to things that we are not sensitive to now.
Rating Scales have been such feature of psychiatric trials and
clinical practice for so long now that it is perhaps difficult to see
that there are revolutionary aspects to what happened. There is now a
profusion of rating scales and checklists used throughout our schools
and all walks of life. We quantify aspects of sexual behaviour,
aspects of the behaviour of children, all sorts of things we never
quantified before. Where once there was life零 rich variety, now
children in our schools fall outside all sorts of norms. And in the
case of children falling outside norms, we now have a range of data
suggesting there are things that parents can do to bring their children
back inside appropriate norms. Things that we can do to minimise the
risk for our children零 future. Figures that just like the figures for
IQ it is thought will generalise to the population at large.
The figures on treatment effects from rating scales used in our
clinical trials have set up a new market. When you consider that we
are now treating children from the ages of 1 to 4 with "Prozac" and
"Ritalin", you will realise that we are not treating diseases here. I
have written extensively on how corporations make markets but
pharmaceutical corporations have not sold psychotropic drugs to
children. The explosion of drug use in children is a manifestation of
the force that makes markets, that underpins the market development of
pharmaceutical companies and others. This is the force that creates
pharmaceutical companies. The treatment effects from clinical trials
have been taken to be findings that generalise across the community -
they are taken to indicate that these agents will return children
within the set of norms that will minimise future risks. What parent
could not want to minimise future risks for their child?
The eating disorders perhaps offer an analogy for what is involved.
Clearly people have starved themselves for millennia. For a variety of
reasons, good and bad. Anorexia nervosa, as you know, emerged as
something different to previous starving behaviors in the early 1870s.
No good epidemiological figures exist for this next claim, as the
epidemiology of eating disorders didn't exist until recently, but the
syndrome appears to have increased in frequency in 1920s and 1930s and
increased yet again in the 1960s with new variants mushrooming.
Competing theories have focused on the possible psychodynamics of the
problem, the biology of the problem, or socio-political aspects of the
problems. These competing theories have rarely spoken to each other
however.
What is rarely recognised is that in the 1870s Weighing Scales emerged
and with them norms for weight and deviations from the norm and an
awareness that deviations in the direction of what had formerly been
thought to be healthy and beautiful carried risks. The insurance
industry published these figures. In the 1920s, Weighing Scales
increased in frequency and the scales, with their norms printed on the
front of them, appeared in pharmacies, drug stores and other retail
outlets. In the 1960s, the Scales were miniaturised so that we all
ended up with Weighing Scales in our homes.
Clearly Weighing Scales don't create eating disorders in that even
blind individuals can become eating disordered. But it's impossible to
imagine eating disorders on the epidemic scale that now exist without
the presence of both Weighing Scales and modern normative ideas about
weight. And it is easy to imagine the removal of the feedback from
Weighing Scales as being in many cases therapeutic in its own right.
These new figures and norms have been a means for women to govern their
bodies.
But the selectivity of the figures also grounds a peculiarly modern
neurosis. Just as figures for GDP give us feedback from some areas of
endeavour but not others and in so doing encourage the promotion of
automobiles and the chopping down of trees, so also figures from this
one area of life, which are easy to produce, have the power to control
behaviour. Markets can be set up in other areas, such as air-quality
and wilderness. Until such time as they are, it requires great wisdom
and considerable internal resources to factor into our lives these
other values.
What is the future? Well, there is bad and good news. Although in
truth, both scenarios that I will outline may seem so strange that you
may feel both of them are bad.
You see here [showing a slide] the face of one of the greatest serial
killers ever. Perhaps the greatest serial killer of all time. This
man was a doctor. His name, Harold Shipman. He worked close to where
I live. Shipman's case illustrates that situations where trust is
important can provide the conditions for extraordinary abuses.
One of the conditions where trust applies is in prescription only
arrangements, this arrangement that was introduced for the bad drugs to
restrict their availability but now applies exclusively to the good
drugs. This arrangement was put in place so that physicians would
quarry information out of pharmaceutical companies on behalf of their
patients and would provide the counter-balancing wisdom to market
forces.
Since this arrangement was first put in place, modern pharmaceutical
companies and corporations have grown to be the most profitable
organisations on the planet. There has been a change from companies
run by physicians and chemists to companies run by business managers
who rotate in from Big Oil or Big Tobacco. The companies are advised
by the same lawyers who advise Big Oil and Big Tobacco and other
corporations.
