> >> Falsely feigning or exaggerating symptoms of injury or illness > >> for the purpose of obtaining financial compensation is called > >> malingering and is illegal, Bob. The patient is attempting to > >> receive something for something that doesn't exist.That is > >> actually fraudulent, Bob
> > Stuart, > > The real problem is that falsely feigning or exaggerating > > symptoms of injury or illness for the purpose of obtaining > > financial compensation is called "being a client" and it's a part > > of the everyday reality of personal injury lawyers. Clients lie. > > Their friends lie for them. Some professional people, legal. > > medical, "scientists," descend to making money helping them lie. > > It's one of the reasons that my sobriety required that I give up > > trial work after 28 years of doing nothing else. I was in > > business litigation, not personal injury litigation, but the > > general principles are the same. Dan
> What I picked up on was the apparent inability of a self styled > medical professional, such as Stuart, to comprehend that the human > mind can, in circumstances such as emotional and psychological > pressure from lawyers and complicit doctors, generate real harm to > the human body. Conversely, the human mind can sometimes, in more > benign circumstances, generate real healing of the human body.
> Seems to me that in this instance, Stuarts choice to focus entirely > on malingering is merely symptomatic of scared and incompetent > "medical professionals" in the face of rapidly accelerating > *legitimate* malpractice judgements.
> Bob
Bob;
When confronted with the suggestion that a patient may possibly be exhibiting sign of a factitious disorder, the wise clinician will retreat into a posture of abstract defence of the patient, rather than one of overt hostility or defensiveness, Bob. The caregiver role is predicated upon trust and intimate knowledge of an individual's condition, and the patient, by virtue of the very nature of the doctor-patient relationship, can expect a certain degree of advocacy from their caregivers. However, subverting this trust, either intentionally, or by conversion, perverts this relationship. Furthermore, caregivers have a second duty to the greater good of society as well. When confronted with evidence of malingering in his patient, the prudent clinician will agree to the suggestion that this be included in the differential diagnosis of his patient, while at the same time maintaining abstract defence of the patient. Since malingering is a legal issue, the ultimate determination has to be left for others, not the caregivers or medical experts to decide.
PS. You should be astute enough to understand that you don't even know my name, let alone what I am qualified to do or not to do, although I have probable unintentionally left some kinds of clues
> >Quit yer pickin' om Chiropractors. I spent 8 years of my life going > >to school to become a licensed Chiro in Canada, 4 of those years at > >a recognized Canadian University, and another 4 at CMCC in Toronto. > >You haven't got a clue regarding the educational prerequisite of > >becoming a Chiropractor. I call myself Doctor, and am qualified to > >make diagnoses. So go fly a fart, Virt....
Same clinic, wrong dude there Bob. Ten of us share the same email and usenet identity, but Riad, the chap who posted this is a fine clinician.
>>> Quit yer pickin' om Chiropractors. I spent 8 years of my life >>> going to school to become a licensed Chiro in Canada, 4 of those >>> years at a recognized Canadian University, and another 4 at CMCC >>> in Toronto. You haven't got a clue regarding the educational >>> prerequisite of becoming a Chiropractor. I call myself Doctor, >>> and am qualified to make diagnoses. So go fly a fart, Virt....
> Same clinic, wrong dude there Bob. Ten of us share the same email > and usenet identity, but Riad, the chap who posted this is a fine > clinician.
So there's ten Stuarts bullshitting here instead of one???
Step 10: And when we were wrong, invented another nine.
Thanks all-- am i to understand thatseizures are not common in benzo withdrawal?--fyi, i was taking only approx. 1-2 ativan a day as prescribed thanks--i havent seen a doctor--
> >>> Quit yer pickin' om Chiropractors. I spent 8 years of my life > >>> going to school to become a licensed Chiro in Canada, 4 of those > >>> years at a recognized Canadian University, and another 4 at CMCC > >>> in Toronto. You haven't got a clue regarding the educational > >>> prerequisite of becoming a Chiropractor. I call myself Doctor, > >>> and am qualified to make diagnoses. So go fly a fart, Virt....
> > Same clinic, wrong dude there Bob. Ten of us share the same email > > and usenet identity, but Riad, the chap who posted this is a fine > > clinician.
> So there's ten Stuarts bullshitting here instead of one???
> Step 10: And when we were wrong, invented another nine.
