Hillary as Secretary Of State? Change?

[BeAChooser]

So just to get this straight, you are now alleging that Foster's sister did not contact a psychiatrist 4 days before his death: that this story was fabricated with the complicity of the sister and the psychiatrist as part of a cover-up?

Well either that or she lied to Park Police and the FBI (a crime) the night of Foster's death when she told them that Vince wasn't depressed nor did he show any signs of depression. Either that or she obstructed an investigation by failing to tell them she'd given Foster the names of 3 psychiatrists. Either that or her husband lied a few days after Foster's death when he said there was no indication Foster was depressed ... that such an assertion was "crap". Either that or the doctor obstructed the investigation when he failed to tell FBI agents that Sheila had called him about Foster 4 days before the death. Can you think of a logical reason they would have hidden these things for over week after Foster death before mentioning them for the first time? Isn't it curious that the first mention of depression by these people occured after a meeting in the Whitehouse attended by Sheila (and Lisa) where the bogus suicide note was discussed?

Is the psychiatrist that may or may not have been contacted by the sister the same as the psychiatrist that prescribed the antidepressants

No. And he didn't prescribe antidepressants. He proscribed medicine for insomnia which just happens to be an antidepressant at much higher dosage than was prescribed.

 

[A'isha]

It wasn't a matter of hate.

Sure it wasn't.

It was a matter of what the facts showed. And by the way, David Schippers, who developed the case against Clinton, was not a republican. He was a democrat who voted for Clinton twice. And he wrote afterwords that the Senate sabotaged the impeachment and prevented him from investigating and presenting the real case against Clinton. Instead they limited him to the stupidity of Monica and the dress.

Apparently the Republican-controlled Congress (and the Republican-controlled Congress under the Republican President Bush) were in on the whole thing, otherwise they might have pursued this evidence leading to the horrific conclusion that a Democratic president and his hated wife at the very least participated in a cover-up of murder, and at worst ordered that murder themselves.

Is there no end to the terrible power the conspirators hold?

I've already answered that on this thread. Did you ignore that or did you not notice? I suggest you go back and find my response and then challenge the logic of what I wrote ... if you can.

I am well aware of that.

I just like reading your fumbling conspiratorial excuses, and was hoping you'd repeat them once more.

Starr's entire case for depression was based on claims by just a few people made well after the death ...

It'd be remarkably prescient of Starr to collect statements from witnesses before the death actually occurred.

Though undoubtedly you'd say that, too, would be evidence of a cover-up, since it would mean Starr knew Foster's death would happen.

You misrepresent what Starr and Rodriguez said. Starr said lots of blood was found while implying that it was where Foster's body was originally found.

Unless the conspirators refilled Foster's body with blood like a reused water balloon, that's kind of irrelevant.

The EMTs corroborate this fact.

According to Rodriguez, not all EMTs.

Lots of blood was only found at the location the body was moved to ...

And where do you think all this blood came from?

And someone else that Fiske never bothered to interview is Dr Haut, the only medical examiner to view Foster's body that night at Fort Marcy Park. He stated that the body was found 10 to 20 yards from the first cannon one encounters in the park. This location was corroborated by Fairfax County rescue worker, George Gonzales, and several others. Their statements directly contradict Fiske's claim (regurgitated by Starr) that the body was found deep inside the park at the base of the second cannon.

And, of course, Rodriquez totally backs up this claim that Foster's body was discovered in another part of the park, in addition to being murdered elsewhere and transported to the park?

Sheesh...

And here is something even more curious. A Secret Service memo from the night of Foster's death

http://whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/FOSTER_COVERUP/MISC/2551.gif

that states "Park Police discovered the body of Vincent Foster in his car." It also states that "a .38 cal. revolver was in the car" Do you have any explanation why the Secret Service would have gotten these details soooooo wrong? Are they in the habit of misquoting Police who call them? Are the Park Police in the habit of getting the details so wrong?

No. This report says the ID/DD reported that Secret Service Agent Lieutentant Wolz told them that Patrick Gavin told him that Foster's body was found in his car.

Unfortunately, Gavin was, at most, the fourth person on the scene after Foster's body was found (not in his car), and after several photographs of the not-in-a-car body were taken. But just in case you don't take my word for it, here's a conspiracy-favoring website featuring an interview with John Clarke, Knowlton's own attorney:

"[Robert Edwards] was the third Park Police officer to respond to the body site. As he was walking up to the body site the first Park Police officer was leaving. Edwards ordered him to leave the park and return to his duties. Edwards proceeded to the body site where Park Police officer Franz Ferstl was photographing the body. Ferstl was the 'beat officer'; it was his beat. He took about 7 photographs before Edwards got there. Edwards then took Ferstl's photographs and sent Ferstl to the parking lot. Then two other Park Police officers walked up to the body site, Lt. Patrick Gavin and Christine Hodakievic. They stayed for a few minutes and left."