In the case of tobacco industry, it now seems clear that the legal
advice in the face of the problems of smoking was not to research the
hazards of smoking, as to do so would increase the legal liabilities of
the corporations involved. Similar advice given to the managers of our
pharmaceutical corporations would be completely incompatible with
prescription-only arrangements. And the same lawyers who advise the
pharmaceutical corporations are the lawyers for the tobacco
corporations. In this case Shook, Hardy and Bacon. Advice like this
would convert prescription-only arrangements into a vehicle to deliver
adverse medical consequences with legal impunity.
I happen to believe that Prozac and other SSRIs can lead to suicide.
These drugs may have been responsible for 1 death for every day that
"Prozac" has been on the market in North America. In all likelihood
many of you will not agree with me on this - you haven靖 seen the
information that I have seen. However we can all agree that there has
been a controversy about whether there may be a problem or not. What I
believe you will also have to agree with is the fact since the
controversy blew up, there has not been a single piece of research
carried out to answer the questions of whether "Prozac" does cause
suicide or not. Designed yes, carried out - no.
How does this apply to the future? Well with the mapping of the human
genome, we have the possibilities of creating new markets. We need
this knowledge from the human genome to govern ourselves. It will set
up the markets that we need to govern ourselves. It will tell us about
some of the underpinnings to our beliefs - why we believe some of the
things we do in the religious and political domains. We need this
knowledge. But the products of this research will belong almost
exclusively to pharmaceutical corporations. If they are advised in the
way that they appeared to be advised at present, this knowledge, which
is so democratically important, will operate against the interests of
democracy.
Finally, you see here another image of the future. In the course of
the last 50 years, plastic surgery evolved into cosmetic surgery.
Plastic surgery began as a set of reconstruction procedures aimed at
restoring a person to their place in the social order. It evolved into
cosmetic surgery when the reliability with which certain procedures
could be carried out passed a certain quality threshold.
You have all heard the word "quality" a lot lately. Quality in modern
healthcare however does not refer to good interactions between two
human beings. Quality as we hear it nowadays is being used in an
industrial sense to refer to the reproducibility of certain outcomes.
Big Mac hamburgers are quality hamburgers in this sense -- they are the
same every time. In the case of the antidepressants, the quality is
currently lousy. But the development of pharmacogenetics and
neuroimaging is going to change all that. It is not that our drugs are
necessarily going to be dramatically more effective, but the quality of
responses that we can produce is going to be much greater.
Viagra gives good indication of what will happen when we get to this
stage. Viagra is a drug that produces quality outcomes - reproducible
outcomes. When this happens, it becomes possible to abandon the
disease concept. Pharmaceutical company executives and others talk
openly instead about lifestyle agents. This is the world that lies in
store for us. It is not the world of traditional medicine, where drugs
treat diseases to restore the social order. It is a world in which
psychopharmacological interventions will potentially change that order.
Whether you should think this is good or bad is not for me to say.
What this shows is that there are forces at play, that can change not
only the kinds of drugs we give, not only the conditions we think we
are treating, but our very selves who are doing the giving. Forces
that can change us more profoundly that we can be changed by a handful
of LSD containing dust.
For these reasons, you may think these changes deserve scrutiny. The
alternative is to slide gently into the future. This seemed a viable
alternative until recently when arguably the emergence of managed care
has made it clear that sliding into the future may not be as gentle and
painless as we might once have expected.
`F.H
>
> In article <3F63E831...@earthlink.net>, `F.H
> <disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > ... But no
> > true seeker becomes embroiled in all this. Pass by peacefully and go a
> > stainless way, free from theories, lusts, and dogmas."
>
> Well, then... a "true seeker" is seeking just what, why, where and how?
>
> Meanwhile, back on the action scene of brain drugs and the like, here's
> a rather interesting and revealing examination by yet another teaching
snip//////
Virtualoso
<disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> "But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it
> truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do
> this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
>
> "Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths
> exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view
> wrong.
Is that true?
`F.H
Is it satisfying?
Virtualoso
<gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 14 Sep 2003 04:02:03 GMT, "`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Virtualoso wrote:
> >>
> >> Harming the Guinea Pig Kids? At least the Bottom Line hasn't been
> >> affected. Yet.[excerpts]
> >
> >Marathon:
> >A contest of endurance, an activity that requires prolonged effort or
> >endurance.
> >
> >OBSTINATE, adj. Inaccessible to the truth as it is manifest in the
> >splendor and stress of our advocacy.
> >
> Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button
> by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime.
If you don't really have any actual interest or want to discuss
anything. Or your disagreement and interest is merely hoping to push
buttons. But then, you've often told us that's what you like to do. And
like to think you are, even when you're not. Okay.