> Surely you can do better than that, sonny:)
> Bob
I also suspect there are many other guys out there using "Stuart" their handle Bob. Here, some of aren't too internet literate, and setting up usenet accounts is not something some of us are too interested in, although some have their own email. Generally we use community email at the office. I happen to "home-office" a lot also. In any event, what the hell difference does it make to you anyhow?
> Thanks all-- > am i to understand thatseizures are not common in benzo > withdrawal?--fyi, i was taking only approx. 1-2 ativan a day as > prescribed > thanks--i havent seen a doctor--
No Laura, seizures are relatively common. I would get to the doctor ASAP, and make it be known your symptoms
Good luck, and all the best getting through this tough spell. You'll come out OK.
>>>> Falsely feigning or exaggerating symptoms of injury or illness >>>> for the purpose of obtaining financial compensation is called >>>> malingering and is illegal, Bob. The patient is attempting to >>>> receive something for something that doesn't exist.That is >>>> actually fraudulent, Bob
>>> Stuart, >>> The real problem is that falsely feigning or exaggerating >>> symptoms of injury or illness for the purpose of obtaining >>> financial compensation is called "being a client" and it's a part >>> of the everyday reality of personal injury lawyers. Clients lie. >>> Their friends lie for them. Some professional people, legal. >>> medical, "scientists," descend to making money helping them lie. >>> It's one of the reasons that my sobriety required that I give up >>> trial work after 28 years of doing nothing else. I was in >>> business litigation, not personal injury litigation, but the >>> general principles are the same. Dan
>> What I picked up on was the apparent inability of a self styled >> medical professional, such as Stuart, to comprehend that the human >> mind can, in circumstances such as emotional and psychological >> pressure from lawyers and complicit doctors, generate real harm to >> the human body. Conversely, the human mind can sometimes, in more >> benign circumstances, generate real healing of the human body.
>> Seems to me that in this instance, Stuarts choice to focus >> entirely on malingering is merely symptomatic of scared and >> incompetent "medical professionals" in the face of rapidly >> accelerating *legitimate* malpractice judgements.
>> Bob
> Bob;
> When confronted with the suggestion that a patient may possibly be > exhibiting sign of a factitious disorder, the wise clinician will > retreat into a posture of abstract defence of the patient, rather > than one of overt hostility or defensiveness, Bob. The caregiver > role is predicated upon trust and intimate knowledge of an > individual's condition, and the patient, by virtue of the very > nature of the doctor-patient relationship, can expect a certain > degree of advocacy from their caregivers. However, subverting this > trust, either intentionally, or by conversion, perverts this > relationship. Furthermore, caregivers have a second duty to the > greater good of society as well. > When confronted with evidence of malingering in his patient, the > prudent clinician will agree to the suggestion that this be > included in the differential diagnosis of his patient, while at > the same time maintaining abstract defence of the patient. > Since malingering is a legal issue, the ultimate determination has > to be left for others, not the caregivers or medical experts to > decide.
> PS. You should be astute enough to understand that you don't even > know my name, let alone what I am qualified to do or not to do, > although I have probable unintentionally left some kinds of clues
What a load of crap. There is nothing *at all* indicating evidence of malingering on Laura's part. Rather, all evidence is completely to the contrary, as was my warning about keeping it that way. Seems the issue here really is malpractice, not malingering. http://tinyurl.com/bjoh5
> >>>> Falsely feigning or exaggerating symptoms of injury or illness > >>>> for the purpose of obtaining financial compensation is called > >>>> malingering and is illegal, Bob. The patient is attempting to > >>>> receive something for something that doesn't exist.That is > >>>> actually fraudulent, Bob
> >>> Stuart, > >>> The real problem is that falsely feigning or exaggerating > >>> symptoms of injury or illness for the purpose of obtaining > >>> financial compensation is called "being a client" and it's a part > >>> of the everyday reality of personal injury lawyers. Clients lie. > >>> Their friends lie for them. Some professional people, legal. > >>> medical, "scientists," descend to making money helping them lie. > >>> It's one of the reasons that my sobriety required that I give up > >>> trial work after 28 years of doing nothing else. I was in > >>> business litigation, not personal injury litigation, but the > >>> general principles are the same. Dan
> >> What I picked up on was the apparent inability of a self styled > >> medical professional, such as Stuart, to comprehend that the human > >> mind can, in circumstances such as emotional and psychological > >> pressure from lawyers and complicit doctors, generate real harm to > >> the human body. Conversely, the human mind can sometimes, in more > >> benign circumstances, generate real healing of the human body.