So, what you have is a fourth-hand report alleging something that not even the lawyer who works with Knowlton mentions. Yes, that's quite convincing.

So you don't mind the apparent fact that the body was moved to a new location, photographed there, and that new location was then called "the crime scene" by Starr? Do you understand that one reason you might move a body is to hide a crime.

Not when moving the body (a few feet, mind you) results in something that not even the most able conspirators could have faked had Foster not been killed at the park location his body was found at.

So are you claiming that blood won't flow from a body that's been dead 2 to 3 hours (the official claim for how long Foster was dead before his body was discovered and investigated) if it's moved? Would you like to bet your continued presence on this forum on the validity of that claim?

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Knowlton's appendix goes to great lengths to try and paint all the blood found with Foster's body as either in tiny amounts or as "dried" and "old"? Especially when Rodriguez's statement as quoted by Knowlton contradicts both those assertions.

It always has been true that small things trip up big conspiracies. And that criminals generally make mistakes.

Publishing a suppressed and possibly forged document that utterly contradicts the "official explanation" in the main report issued by the bought-off-by-the-conspiracy lead investigator kind of goes beyond "small things trip up big conspiracies".

Go ahead, name the EMT that said there was lots of blood at the location Foster's body was originally found.

Why are you asking me? You should ask Miguel Rodriguez, since he's the one that mentions it.

Who prescribed medication that was clearly intended to treat Foster's insomnia. A fact that Starr lied about. A lie that you are continuing to promote.

Funny, that specific claim doesn't appear even in the conspiracy-website quotes from Foster's doctor.

Really? So you didn't really mean it when you stated:

[...]

We'll keep your *intentions* in mind the next time you claim someone "explains" anything.

No, I meant it. Rodriguez did indeed attempt to explain why blood poured from Foster's body when it was moved. It was, however, my own interpolation that if blood flowed so freely (and so stainingly, if I may be allowed to coin a word) from the body when it was moved, the lack of such bloodflow and blood-staining on the body before it was so moved indicates that it hadn't been moved since its death.

Oh, so now we are also to believe that in pointing out that Foster's doctor mentioned depression, you weren't conjecturing that Starr's claim of clinical depression was correct?

You're still avoiding the question. Odd, considering since your own post indicates that you know the real answer to that question, and are refusing to answer because it contradicts your conspiracy theory.

But you didn't provide one. The internet is not mainstream ... not unless you can prove that article made it to TV. Obviously you can't, nor can you tell us why that CNN article left out so many very important details in the story. I think we can conclude you aren't confident enough to defend your mainstream, non-conspiracy, news sources as a reliable source of information.

I'm impressed. In all my years dealing with crackpottery on the internet, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that a CNN.com article doesn't count as "mainstream media" because it didn't appear on TV.

See? You doesn't even know what I'm talking about. Even though the Senate investigation was mentioned in liberal "mainstream" sources.

Please, enlighten me.

They didn't rule on the truth or accuracy of Starr's report either.

...which doesn't help yours and Knowlton's claims one bit.

That's incorrect. There was no legal requirement that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. The IOC law just allows persons named in the report to submit comments and factual information. It is left to the DISCRETION of the court to order them attached to the IOC report. And again note that this is the only time an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report. That is not something that a three judge panel would likely do lightly so I posit that they did see some merit (accuracy) in Knowlton's concerns.

...thus contradicting your own statement directly above.

And did you notice that Knowlton's website states this event has not been reported to the public by a single newspaper. Even now. And you claim the mainstream media reports all?

No, I don't, and indeed never have.

Nice strawman attempt, however.

Who somehow managed to convince the three judge panel to order Starr to attach an addendum charging the OIC office with witness intimidation and evidence tampering.

...based on US Code Section 594 h 2. Read it yourself.


It says nothing about allowing an addendum based on its inherent merits, only that a court can allow an addendum to protect the rights of "any individual named in such report", because such an individual has the right to submit any comments to the report. Starr's filed objection claimed Knowlton was not a named individual, but the court said he was.

That's why his appendix was included. Not because of the comments or (dubious) facts it supposedly contained.