Virtualoso
<disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
Who knows?
"The whole key here is to simplify, to do less, not more, to that
final point of artistry where all that needs to be done is done, and
yet nothing more." - George Leonard
`F.H
>
> In article <3F649A5E...@earthlink.net>, `F.H
> <disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> > Virtualoso wrote:
> > >
> > > In article <3F6400FF...@earthlink.net>, `F.H
> > > <disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "But what makes these 'experts' preach their own opinion and call it
> > > > truth?" asked the inquirer. "Is it an inheritance of humankind to do
> > > > this, or is it merely something they gain satisfaction from?"
> > > >
> > > > "Apart from consciousness," answered the Buddha, "no absolute truths
> > > > exist. False reasoning declares one view to be true and another view
> > > > wrong.
> > >
> > > Is that true?
> >
> > Is it satisfying?
>
> Who knows?
Many portend.
Virtualoso
> Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button
> by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime. Gar
So you've insisted repeatedly, countless times, for years. Heck, I'll
agree with you, then, Gary -- yes, you're clearly mentally ill, just as
you assure.
Something's simply wrong with your brain and you're suffering from
irrational, disordered thinking and feeling, however "real" and
convincing they seem to you. But you're a sick man. You should be
psychiatricly medicated, even as you say a qualified doctor has already
prescribed for you. Since that's not been working well enough for you,
clearly you probably ought to try other drugs, too. There are more than
ever, these days. That's what they're for. Happens all the time, with
millions of people.
Your frequent obsession with extreme ideations about "fanatics"
disagreeing with you, along with your sociopathological preoccupation
and pursuit of adversarially "pushing buttons", seem possibly among
your symptoms, which have obviously flared up once again -- even as
you've said you've also not been taking your necessary psychiatric
drugs. Well, no wonder.
Perhaps you yet need more psychotherapy, too, since you continue to
resist or fail to comply with your required treatment regimen, as you
report, and so succumb to these unavoidably unhealthy, disordered
states. There also could be further diagnosis necessary, to more
successfully identify and control these chronic mental and behavioral
problems you suffer. It's not your fault. You're not responsible. You
can't help it. No need to be ashamed. We get it.
Take your meds, Gary. And you seriously ought to go get all the
professional help you've apparently needed. That's what it's there for.
You don't have to keep suffering like this, when there's such good
reliable help available. You owe it to yourself and others. God speed
to you.
`F.H
>
> In article <lc19mvkinsjlcmivo...@4ax.com>, GaryE
> <gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button
> > by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime. Gar
> Your frequent obsession with extreme ideations about "fanatics"
> disagreeing with you, along with your sociopathological preoccupation
> and pursuit of adversarially "pushing buttons", seem possibly among
> your symptoms, which have obviously flared up once again -- even as
> you've said you've also not been taking your necessary psychiatric
> drugs. Well, no wonder.
Sounds like a diagnosis. May I see your credentials. Or.....as Herr.
Ashcroft would say.....your papers please.
Virtualoso
<disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> > In article <lc19mvkinsjlcmivo...@4ax.com>, GaryE
> > <gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button
> > > by disagreeing, it sends them into overtime. Gar
> > So you've insisted repeatedly, countless times, for years. Heck, I'll
> > agree with you, then, Gary -- yes, you're clearly mentally ill, just as
> > you assure.
> >
> > Something's simply wrong with your brain and you're suffering from
> > irrational, disordered thinking and feeling, however "real" and
> > convincing they seem to you. But you're a sick man. You should be
> > psychiatricly medicated, even as you say a qualified doctor has already
> > prescribed for you. Since that's not been working well enough for you,
> > clearly you probably ought to try other drugs, too. There are more than
> > ever, these days. That's what they're for. Happens all the time, with
> > millions of people.
> > Perhaps you yet need more psychotherapy, too, since you continue to
> > resist or fail to comply with your required treatment regimen, as you
> > report, and so succumb to these unavoidably unhealthy, disordered
> > states. There also could be further diagnosis necessary, to more
> > successfully identify and control these chronic mental and behavioral
> > problems you suffer. It's not your fault. You're not responsible. You
> > can't help it. No need to be ashamed. We get it.
> >
> > Take your meds, Gary. And you seriously ought to go get all the
> > professional help you've apparently needed. That's what it's there for.
> > You don't have to keep suffering like this, when there's such good
> > reliable help available. You owe it to yourself and others. God speed
> > to you.