> >> Seems to me that in this instance, Stuarts choice to focus > >> entirely on malingering is merely symptomatic of scared and > >> incompetent "medical professionals" in the face of rapidly > >> accelerating *legitimate* malpractice judgements.
> >> Bob
> > Bob;
> > When confronted with the suggestion that a patient may possibly be > > exhibiting sign of a factitious disorder, the wise clinician will > > retreat into a posture of abstract defence of the patient, rather > > than one of overt hostility or defensiveness, Bob. The caregiver > > role is predicated upon trust and intimate knowledge of an > > individual's condition, and the patient, by virtue of the very > > nature of the doctor-patient relationship, can expect a certain > > degree of advocacy from their caregivers. However, subverting this > > trust, either intentionally, or by conversion, perverts this > > relationship. Furthermore, caregivers have a second duty to the > > greater good of society as well. > > When confronted with evidence of malingering in his patient, the > > prudent clinician will agree to the suggestion that this be > > included in the differential diagnosis of his patient, while at > > the same time maintaining abstract defence of the patient. > > Since malingering is a legal issue, the ultimate determination has > > to be left for others, not the caregivers or medical experts to > > decide.
> > PS. You should be astute enough to understand that you don't even > > know my name, let alone what I am qualified to do or not to do, > > although I have probable unintentionally left some kinds of clues
> What a load of crap. > There is nothing *at all* indicating evidence of malingering on > Laura's part. Rather, all evidence is completely to the contrary, as > was my warning about keeping it that way. Seems the issue here really > is malpractice, not malingering. http://tinyurl.com/bjoh5
> In reply to your PS, best you shut the fuck up.
> Bob
Bob, I think you have grossly misunderstood our conversation. No one here suggested anyone was malingering. We were discussing the subject as a result of your comment regarding legal redress presumably against manufacturers of defective meds. You made a comment regarding pressure that potentially would "psyche" you inti a worse condition. That's what led to the discussion regarding factitious disorders, Bob It had nothing to do with Laura, remember.
Just to refresh your memory: Here's the original statement you made;
"My own experience of legal redress involved tremendous overt and covert pressure to psyche myself into an even worse condition, merely to increase the payout (and legal expenses.)"
That's what we were discussing.
Now Bob, as an aside, you have told just about everyone in the group to "shut the fuck up" or other abusive and derogarory remarks at one time or another. You MAY have an anger management problem requiring counselling, Bob. Might want to check it out. Just a suggestion, mind you...
>>>>> Quit yer pickin' om Chiropractors. I spent 8 years of my life >>>>> going to school to become a licensed Chiro in Canada, 4 of >>>>> those years at a recognized Canadian University, and another 4 >>>>> at CMCC in Toronto. You haven't got a clue regarding the >>>>> educational prerequisite of becoming a Chiropractor. I call >>>>> myself Doctor, and am qualified to make diagnoses. So go fly a >>>>> fart, Virt....
>>> Same clinic, wrong dude there Bob. Ten of us share the same email >>> and usenet identity, but Riad, the chap who posted this is a fine >>> clinician.
>> So there's ten Stuarts bullshitting here instead of one???
>> Step 10: And when we were wrong, invented another nine.
>> Surely you can do better than that, sonny:)
>> Bob
> I also suspect there are many other guys out there using "Stuart" > their handle Bob. Here, some of aren't too internet literate, and > setting up usenet accounts is not something some of us are too > interested in, although some have their own email. Generally we > use community email at the office. I happen to "home-office" a lot > also. > In any event, what the hell difference does it make to you anyhow?
Don't matter to me at all, just hilarious watching you trying to maintain such utter bullshit.
Does Didi Perry happily fuck all 10 of you on the same night, do you draw straws, or what?
> >>>>> Quit yer pickin' om Chiropractors. I spent 8 years of my life > >>>>> going to school to become a licensed Chiro in Canada, 4 of > >>>>> those years at a recognized Canadian University, and another 4 > >>>>> at CMCC in Toronto. You haven't got a clue regarding the > >>>>> educational prerequisite of becoming a Chiropractor. I call > >>>>> myself Doctor, and am qualified to make diagnoses. So go fly a > >>>>> fart, Virt....