 

[BeAChooser]

No matter how many times you repeat this, you are still wrong. Foster was prescribed an antidepressant that can also be used for insomnia.

No matter how many times you repeat that, Starr lied when he implied or claimed the medicine was prescribed for depression. It was not. It was prescribed for insomnia because Foster was afraid of getting addicted to ordinary sleeping pills. Starr lied when he said Foster called the doctor for antidepressant medication. He did not. He called to complain about insomnia and to get a medication that wouldn't be addictive.

It would appear that the psychiatrist thought that Foster's anorexia and insomnia may have been related to depression, and thus decided to treat both the depression and the insomnia with a single drug.

FALSE. There is nothing in the record to suggest that the doctor was treating his "mild" depression with drugs. And as I pointed out with sources that you just ignored, the dosage of the drug recommended for treating depression is considerably higher than that for insomnia (which is the dosage Foster received) and is given in divided doses rather than just at night as recommended for insomnia. You can talk till your blue in the face, Mr *expert*, but you won't change those facts. All you are doing is conjecturing, which I was informed proves NOTHING.

Your distinction between clinical depression and situational depression is also meaningless. Both can be mild or severe. Both can be treated with antidepressants.

Which isn't what the numerous medical sources I provided said. I'm still waiting to see your sources on this matter, Mr. *expert*. Or are we just supposed to take your *word* for it?

But at least this red herring allows you to ignore all the other facts that point to a murder and coverup. Right? At least this diversion allows you to ignore the oven mitt lie. And the missing bullet, missing soil stains, missing blood and brain matter, missing gun, missing car keys, missing exit log, missing suicide note, missing Whitewater documents, etc. etc. etc. Right?

 

[gdnp]

Which isn't what the numerous medical sources I provided said. I'm still waiting to see your sources on this matter, Mr. *expert*. Or are we just supposed to take your *word* for it?

Let's see: from the first link in google under depression treatment:

You may have heard people talk about chemical imbalances in the brain that occur in depression, suggesting that depression is a medical illness, without psychological causes. However, all psychological problems have some physical manifestations, and all physical illnesses have psychological components as well. In fact, the chemical imbalances that occur during depression usually disappear when you complete psychotherapy for depression, without taking any medications to correct the imbalance. This suggests that the imbalance is the body's physical response to psychological depression, rather than the other way around

....snip....

So, while there may be some biological factors that contribute to depression, it is clearly a psychological disorder.

A variety of psychological factors appear to play a role in vulnerability to these severe forms of depression. Most likely, psychological factors are completely responsible for other forms of mild and moderate depression, especially reactive depression. Reactive depression is usually diagnosed as an adjustment disorder during treatment.

People who have low self-esteem, who consistently view themselves and the world with pessimism, or who are readily overwhelmed by stress are more prone to depression. Psychologists often describe social learning factors as being significant in the development of depression, as well as other psychological problems. People learn both adaptive and maladaptive ways of managing stress and responding to life problems within their family, educational, social and work environments. These environmental factors influence psychological development, and the way people try to resolve problems when they occur. Social learning factors also explain why psychological problems appear to occur more often in family members, from generation to generation. If a child grows up in a pessimistic environment, in which discouragement is common and encouragement is rare, that child will develop a vulnerability to depression as well.

A serious loss, chronic illness, relationship problems, work stress, family crisis, financial setback, or any unwelcome life change can trigger a depressive episode. Very often, a combination of biological, psychological, and environmental factors are involved in the development of depressive disorders, as well as other psychological problems. When you feel depressed, and don't know where to turn, talk to someone who can help.... a psychologist.

However, some symptoms of depression, such as sleep and appetite disturbances, significant concentration problems, and chronic fatigue, interfere with your ability to make the life changes necessary to eliminate the depression. In more serious depression, suicidal thoughts and urges, and preoccupation with death, may require medication in addition to psychotherapy. Antidepressant medication can help relieve those symptoms, and allow you to make needed life changes. The decision to take medication, in addition to participating in psychological treatment, should be discussed with your treating psychologist and your primary care physician. Your thoughts and feelings regarding medication, after considering information about both the benefits and risks involved, are an important part of a collaborative treatment approach between psychologist and client.

from their page on medications:

Antidepressants are used most widely for serious depressions, but they can also be helpful for some milder depressions. Antidepressants, although they are not "uppers" or stimulants, take away or reduce the symptoms of depression and help the depressed person feel the way he did before he became depressed.