> > Sounds like a diagnosis. May I see your credentials. Or.....as Herr.
> Ashcroft would say.....your papers please.
Yeah, Gary, just what are your credentials to diagnose anyone as
"fanatics."
`F.H
Tsk, tsk, don't go gettin thin skinned on me now. Or worse, skirt the
edges of martyrdom. Martyrs are so manipulative, and friendless. They
all seem to wind up in therapy. Of course, as you know, it does no good
at all.
Gramps
Virtualoso
<disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> Virtualoso wrote:
> >
> > In article <3F64E8C0...@earthlink.net>, `F.H
> > <disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > GaryE wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Fanatic......well, you get it, right? When you push a fantics button
> > > > > by disagreeing......
> > > Virt wrote:
> >
> > > > So you've insisted repeatedly, countless times, for years. Heck, I'll
> > > > agree with you, then, Gary -- yes, you're clearly mentally ill, just as
> > > > you assure.......
> > F.H. wrote:
> >
> > > > Sounds like a diagnosis. May I see your credentials. Or.....as Herr.
> > > Ashcroft would say.....your papers please.
> > Yeah, Gary, just what are your credentials to diagnose anyone as
> > "fanatics."
> Tsk, tsk, don't go gettin thin skinned on me now. Or worse, skirt the
> edges of martyrdom. Martyrs are so manipulative, and friendless. They
> all seem to wind up in therapy. Of course, as you know, it does no good
> at all.
Hmmm. "Martyrs"? Is that in the new DSM -- or are we back to the
Patriots Act now? Maybe we can all just take something for that.
Virtualoso
<gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
> .... And as for as depressives commiting suicide, that's not real
> unusual either. That stuff about medications causeing it? Sure. Of
> course. Did they mention any possibility that the medications weren't
> working and the depressive committed suicide? Just curious. ...
Not working is one thing, yes. Could be quite a bit of evidence for
that. But higher suicidal symptoms of drugged patients compared to
dummy pill recipients seems another thing.
For the curious:
--------------------
Dr. Victoria Kusiak, North American medical director for Wyeth
Pharmaceuticals, said that in a study of Effexor XR's use against major
depression, ... patients reported thoughts about suicide, versus none
in a comparison group getting a dummy pill.
Additionally, some displayed hostility, more than double the rate in
those getting a placebo. In a study of patients, some displayed
abnormal or changed behavior; none did so in the comparison group.
The letter notes that the studies did not show Effexor relieves
depression or anxiety.
------------------
[based on excerpts from:
Suicidal and violent behavior associated with the use of fluoxetine
(Prozac), distributed via Harvard School of Public Health]
The first major study to examine the possible association of fluoxetine
and suicidal preoccupation or violence was published by Fava and
Rosenbaum of the Massachusetts General Hospital. The design involved a
survey of 27 psychiatrists treating 1017 depressed outpatients at MGH.
This survey found that the among those treated with either fluoxetine,
tricyclics or lithium the only group that had a higher incidence of
persons becoming suicidal only after treatment was initiated than the
fluoxetine group, was a group that was administered both fluoxetine and
tricyclics.
Eli Lilly itself weighed in with a meta-analysis performed by Beasley
et. al. of the 17 double blind clinical trials which were conducted
prior to the release of fluoxetine. These trials were pooled into a
dataset of a couple of thousand persons including fluoxetine and
placebo subjects. If only suicidal acts were considered, the pooled
incidences were: 50% more for fluoxetine than for placebo.
------------------
Can long-term treatment with antidepressant
drugs worsen the course of depression?
by
Fava GA.
Department of Psychiatry,
State University of New York at Buffalo,
Buffalo; and the Affective Disorders Program,
Department of Psychology,
University of Bologna, Bologna, Italy.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: The possibility that antidepressant drugs may worsen its
course has received inadequate attention.
METHOD: A review of the literature suggesting potential depressogenic
effects of long-term treatment with antidepressant drugs was performed.
RESULTS: A number of reported clinical findings point to the following:
very unfavorable long-term outcome of major depression treated by
pharmacologic means, paradoxical (depression-inducing) effects of
antidepressant drugs in some patients with mood and anxiety
disturbances, antidepressant-induced switching and cycle acceleration
in bipolar disorder, occurrence of tolerance to the effects of
antidepressants during long-term treatment, onset of resistance upon
rechallenge with the same antidepressant drug, and withdrawal syndromes
following discontinuation of mood-elevating drugs.