> >>> Same clinic, wrong dude there Bob. Ten of us share the same email > >>> and usenet identity, but Riad, the chap who posted this is a fine > >>> clinician.
> >> So there's ten Stuarts bullshitting here instead of one???
> >> Step 10: And when we were wrong, invented another nine.
> >> Surely you can do better than that, sonny:)
> >> Bob
> > I also suspect there are many other guys out there using "Stuart" > > their handle Bob. Here, some of aren't too internet literate, and > > setting up usenet accounts is not something some of us are too > > interested in, although some have their own email. Generally we > > use community email at the office. I happen to "home-office" a lot > > also. > > In any event, what the hell difference does it make to you anyhow?
> Don't matter to me at all, just hilarious watching you trying to > maintain such utter bullshit.
> Does Didi Perry happily fuck all 10 of you on the same night, do > you draw straws, or what?
> "stuart" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message > >My sweetie made another CD. Here's a shameless plug. She is a > >black-belt > >al-anon. > > www.didiperry.com
>>>>>> Falsely feigning or exaggerating symptoms of injury or illness >>>>>> for the purpose of obtaining financial compensation is called >>>>>> malingering and is illegal, Bob. The patient is attempting to >>>>>> receive something for something that doesn't exist.That is >>>>>> actually fraudulent, Bob
>>>>> Stuart, >>>>> The real problem is that falsely feigning or exaggerating >>>>> symptoms of injury or illness for the purpose of obtaining >>>>> financial compensation is called "being a client" and it's a >>>>> part of the everyday reality of personal injury lawyers. >>>>> Clients lie. Their friends lie for them. Some professional >>>>> people, legal. medical, "scientists," descend to making money >>>>> helping them lie. It's one of the reasons that my sobriety >>>>> required that I give up trial work after 28 years of doing >>>>> nothing else. I was in business litigation, not personal >>>>> injury litigation, but the general principles are the >>>>> same. Dan
>>>> What I picked up on was the apparent inability of a self styled >>>> medical professional, such as Stuart, to comprehend that the >>>> human mind can, in circumstances such as emotional and >>>> psychological pressure from lawyers and complicit doctors, >>>> generate real harm to the human body. Conversely, the human >>>> mind can sometimes, in more benign circumstances, generate real >>>> healing of the human body.
>>>> Seems to me that in this instance, Stuarts choice to focus >>>> entirely on malingering is merely symptomatic of scared and >>>> incompetent "medical professionals" in the face of rapidly >>>> accelerating *legitimate* malpractice judgements.
>>>> Bob
>>> Bob;
>>> When confronted with the suggestion that a patient may possibly >>> be exhibiting sign of a factitious disorder, the wise clinician >>> will retreat into a posture of abstract defence of the patient, >>> rather than one of overt hostility or defensiveness, Bob. The >>> caregiver role is predicated upon trust and intimate knowledge >>> of an individual's condition, and the patient, by virtue of the >>> very nature of the doctor-patient relationship, can expect a >>> certain degree of advocacy from their caregivers. However, >>> subverting this trust, either intentionally, or by conversion, >>> perverts this relationship. Furthermore, caregivers have a >>> second duty to the greater good of society as well. >>> When confronted with evidence of malingering in his patient, the >>> prudent clinician will agree to the suggestion that this be >>> included in the differential diagnosis of his patient, while at >>> the same time maintaining abstract defence of the patient. >>> Since malingering is a legal issue, the ultimate determination >>> has to be left for others, not the caregivers or medical experts >>> to decide.
>>> PS. You should be astute enough to understand that you don't even >>> know my name, let alone what I am qualified to do or not to do, >>> although I have probable unintentionally left some kinds of clues
>> What a load of crap. >> There is nothing *at all* indicating evidence of malingering on >> Laura's part. Rather, all evidence is completely to the contrary, >> as was my warning about keeping it that way. Seems the issue here >> really is malpractice, not malingering. http://tinyurl.com/bjoh5
>> In reply to your PS, best you shut the fuck up.
>> Bob
> Bob, I think you have grossly misunderstood our conversation. No > one here suggested anyone was malingering. We were discussing the > subject as a result of your comment regarding legal redress > presumably against manufacturers of defective meds. You made a > comment regarding pressure that potentially would "psyche" you > inti a worse condition. That's what led to the discussion > regarding factitious disorders, Bob > It had nothing to do with Laura, remember.