The dosage of antidepressants varies, depending on the type of drug, the person's body chemistry, age, and, sometimes, body weight. Dosages are generally started low and raised gradually over time until the desired effect is reached without the appearance of troublesome side effects.

You will notice Mr. *expert* that the authors here make no distinction between major depression and situational depression in the use of drugs to relieve symptoms, which can be effective both for severe and mild depressions. And doses are generally started low and gradually increased. Thus the psychiatrist, who felt (incorrectly) that Foster was only suffering from a mild depression, may have felt that treating the insomnia with an antidepressant would allow him to get past the rough patch he was going through. Even if he had prescribed no drugs at all, this does not imply that he did not think Foster was depressed: some depressed patients are treated with psychotherapy or behavioral therapy without drugs at all.

As for the other factors I am "ignoring", I suggest you reread my earlier post. I have no desire to debunk your theories. I have not read Starr's report, nor do I have desire to, since based on the garbage you have posted I see no reason to challenge his conclusions. Unlike *some people* who consider themselves modern day Sherlock Holmes, I choose to leave the investigations to the experts. I have therefore chosen only to chime in when you make ignorant medical statements or obvious errors in logic.

By the way, any progress on the list of conspirators yet?

 

[gdnp]

BAC, what is your explanation for this statement from the Ken Starr report:

On Monday, July 19, Mr. Foster contacted Dr. Larry
Watkins, his physician in Little Rock, and was
prescribed an antidepressant. Watkins' typed notes of
July 21 say the following:

I talked to Vince on 7/19/93, at which time he
complained of anorexia and insomnia. He had no GI
[gastrointestinal] symptoms. We discussed the
possibility of taking Axid or Zantac to help with
any ulcer symptoms as he was under a lot of stress.
He was concerned about the criticism they were
getting and the long hours he was working at the
White House. He did feel that he had some mild
depression. I started him on Desyrel, 50 mg. He was to start with one at bedtime and move up to three. . . . I received word at 10:20 p.m. on 7/20/93 that
he had committed suicide.

Dr. Watkins said that it was unusual, even
unprecedented, for Mr. Foster to call him directly. Lisa
Foster said that Mr. Foster took one tablet of the
antidepressant medication on the night of the 19th.

One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious.

 

[A'isha]

BAC, what is your explanation for this statement from the Ken Starr report:



One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious.

Obviously it means that Apothecon Inc, the manufacturer of Desyrel, is part of the Clinton-loving conspiracy.

 

[Lonewulf]

I'm too lazy. Can someone please summarize ToBeAChooser's points?

 

[Tricky]

BAC, what is your explanation for this statement from the Ken Starr report:



One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious.

Obviously, Ken Starr was LYING!!! He was just trying to cover up for his good pals, the Clintons.

 

[Tricky]

I'm too lazy. Can someone please summarize ToBeAChooser's points?

I think they can be summarized thusly:

• I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.

• Other Democrats too, but mostly the Clintons.

 

[gdnp]

I think they can be summarized thusly:

• I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.

• Other Democrats too, but mostly the Clintons.

You are most unfair. I have never heard BAC say anything bad about either Chelsea or George Clinton, nor have I heard a peep from him about Clinton Portis. So clearly this is just another left wing smear.

 

[varwoche]

Third bullet added for completeness:

I think they can be summarized thusly:

• I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.

• Other Democrats too, but mostly the Clintons.
• 

 

[BeAChooser]

Apparently the Republican-controlled Congress (and the Republican-controlled Congress under the Republican President Bush) were in on the whole thing, otherwise they might have pursued this evidence leading to the horrific conclusion that a Democratic president and his hated wife at the very least participated in a cover-up of murder, and at worst ordered that murder themselves.

Like I said, go look up my response to this red herring assertion and respond to that. If you don't, well ...

It'd be remarkably prescient of Starr to collect statements from witnesses before the death actually occurred.

And who suggested that? If you can't understand what I clearly wrote, well ...

Quote:
Starr said lots of blood was found while implying that it was where Foster's body was originally found.

Unless the conspirators refilled Foster's body with blood like a reused water balloon, that's kind of irrelevant.

That's not irrelevant at all. It's proof of Starr's dishonesty. Just like his claiming the FBI files had been returned when it turned out they weren't is proof of that dishonesty.

Quote:
The EMTs corroborate this fact.

According to Rodriguez, not all EMTs.

Would you please point out that statement by Rodriguez?