These phenomena in susceptible individuals may be explained on the
basis of the oppositional model of tolerance. Continued drug treatment
may recruit processes that oppose the initial acute effects of a drug
and may result in loss of clinical effect. When drug treatment ends,
these processes may operate unopposed, at least for some time, and
increase vulnerability to relapse.
---------------------------
Why has the antidepressant era not shown
a significant drop in suicide rates?
by
van Praag HM.
Department of Psychiatry and Neuropsychology,
Academic Hospital, Maastricht University,
The Netherlands.
ABSTRACT
Over the past decades the rate of completed suicide has remained quite
stable, whereas that of suicide attempts seems to have increased (to
the extent it has been studied in defined regions). These are puzzling
observations, since depression is the major suicide precursor and since
antidepressants have been increasingly used over the years in the
treatment of depression. These observations have not attracted
sufficient attention, possibly because they do not accord with
consensus opinions about depression treatment in psychiatry today.
---------------------
Virtualoso
> It's OK Frank, When cornered fanatics always respond by claiming
> their 'enemies' are sick, crazy, etc. It's a common theme. ...
Fanatics on the loose, who "by virtue of of having read"
unsubstantiated stuff, pretend to medical knowledge when cornered,
claiming their "enemy" is [censored], and becoming nasty
fear-mongerers, indeed.
Do they recant?
Gary E <gar...@airmail.net> wrote in message
news:B522DE228A2CEBBD.CC16E342...@lp.airnews.net
... >
> How so? Would you mind substantiating that? ...
> ... Well, I'd sure like for you to get more specific than
> that. ...
> The fact, as I have read it regarding depression ...
> is called clinical depression , which is an entity of its own,
> caused primarily by a deficiency in serotonin reuptake...that
> deficiency being that it uses more serotonin than 'normal' and
> depletes the chemical. I don't know who you are but your statement
> sounds like the kind of stuff that comes from ...
> people who, by virtue
> of having read ... have become fucking experts on just about
> everything medical.... Now if you can back these statements up with
> pertinent authority or research, I recant.
> ... you twist things to suit your purpose and you put
> yourself in the place of a medical doctor. ...
> You (censored) fear mongerer......so you know cause-effect even if
> your statement isn't just a lie? You clambake....
> Maybe your 'many friends' who blew their head off were talked
> out of their anti depressants by you and they became depressed and
> killed themselves. How does that stack up with you. Jesus Christ,
> how do people like you get loose?
>
> Worst,
> GaryE
`F.H
> What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked
> about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man? WEll
> now he says he was 'involved' with deprogramming? School teacher?
> Social Scientist? (Social Scientist seem to love to take on
> crusades). We all know a little to a lot about each other out here
> except for a couple of people, who seem to pretty well avoid talking
> about themselves personally. Frank, you've probably spent as much
> time with Virt as anyone. What do you know about him? Anything?
Over the years Virt and I have alternated between banging heads and
tacit agreement. Early on I had considerable curiosity about the
questions you raise. Over time I've imagined him as just about
everything you can think of from former priest to a federal prisoner to
a home bound quadriplegic.
I figure I'm pretty good at accumulating subtle clues and building
profiles yet to date I have nothing I would bet on including gender.
Take that back, Virts a guy. And if we went out drinking and hustling in
our prime I would outscore him. <G> Other than that, I haven't really
considered it in quite some time though. More power to him.
Simple truth is Virt has certain qualities I admire more and more as I
get older. Conviction, tenacity, vocabulary, <EG>, a wide variety of
interests, and like me, it seems, a slight lean to the left. <G>
Our sparing has made me a better thinker, better able to articulate a
point, forced me to learn how to use search engines, and more cautious
lest I should have to dine on crow. Ponds gotten bigger, me smaller.
Inevitable.
Sparing with everyone here has helped me grasp the insignificance of my
opinions, but hey, I am, therefore I bitch, (and shall continue).
In our most frustrating and angry exchange the worst Virt ever said to
me was "break a leg." That counts for something in my book and I wish I
could lay claim to the same, but I can't. No friggin brakes.
This curiosity about Virts identity reminds of an old black and white
spaghetti western where the cowboys bid to have lunch with the girl
behind the sheet when all you can see is the shadow profile.
The town romeo thinks he's bidding on the local babe when in fact it's
an old grandma. Maybe at this point, knowing Virts profile would be
anti climatic, even disappointing. Make him less interesting.
What the hell, we both believe in sobriety and I'm partial to drunks
that have skated near the edge and made it back. Interesting folks.
We're all just trying to make sense of a rigged game. Womb to tomb.