> Just to refresh your memory: Here's the original statement you > made;
> "My own experience of legal redress involved tremendous overt and > covert pressure to psyche myself into an even worse condition, > merely > to increase the payout (and legal expenses.)"
> That's what we were discussing.
> Now Bob, as an aside, you have told just about everyone in the > group to "shut the fuck up" or other abusive and derogarory > remarks at one time or another. You MAY have an anger management > problem requiring counselling, Bob. Might want to check it out. > Just a suggestion, mind you...
You head is obviously too far up your arse for you to realise that malingering is about a faked condition, while a worse condition is a worse condition.
Given my reply was to Laura, perhaps the point was a tad obscure for a "doctor" of your persuasion, so I'll repeat it. "Be warned though. Money may be able to maintain health, but can money compensate for health?"
> >>>>>> Falsely feigning or exaggerating symptoms of injury or illness > >>>>>> for the purpose of obtaining financial compensation is called > >>>>>> malingering and is illegal, Bob. The patient is attempting to > >>>>>> receive something for something that doesn't exist.That is > >>>>>> actually fraudulent, Bob
> >>>>> Stuart, > >>>>> The real problem is that falsely feigning or exaggerating > >>>>> symptoms of injury or illness for the purpose of obtaining > >>>>> financial compensation is called "being a client" and it's a > >>>>> part of the everyday reality of personal injury lawyers. > >>>>> Clients lie. Their friends lie for them. Some professional > >>>>> people, legal. medical, "scientists," descend to making money > >>>>> helping them lie. It's one of the reasons that my sobriety > >>>>> required that I give up trial work after 28 years of doing > >>>>> nothing else. I was in business litigation, not personal > >>>>> injury litigation, but the general principles are the > >>>>> same. Dan
> >>>> What I picked up on was the apparent inability of a self styled > >>>> medical professional, such as Stuart, to comprehend that the > >>>> human mind can, in circumstances such as emotional and > >>>> psychological pressure from lawyers and complicit doctors, > >>>> generate real harm to the human body. Conversely, the human > >>>> mind can sometimes, in more benign circumstances, generate real > >>>> healing of the human body.
> >>>> Seems to me that in this instance, Stuarts choice to focus > >>>> entirely on malingering is merely symptomatic of scared and > >>>> incompetent "medical professionals" in the face of rapidly > >>>> accelerating *legitimate* malpractice judgements.
> >>>> Bob
> >>> Bob;
> >>> When confronted with the suggestion that a patient may possibly > >>> be exhibiting sign of a factitious disorder, the wise clinician > >>> will retreat into a posture of abstract defence of the patient, > >>> rather than one of overt hostility or defensiveness, Bob. The > >>> caregiver role is predicated upon trust and intimate knowledge > >>> of an individual's condition, and the patient, by virtue of the > >>> very nature of the doctor-patient relationship, can expect a > >>> certain degree of advocacy from their caregivers. However, > >>> subverting this trust, either intentionally, or by conversion, > >>> perverts this relationship. Furthermore, caregivers have a > >>> second duty to the greater good of society as well. > >>> When confronted with evidence of malingering in his patient, the > >>> prudent clinician will agree to the suggestion that this be > >>> included in the differential diagnosis of his patient, while at > >>> the same time maintaining abstract defence of the patient. > >>> Since malingering is a legal issue, the ultimate determination > >>> has to be left for others, not the caregivers or medical experts > >>> to decide.
> >>> PS. You should be astute enough to understand that you don't even > >>> know my name, let alone what I am qualified to do or not to do, > >>> although I have probable unintentionally left some kinds of clues
> >> What a load of crap. > >> There is nothing *at all* indicating evidence of malingering on > >> Laura's part. Rather, all evidence is completely to the contrary, > >> as was my warning about keeping it that way. Seems the issue here > >> really is malpractice, not malingering. http://tinyurl.com/bjoh5
> >> In reply to your PS, best you shut the fuck up.
> >> Bob
> > Bob, I think you have grossly misunderstood our conversation. No > > one here suggested anyone was malingering. We were discussing the > > subject as a result of your comment regarding legal redress > > presumably against manufacturers of defective meds. You made a > > comment regarding pressure that potentially would "psyche" you > > inti a worse condition. That's what led to the discussion > > regarding factitious disorders, Bob > > It had nothing to do with Laura, remember.