And, of course, Rodriquez totally backs up this claim that Foster's body was discovered in another part of the park

Yes, he does. Rodriguez says the body was moved and the photos claimed by Starr to represent the crime scene were then retaken ... with the original photos mysteriously disappearing.

This report says the ID/DD reported that Secret Service Agent Lieutentant Wolz told them that Patrick Gavin told him that Foster's body was found in his car.

Well who got it wrong? You think Gavin? Why would he get such a detail so wrong? Why would he also say the gun was found in the car? You still haven't answered that. Or do you think Secret Service agents are in the habit of making such transcription mistakes?

So, what you have is a fourth-hand report

No, this is a first hand account of what Gavin supposedly told the Secret Service agent. And Gavin is a first hand witness to what he saw or was told at the park. Now if he first observed the body in the park, why did he tell Wolz it and the gun were found in the car? You still haven't answered that. Did Starr ever try to resolve this curious inconsistency? Can you point us to him doing that?

Not when moving the body (a few feet, mind you) results in something that not even the most able conspirators could have faked

Even you must realize that you don't tamper with possible crime scenes (and the first EMTs on location identified this as a homicide) before taking photos and allowing a coroner and investigators to see it. You disturb evidence, you lose clues. If little blood and brain matter was observed at the initial location then that tells the detective something very important. Moving the body might smear blood and lose information. The orientation of the body with respect to the surroundings says things. The way the hands and arms are positioned tells the investigator something important. I'm surprised that a smart person like you wouldn't realize this.

Perhaps you'd like to explain why Knowlton's appendix goes to great lengths to try and paint all the blood found with Foster's body as either in tiny amounts or as "dried" and "old"?

Is Knowlton talking about the blood seen on the outside of the body or the blood inside the body? You see, it makes a difference. And in any case, you are wrong. If you actually read Knowlton's 500 page assessment of the evidence where he describes exactly what each witness says he/she saw with regards to blood, you will see Knowlton didn't go to great lengths to paint "all the blood" as "dried" and "old". But then you couldn't be troubled to read that document because Knowlton's just a untrustworthy, quote mining fool, right? (I truly hope you can detect the sarcasm and irony in that last question. )

Quote:
Go ahead, name the EMT that said there was lots of blood at the location Foster's body was originally found.

Why are you asking me? You should ask Miguel Rodriguez, since he's the one that mentions it.

Would you quote to us exactly what Rodriguez says in that regard?

Quote:
Who prescribed medication that was clearly intended to treat Foster's insomnia. ... snip ...

Funny, that specific claim doesn't appear even in the conspiracy-website quotes from Foster's doctor.

Yes it does. The doctor told the FBI he gave Foster the drug "to start sleeping better". Those were his words.

No, I meant it. Rodriguez did indeed attempt to explain why blood poured from Foster's body when it was moved.

But he did not say what you claimed he "explains" in the passage Knowlton quoted. He did not say "the lack of blood was due to the way the body fell after Foster shot himself". So if you meant it, then you were being deceptive. Hoping someone out there might buy your deception?

Quote:
Oh, so now we are also to believe that in pointing out that Foster's doctor mentioned depression, you weren't conjecturing that Starr's claim of clinical depression was correct?

You're still avoiding the question.

And what was that question? If the doctor asked Foster how he was doing ... whether he was depressed? I've answered that previously. Weren't you paying attention or were you too busy planning your next red herring?

I'm impressed. In all my years dealing with crackpottery on the internet, this is the first time I've ever seen anyone claim that a CNN.com article doesn't count as "mainstream media" because it didn't appear on TV.

Of course an article appearing solely on the internet it is not mainstream media. Especially back in the 90's. Not because it doesn't appear on TV but because it's readership ... especially back in the 90's ... was but a tiny fraction of the CNN's TV audience. Or any other mainstream TV network. Or any mainstream newspaper or newsmagazine. The reason most people are still unaware of the details in the Foster or Brown's deaths ... in most of the Clinton related scandals ... is because they DON'T use the internet as their source of news. It's the reason they were also so ignorant about Obama's history. People like me (and maybe you) are the exception, not the rule.

Please, enlighten me.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/120767/output/print

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tripp073098.htm

Quote:
They didn't rule on the truth or accuracy of Starr's report either.

...which doesn't help yours and Knowlton's claims one bit.

But it does undermine your insinuation that because they didn't rule on the accuracy of Knowlton's claims, they have no merit.