Virt, if you're reading this don't get all puffed up, I'll be back to
give you some trouble soon enough.
Gramps
Mollypup1
> Sparing with everyone here has helped me grasp the insignificance of my
> opinions, but hey, I am, therefore I bitch, (and shall continue).
>
What are you sparing? Can you spare it? Do you, perhaps, mean to say
"sparring"?? lol
-sorry. I couldn't resist! ;-)
`F.H
Vanna......I'll take another "R" please. Also Vanna, could we go for a
hike? <EG>
Tommy
"`F.H" >
> What the hell, we both believe in sobriety and I'm partial to drunks
> that have skated near the edge and made it back. Interesting folks.
> We're all just trying to make sense of a rigged game. Womb to tomb.
>
> Virt, if you're reading this don't get all puffed up, I'll be back to
> give you some trouble soon enough.
>
> Gramps
A guy had been feeling down for so long that
he finally decided to seek the aid of a psychiatrist.
He went there, lay on the couch, spilled his
guts then waited for the profound wisdom of the
psychiatrist to make him feel better.
The psychiatrist asked him a few questions,
took some notes then sat thinking in silence
for a few minutes with a puzzled look on his
face.
Suddenly, he looked up with an expression of
delight and said, "Um, I think your problem is
low self-esteem. It is very common among losers."
Ain't taht a bitch :-)
Tommy
`F.H
>
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2003 19:28:40 GMT, "`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Over the years Virt and I have alternated between banging heads and
> >tacit agreement. Early on I had considerable curiosity about the
> >questions you raise. Over time I've imagined him as just about
> >everything you can think of from former priest to a federal prisoner to
> >a home bound quadriplegic.
>
> expectations for himself. Tea Leaves 101.
You asked me:
What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked
about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man?
I answered honestly. Kinda like the wife asking if I've noticed she's
put on a few lbs.
Frank
Virtualoso
<disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> GaryE wrote:
> >
> > I think he's just a man who's fallen quite short of his own
> > expectations for himself. Tea Leaves 101.
Gosh, just like you, eh? Well, so much for your fanatical
don't-care-enough-to-even-read-much, yet still able to divine so
definitively. LOL
> You asked me:
>
> What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked
> about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man?
>
> I answered honestly. Kinda like the wife asking if I've noticed she's
> put on a few lbs.
Hey, enough with all that stuff what with other people discussing brain
drugs, scientific/medical evidences, commercialization and politicizing
of these things. What kind of topics are those for any folks to be
doing on this NG. At least, not when GaryE doesn't feel like. Or like
something being said. Or by some certain person or other.
GaryE's ready for his usual characteristic Only Get Personal, Ad Hom
sessions, instead. Nothing new there. Must've been something posted he
didn't like, since he's got a track record of posting reports of
similar stuff, including simply web cut/pastes, although everyone has
their favorites. But if it ain't his favorite and other people he's
begrudged are pursuing the stuff anyway, well, that's quite enough of
that. Time to grill.
> GaryE wrote :
>
>Treatment for Erectile Dysfunction Can Improve Depression >
>Viagra May Solve Two Problems With One Little Blue Pill
>By Michael Smith , MD
>
>Oct. 3, 2001 -- Impotence and depression are closely linked and
>commonly occur in the same man. But now a new study shows that one
>little blue pill might actually be able to take care of both problems..
>In some men, depression can cause ED. In others, however, ED may
>actually cause mild depression . So researchers from the department of
>psychiatry at Columbia University tried to determine whether Viagra
>could improve erections and depression in one fell swoop.
>They looked at more than 150 men with ED and mild depression -- half
>were given Viagra and the other half received a placebo but were not
>aware of which treatment they were taking.
>The results often showed that whether the men took the drug or
>placebo, if erections improved, so did their mood.
>"Results from the study suggest that successful treatment of ED in
>depressed men can lead to marked improvement in depression ," write
>Stuart N. Seidman, MD, and his colleagues. However, they are quick to
>point out that this single study does not reveal how long the
>improvement in depression will last.
Especially what with drugs for depression reported widely as causing
impotence. Short of defining "causing," of course.
Mollypup1
"`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:3F66215E...@earthlink.net...
HeeHee. ;~) There was no malicious intent there. I love playing with words
and making puns. I just couldn't help myself from trying to be punny. You
know how it goes... lol! :)
-Sandy
Robert McGregor
"GaryE" <gary...@swbell.net> wrote in message
news:0lecmvcgablah0svh...@4ax.com...
> I could actually care less. His refusal to talk about himself talks
> about himself.