> > Just to refresh your memory: Here's the original statement you > > made;
> > "> > > > That's what we were discussing.
> > Now Bob, as an aside, you have told just about everyone in the > > group to "shut the fuck up" or other abusive and derogarory > > remarks at one time or another. You MAY have an anger management > > problem requiring counselling, Bob. Might want to check it out. > > Just a suggestion, mind you...
> You head is obviously too far up your arse for you to realise that > malingering is about a faked condition, while a worse condition is a > worse condition.
Bob, you wrote "My own experience of legal redress involved tremendous overt and covert pressure to psyche myself into an even worse condition, merely to increase the payout (and legal expenses.)"
So, if I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that someone (your lawyer) somehow attempted to influence your concious/subconcious mind into voluntarily/involuntarily psychosomatically creating an actually worse condition than you would have otherwise experienced had you not gone through the legal redress process? Say, were you actually aware of the pressure at the time, or is this all in hindsight? Either way, Bob, it sounds like you were targeted to be a victim of an excellent hypnotist, or you were deemed mentally ill at the time by your attorney, or it could be one of the more creative rationalizations for malingering I've ever heard.
Help me out here, Bob. Call me stupid. I don't fully understand what you were getting at.
> Given my reply was to Laura, perhaps the point was a tad obscure for > a "doctor" of your persuasion, so I'll repeat it. "Be warned though. > Money may be able to maintain health, but can money compensate for > health?"
How can money compensate for "health" Bob?. It can help in assisting disabled persons fund mobility, buy prescriptions and help recoup lost earning power due to disability etc. But I knew what you meant.
> Stuart! Fuck off.
Sounds like this is one thing you have excelled at telling others to do, on a fairly regular basis, Bob
> > Help me out here, Bob. Call me stupid. I don't fully understand > > what you were getting at.
> Ok, although I believe it's more compliment than you merit, you're > stupid!
Telling people they are stupid or to "fuck off' seems to be a talent of yours whcih I recognize fully, Bob. But you seem incapable of clarifying what you meant by this pressure exerted upon you to psyche yourself into an actual worse actual condition. I don't get it... Please explain what you meant by that? Are you suggesting you suffered from conversion hysteria?
>>> Help me out here, Bob. Call me stupid. I don't fully understand >>> what you were getting at.
>> Ok, although I believe it's more compliment than you merit, you're >> stupid!
> Telling people they are stupid or to "fuck off' seems to be a > talent of yours whcih I recognize fully, Bob. But you seem > incapable of clarifying what you meant by this pressure exerted > upon you to psyche yourself into an actual worse actual condition. > I don't get it... > Please explain what you meant by that? Are you suggesting you > suffered from conversion hysteria?
Jeez, Stuart, off coarse, you don't get it, and do need some help! Weaving this thread from your medical proclamations to hysteria has obviously got you nowhere.
You could always go put your proverbial finger in your proverbial dyke, and pay that malpractice insurance.
> >>> Help me out here, Bob. Call me stupid. I don't fully understand > >>> what you were getting at.
> >> Ok, although I believe it's more compliment than you merit, you're > >> stupid!
> > Telling people they are stupid or to "fuck off' seems to be a > > talent of yours whcih I recognize fully, Bob. But you seem > > incapable of clarifying what you meant by this pressure exerted > > upon you to psyche yourself into an actual worse actual condition. > > I don't get it... > > Please explain what you meant by that? Are you suggesting you > > suffered from conversion hysteria?
> Jeez, Stuart, off coarse, you don't get it, and do need some help! > Weaving this thread from your medical proclamations to hysteria has > obviously got you nowhere.
> You could always go put your proverbial finger in your proverbial > dyke, and pay that malpractice insurance.
> bye
> Bob Brinker
Sorry if I embarrassed you Bob, or aroused suspicion surrounding an outstanding legal claim. I couldn't help but notice, in your message above, you suddenly added "Brinker" as your last name. Your handle says Robert McGregor. No problem, Bob, My Usenet handle Stuart has been used in araa by a colleague. He originally changed the display name to 'al', then I used 'fred', then back to 'Stuart", then things got mixed up because I forgot to change it once upon a time, then I used to go to rec.aviation.pilots, and that left more google stuff, so,... I don't think you need worry about being found out if that's any concern. I hope not.