Quote:
That's incorrect. There was no legal requirement that the judges attach Knowlton's addendum to Starr's report. The IOC law just allows persons named in the report to submit comments and factual information. It is left to the DISCRETION of the court to order them attached to the IOC report. And again note that this is the only time an Independent Counsel has been ordered to attach evidence of a cover-up by his own investigators to his own report. That is not something that a three judge panel would likely do lightly so I posit that they did see some merit (accuracy) in Knowlton's concerns.

...thus contradicting your own statement directly above.

Not at all. But then you've already demonstrated you can't read and don't understand what I write.

And you claim the mainstream media reports all?

No, I don't, and indeed never have.

Really? I'm almost certain you insinuated that some of the facts I've noted must be false simply because I can't quote a mainstream source containing them.

It says nothing about allowing an addendum based on its inherent merits

I didn't say that. But I did suggest that attaching something as potentially explosive as Knowlton's addendum to an IOC's report is not likely something the judges would have done lightly ... would have done if they thought the charges/evidence had no merit. I stand by that opinion.

such an individual has the right to submit any comments to the report.

Submit them to the court ... yes. But the judges have no obligation under the statute to order that material attached to the report when it is released ... which they did in Knowlton's case.

Starr's filed objection claimed Knowlton was not a named individual, but the court said he was.

Might this be proof of Starr lying yet again? Or if Starr was correct might that be an indication that the Judges were looking at a bigger picture than the letter of the law?

 

[BeAChooser]

Let's see: from the first link in google under depression treatment:

Let's examine the items you bolded from that source.

Most likely, psychological factors are completely responsible for other forms of mild and moderate depression, especially reactive depression.

So what? That doesn't say mild depression requires medication or is no different than the clinical depression that Starr claimed existed.

A serious loss, chronic illness, relationship problems, work stress, family crisis, financial setback, or any unwelcome life change can trigger a depressive episode.

sleep and appetite disturbances

So what? No one has denied that Foster might have been depressed. Mildly depressed. That's what the doctor said. But MILLIONS OF PEOPLE are mildly depressed. And aren't on any medication. And don't commit suicide. No one is denying that he was having trouble sleeping either. You haven't proven anything with these quotes, gdnp. Nada.

Antidepressant medication can help relieve those symptoms, and allow you to make needed life changes.

Great. They can do that. But the doctor didn't say he prescribed the medicine to resolve Foster's depression. He said he prescribed it to help him "start sleeping better".

I notice that you didn't bold the sentence before that one that says when medication is prescribed for depression:

In more serious depression, suicidal thoughts and urges, and preoccupation with death, may require medication in addition to psychotherapy.

But then the doctor didn't say Foster had serious depression. He said he had "mild" depression and was NOT "in crisis". And I don't believe he expressed suicidal thoughts to anyone or was preoccupied with death. So based on your source, I'd again have to conclude that the medication was prescribed to help Foster sleep better ... not resolve his depression.

from their page on medications:

Ok, let's look at this too ... only I will bold something different:

Antidepressants are used most widely for serious depressions, but they can also be helpful for some milder depressions. Antidepressants, although they are not "uppers" or stimulants, take away or reduce the symptoms of depression and help the depressed person feel the way he did before he became depressed.

Seems to me that all you are doing is conjecturing without a supporting foundation. We know these facts. The doctor said Foster called him to complain about insomnia. His wife said Foster was worried about addiction to sleeping pills. His wife said there was no sign of depression. The doctor judged he had "mild" depression but was NOT "in crisis". The drug the doctor prescribed is effective against insomnia at the dosage prescribed. The drug is not addictive. Now THAT is a basis for believing that Foster was not prescribed the drug for depression (because he wasn't in crisis) but to ONLY fight insomnia.

Dosages are generally started low and raised gradually over time until the desired effect is reached

Fine. That's exactly what the literature I linked said. But I note you haven't provided any detailed dosage information for the drug in question. I did. And what those sources said is that for depression, the recommended initial dosage is 3 times the dosage that Foster was started at. And the dosage that the doctor told Foster to ramp up to is only the starting dosage for depression. The usual recommended dose for treating depression if 3 or more times higher than that. But the dosage that was prescribed lies squarely in the range recommended for insomnia. So you really haven't proven anything here, gdnp. Nada.