> >
Gary had a sacred cow,
Prozac was it's name.
That pesky virt, he tanned it's hide,
aint that a cryin shame:-(
Bob
Robert McGregor
> depressants are your specialty (:> Why is that drunks get a hard on
> for anti depressants and people who suffer from depression? You have
> some skin in the game, Bob? Serious.
>
> Best,
> GaryE
hahaha I was just teasing rosie the cyber slut, but in this instance,
guessed her cap could fit you too.
Bob
`F.H
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:08:24 GMT, "`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >GaryE wrote:
>
> >
> >You asked me:
> >
> >What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked
> >about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man?
> >
> >I answered honestly. Kinda like the wife asking if I've noticed she's
> >put on a few lbs.
> >
> that you were tight with Virt and I figured that everyone knew that
I'm especially fond of his sense of humor.
> I was just asking whether you knew anything about him, like facts, not
> how you felt.
Yes dear, you're fat. Now please get off my back while I eat my Rocky
Road.
> The answer is no, you don't know anything about him. I figured you would,
> if anyone does.
EXPOSTULATION: noun. One of the many methods by which fools prefer to
lose their friends.
Virtualoso
> for anti depressants and people who suffer from depression?
Most everybody suffers from depression, when they're depressed. Alkies
certainly tend to know their shares.
As for concerns about hard ons, drugs and the like in all this. Well...
Virtualoso
<gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:08:24 GMT, "`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >GaryE wrote:
>
> >
> >You asked me:
> >
> >What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked
> >about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man?
> >
> >I answered honestly. Kinda like the wife asking if I've noticed she's
> >put on a few lbs.
> >
> I apologize Frank. Didn't intend to rile you up....I already figured
> that you were tight with Virt and I figured that everyone knew that..I
> was just asking whether you knew anything about him, like facts, not
> how you felt. The answer is no, you don't know anything about him. I
> figured you would, if anyone does.
That would be other than various facts I've posted right here, over the
years? Oh, that's right, you killfile me and never really even regard
my postings as worth reading. Yet, somehow you "know" so much about me,
personally. You're quite the diviner.
Or, did you mean just certain "facts" about me? What could you care
about that, when you care so little about me and facts-to-date,
otherwise?
Virtualoso
<disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
> GaryE wrote:
> >
> > I was just asking whether you knew anything about him, like facts, not
> > how you felt.
>
> Yes dear, you're fat. Now please get off my back while I eat my Rocky
> Road.
LOL. He's starting to sound weirdly like me now, isn't he? Kinda' late
stage Virgo or something. Not that askology is factual, mind you.
Tom G.
> GaryE wrote:
> >
> > On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 00:08:24 GMT, "`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >GaryE wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >You asked me:
> > >
> > >What does Virt do? Anyone know? Do you, Frank? Has he ever talked
> > >about his life in a way that you can get a feel for the man?
> > >
> > >I answered honestly. Kinda like the wife asking if I've noticed she's
> > >put on a few lbs.
> > >
> > I apologize Frank. Didn't intend to rile you up....I already figured
> > that you were tight with Virt and I figured that everyone knew that
>
> I'm especially fond of his sense of humor.
"His" sense of humor...?? Are you sure Virt's a guy...??
Wasn't there some speculation that Virt was one of the
wimmin...?? Something about his/her tendancy to be a nag..??
\\\|///
\\ - - //
( @ @ )
---oOOo-(_)-oOOo---------------
Tom Gosnell the...@cox.net
--------------Oooo-------------
oooO ( )
( ) ) /
\ ( (_/
\_)
Robert McGregor
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 12:48:19 +1000, "Robert McGregor"
> <robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >hahaha I was just teasing rosie the cyber slut, but in this instance,
> >guessed her cap could fit you too.
> >
> >Bob
> >
hahahah Thought that would titillate your ever so expedient sensitivities.
Brer Bob
rosie readandpost
> >hahaha I was just teasing rosie the cyber slut, but in this instance,
> >guessed her cap could fit you too.
> >
> >Bob
> >
ROTFLMAO!
lots of us find his funny, old butt amusing......................
`F.H
> You have an axe you don't want to let go of, do you?
Look in the mirror and repeat that question Gary. I know you hate that
analogy but bottom line is honesty, right? Re-read your Q&A's. See if
you sound like anyone else hereabouts. See who started this dialogue
and ask the "axe" question again.
> >> The answer is no, you don't know anything about him. I figured you would,
> >> if anyone does.