Now give me your best Trailer Park Boys "home-made" fuck-you...:) One for the road, Bob..C.mon;;) friends??
> Robert McGregor <robert_mcgre...@knickersyahoo.com.au> wrote in > message news:42c925d1$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au... >> You could always go put your proverbial finger in your proverbial >> dyke, and pay that malpractice insurance.
>> bye
>> Bob Brinker
> Sorry if I embarrassed you Bob, or aroused suspicion surrounding an > outstanding legal claim. I couldn't help but notice, in your > message above, you suddenly added "Brinker" as your last name. > Your handle says Robert McGregor.
Guess if your fingers really were in that dyke, no wonder it went over your head:)
> "stuart" <f...@nospam.com> wrote in message > news:L5bye.115478$tt5.33744@edtnps90 > > Robert McGregor <robert_mcgre...@knickersyahoo.com.au> wrote in > > message news:42c925d1$1_1@news.iprimus.com.au... > >> You could always go put your proverbial finger in your proverbial > >> dyke, and pay that malpractice insurance.
> >> bye
> >> Bob Brinker
> > Sorry if I embarrassed you Bob, or aroused suspicion surrounding an > > outstanding legal claim. I couldn't help but notice, in your > > message above, you suddenly added "Brinker" as your last name. > > Your handle says Robert McGregor.
> Guess if your fingers really were in that dyke, no wonder it went > over your head:)
> Bob Boeing
I occasionally fly a Boeing, Bob. Now, you be calling me a BS-er again?
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:53:49 -0700, ocean...@webtv.net (Laura r) wrote: >i am a recoveing aloholic and for the past 5 months my pschiatrist has >given me ativan for panic--he decided hewante me to go off it and last >nighti had 2 seizuresim assuming from the ativan withdrawls--How bad >will these withdrawlsget--i am terrified--please help >laura
Symptoms typically begin 1 to 3 days after cessation of drug use and peak at 5 to 6 days, but may occur later with sedative-hypnotics that have long half lives.
Administration of flumazenil may result in abrupt appearance of symptoms including convulsions. In this case, the withdrawal syndrome resolves rapidly as the effect of flumazenil diminishes.
Manifestations include seizures, drug craving, dysphoria, headache, insomnia, anxiety, anorexia, nausea, vomiting, muscle weakness, tachycardia and tremor. Agitation and confusion may progress to delirium, disorientation, hallucinations.
Seizures are a frequent presenting symptom and may commence up to 7 or 8 days following cessation of the sedative-hypnotic.
Arterial blood gases Blood and other cultures as indicated CPK CT scan head and lumbar puncture, if indicated ECG Serum electrolytes, urea, creatinine, glucose Toxicological screening
TREATMENT
In severe cases, treatment of convulsions takes priority.
General symptomatic and supportive care is very important and includes reassurance and provision of a calm environment.
Clinical features may abate with replacement of the sedative or hypnotic drug or by substitution with a similar sedative-hypnotic such as:
Phenobarbitone 60 to 120 mg orally and repeat every hour until symptoms of withdrawal resolve.
Diazepam 20 mg orally and then 10 mg every hour until symptoms of withdrawal resolve.
Once the patient has been stabilised, gradual drug withdrawal can be undertaken.
CLINICAL COURSE AND MONITORING
In severe cases, death may occur in the absence of adequate treatment.
Duration of the withdrawal syndrome depends on the half-life of the agent and/or that of any active metabolites. Careful observation is required during that period. Adequate nutritional and fluid intake should be ensured. Appropriate social and psychological support is an essential component of medical management.
LONG-TERM COMPLICATIONS
Social and psychological problems.
AUTHOR(S)/REVIEWERS
Author: Dr J.N. Bernstein Florida Poison Information Center/Miami Department of Pediatrics P.O. Box 016960 (R-131) Miami, Florida 33101 USA
Reviewers: Treatment Guide Working Group members in Ankara London 3/98: T. Della Puppa, L. Murray, A. Nantel, M. Nicholls, J.Tempowski.
On Sat, 2 Jul 2005 13:53:49 -0700, ocean...@webtv.net (Laura r) wrote: >i am a recoveing aloholic and for the past 5 months my pschiatrist has >given me ativan for panic--he decided hewante me to go off it and last >nighti had 2 seizuresim assuming from the ativan withdrawls--How bad >will these withdrawlsget--i am terrified--please help >laura
|