You will notice Mr. *expert*

I don't claim to be an expert. I've merely cited expert sources to back up what I claim. You, on the other hand, told us you were a doctor and based on your *expertise* I was wrong. But I hesitate to tell you that so far you haven't proven that AT ALL, *doctor*.

that the authors here make no distinction between major depression and situational depression in the use of drugs to relieve symptoms

Nonsense. The source you posted said that "Antidepressants are used most widely for serious depressions". That clearly implies they aren't used for "mild" depression nearly as often. Hence there must be a distinction between "mild" and "serious". And the source you provided said "serious depression" may require medication. That implies that medication is probably not required for "mild" depression, especially when the patient is not having suicidal thoughts or is preoccupied with death. Again, there seems to be a distinction between the type of depression the doctor said Foster had (i.e., "mild") and the type that Starr alleged Foster had ("clinical" or "serious"). By the way, neither of your sources even used the word "situational".

Thus the psychiatrist, who felt (incorrectly) that Foster was only suffering from a mild depression, may have felt that treating the insomnia with an antidepressant would allow him to get past the rough patch he was going through.

Apparently you don't even realize that the doctor in question wasn't a psychiatrist. He's a doctor of Internal Medicine. Again, you are speculating without foundation. As I was pompously informed earlier in this thread ... even with a foundation, conjecturing proves nothing.

As for the other factors I am "ignoring", I suggest you reread my earlier post. I have no desire to debunk your theories.

Of course you don't. You hate to admit that the Clintons were serious criminals and that Obama has made a serious mistake in judgement by appointing one to Secretary of State before even taking office.

 

[A'isha]

And who suggested that? If you can't understand what I clearly wrote, well ...

You attach a bizarre significance to the fact that Starr obtained witness statments made after the crime. When else would such statements have been made?


You simply want to make it look like Starr told these people what to say, when in fact it's standard in any investigation of this nature.

That's not irrelevant at all. It's proof of Starr's dishonesty.

So, Starr is being dishonest when he says, and I quote from the report here:

Dr. Lee noted that Dr. Beyer had "observed a large amount of liquid blood in the body bag and in Mr. Foster's body," which "further indicates that the location where the body was found is consistent with the primary scene [and that it] is, therefore, unlikely that Mr. Foster's body was moved to the Fort Marcy Park scene from another location."

The shirt itself, which was removed at the autopsy after movement of the body to the morgue, contains bloodstains on areas where blood does not appear in the photographs of the body at the scene. Dr. Lee stated that these stains on the shirt "most likely occurred when the body was placed into the body bag and moved from the scene and/or when in the body bag, prior to the collection of the decedent's clothing." As noted below, the experts concluded that the shirt likely would have been more extensively stained when the body was found at the second cannon area at Fort Marcy Park had the body been moved from another location.

Is Rodriguez being just as dishonest, when he says

The fact is, a number of people have said there was a small amount where the body was originally found. Later on it's moved to a horizontal position at the top of the berm where it does have some seepage under the body. And then when they put it in the body bag they see, faced in that horizontal position, there's a ten-inch or so bloodstain under the body.

Or perhaps you'd like to point out where what Starr reported is in any way contradicted by what Rodriguez stated?

All right, let's focus on one thing here, and see if we can make any headway.

And again, you seem to attach some strange significance to the fact that there wasn't much blood before Foster was moved, and none at all to the fact that there was a lot of blood, as well as a definition "where the body was originally found" that would confuse the hell out of any CSI.

Knowlton actually manipulates this twisting of definitions to try and imply foul play - he takes "little blood was found where Foster's body was initially positioned", and describes that as "little blood was was found at the crime scene". Then, he spins the story that since little blood was found at the "crime scene", (using the standard definition of "physically located at the place that a crime is presumed to have happened, when it happened", then that means Foster must have been killed elsewhere and moved to that location, since otherwise there'd be blood everywhere at the crime scene, right?

You're doing the exact same thing. However, neither you nor Knowlton can explain why there was no blood all over Foster if it started pouring out and staining everything the instant he was moved, if he had been moved postmortem before the "official story" says he was discovered.

Try a little experiment at home, BAC: take a ziploc bag. Fill it as full as you can with tomato juice, and seal it tight. Lay it flat on one end of a long white table. Now, slide a sharp knife underneath the bag, and poke a hole in the bottom (that's pressed against the table) as close to the center of the bag as you can.

Now pick up the bag and move it to another part of the white table. Notice how the bag and table weren't covered in tomato juice when the bag was resting in the same place where it had been poked, while the bag and table had juice all over them after you picked it up and set it back down in a place other than the one where it had been poked.

Which of those two states most accurately describes Foster's body and the park around it as Rodriguez describes them?

Well who got it wrong? You think Gavin? Why would he get such a detail so wrong? Why would he also say the gun was found in the car? You still haven't answered that.