> >
> >EXPOSTULATION: noun. One of the many methods by which fools prefer to
> >lose their friends.
> Threats are interesting phenomena. They come in many forms. You must
> own the baseball.
It was a joke, (Virt got it) but I see you have become way to
sophisticated for that. Threw out the bait, got the hookup, now what?
Opps, sorry, I was looking for something else. Throw it back with
contempt.
I've noticed I tend to catch what I'm looking for also.
Frank
Swimming among the "joiners not dividers".
`F.H
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:00:28 -0500, GaryE <gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> I always wanted to be the one who challenged you Frank and that's why
> it hurts so bad that you picked Virt. I have to admit that Virt is,
> in reality, a giant among men. He cast his shadow on us all and he
> doesn't hide at all, he just doesn't want anyone to know who he really
> is, to keep from getting crowds outside his house. His arguments are
> hard to refute because he's right, he could never be otherwise. Giant
> men can handle that, I know. He can because he is probably the
> epitome of mental health, the pinnacle of moral integrity, and the
> Rising Star of self imposed humility. And just think right here on
> araa Usenet dial. Is it any wonder that he gets envy as well as
> admiration? How else could it be?
>
> Your estranged friend and follower,
Estranged as in?
To make hostile, unsympathetic, or indifferent; alienate.
OK. Maybe add sarcastic and manipulative.
Frank
Robert McGregor
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:00:28 -0500, GaryE <gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
> I have to admit that Virt is,
> in reality, a giant among men. He cast his shadow on us all and he
> doesn't hide at all, he just doesn't want anyone to know who he really
> is, to keep from getting crowds outside his house. His arguments are
> hard to refute because he's right, he could never be otherwise. Giant
> men can handle that, I know. He can because he is probably the
> epitome of mental health, the pinnacle of moral integrity, and the
> Rising Star of self imposed humility. And just think right here on
> araa Usenet dial. Is it any wonder that he gets envy as well as
> admiration? How else could it be?
How about that! The thumper thumper has been trumped.
Egalitarian Bob
Robert McGregor
> On Wed, 17 Sep 2003 07:02:30 +1000, "Robert McGregor"
> <robert_...@yahoo.com.au> wrote:
>
> >
>
> >
> >How about that! The thumper thumper has been trumped.
> >
> >Egalitarian Bob
>
> Poor me, I'm living in misery.
>
> (:>
>
Don't give up yer day job;-)
Bob
`F.H
>
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 19:46:32 GMT, "`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >OK. Maybe add sarcastic and manipulative.
>
Sure we are.
angryjohn
>On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 13:00:28 -0500, GaryE <gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
>
>I always wanted to be the one who challenged you Frank and that's why
>it hurts so bad that you picked Virt. I have to admit that Virt is,
>in reality, a giant among men. He cast his shadow on us all and he
>doesn't hide at all, he just doesn't want anyone to know who he really
>is, to keep from getting crowds outside his house. His arguments are
>hard to refute because he's right, he could never be otherwise. Giant
>men can handle that, I know. He can because he is probably the
>epitome of mental health, the pinnacle of moral integrity, and the
>Rising Star of self imposed humility. And just think right here on
>araa Usenet dial. Is it any wonder that he gets envy as well as
>admiration? How else could it be?
>
>Your estranged friend and follower,
>Gar
Is it opposite day?
----
aa#2106
To reply remove Belief
Twinkies have supernatural qualities but I do not worship them, often.
Virtualoso
<gary...@swbell.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Sep 2003 16:09:41 GMT, "`F.H" <disco...@earthlink.net>
> wrote:
>
>
> >Look in the mirror and repeat that question Gary. I know you hate that
> >analogy but bottom line is honesty, right? Re-read your Q&A's. See if
> >you sound like anyone else hereabouts. See who started this dialogue
> >and ask the "axe" question again.
>
> Oh, I've always had an axe....
> >
> >It was a joke, (Virt got it) but I see you have become way to
> >sophisticated for that. Threw out the bait, got the hookup, now what?
> >Opps, sorry, I was looking for something else. Throw it back with
> >contempt.
>
> Your sense of humor seems at a low point.....but since I seem have put
> you in defense of Virt, very unintentionally, I can see how strong you
> feel about him. And he's never even come to visit you. Sigh.
Gosh, a Loyalty ploy? You were lucky that you had Frank to go visit.
And that he'd have you. You may do better to honor that rather than to
squander it by trying to cash it in for mere NG antipathy alignments
for your hatchet jobs. Axe, indeed.
Grind away, old soldier. Might even be therapeutic.