Because I'm not reading what Gavin said, but what someone else reported that yet someone else says Gavin said.

Or do you think Secret Service agents are in the habit of making such transcription mistakes?

In a chaotic situation when someone is reporting on a report of a report? Even Secret Service agents don't have superhuman transcription powers.

No, this is a first hand account of what Gavin supposedly told the Secret Service agent.

You have no clue what "first hand account" means, then.

And Gavin is a first hand witness to what he saw or was told at the park.

First hand witness to what he was told? You really don't see how ridiculous that sounds?

Now if he first observed the body in the park, why did he tell Wolz it and the gun were found in the car? You still haven't answered that. Did Starr ever try to resolve this curious inconsistency? Can you point us to him doing that?

And how come the 9/11 Commission never resolved why so many witnesses to the WTC attacks reported hearing sounds like bombs, if there were no bombs that brought down the towers? And why did the Mayor of Shanksville say that there was no plane where Flight 93 was supposed to have crashed, when his own sister and a good friend of his were among the first on the scene?

Is Knowlton talking about the blood seen on the outside of the body or the blood inside the body? You see, it makes a difference.

Unless Foster was refilled with blood after it poured out at the original location he was murdered at (and meticulously cleaned up with his clothes dry-cleaned) so it could pour out and smear around again later, no it doesn't make a difference.

And what was that question? If the doctor asked Foster how he was doing ... whether he was depressed?

WHY the doctor asked whether he was depressed if Foster himself didn't mention it.

I've answered that previously.

Indeed. And you've been backing away from that initial answer ever since, because it contradicts what you've been trying to claim about the whole reason for the prescription he was given.

Of course an article appearing solely on the internet it is not mainstream media. Especially back in the 90's. Not because it doesn't appear on TV but because it's readership ... especially back in the 90's ... was but a tiny fraction of the CNN's TV audience. Or any other mainstream TV network. Or any mainstream newspaper or newsmagazine. The reason most people are still unaware of the details in the Foster or Brown's deaths ... in most of the Clinton related scandals ... is because they DON'T use the internet as their source of news. It's the reason they were also so ignorant about Obama's history. People like me (and maybe you) are the exception, not the rule.

Matt Drudge might disagree.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/120767/output/print

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/tripp073098.htm

I hate to break this to you, BAC, but Linda Tripp making a statement doesn't quite count as "the original senate investigation report". Nor does a Newsweek summary article whose only mention of a Senate investigation involves hearings "next week"...and since this article was published in 1995, that means it was a year after Fiske's report was issued.

But it does undermine your insinuation that because they didn't rule on the accuracy of Knowlton's claims, they have no merit.

Just as it undermines your assertion that they included Knowlton's claims because they did have merit. They made no judgement about the factual accurary of Knowlton's claims.

They simply ruled on a matter of law regarding that specific statute.

Really? I'm almost certain you insinuated that some of the facts I've noted must be false simply because I can't quote a mainstream source containing them.

Very good.

Perhaps, for a hat trick, you can explain how my doubting a specific document you apparently could only find on conspiracy websites differs from your strawman assertion that I "claim the mainstream media reports all".

 

[BeAChooser]

One at bedtime and move up to 3...hmm...50 mg three times a day. Where have I heard that before? Oh, now I remember, Isn't that the usual starting dose for treating DEPRESSION that you posted? Gee I suppose it is. Now why would the doctor want him to increase his dose to 150 mg/day when the usual dose for insomnia is 25-50 mg? Curious.

Apparently you not only haven't found any sources to back up your claims, you never bothered to look at the ones I supplied.

Here are mine again. Note the bolded portions.

http://mental-health.emedtv.com/desyrel/desyrel-dosage.html

The recommended starting Desyrel dose when treating depression is 150 mg per day (divided into two or three doses per day). Your healthcare provider may choose to increase the dosage if symptoms continue, or decrease the dose if side effects occur. The maximum recommended dose of Desyrel is 400 mg total per day, although people who have been hospitalized due to their depression may take up to 600 mg per day.

... snip ...

Usually, the dose of Desyrel for insomnia is lower, starting with Desyrel 25 mg or 50 mg at bedtime.

http://www.rxlist.com/desyrel-drug.htm

DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ... snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested.The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

http://www.psychatlanta.com/documents/trazadone.pdf

When prescribed for insomnia and sleep disturbance, the usual dose for trazodone is 50–100 mg at bedtime, but some patients may need doses as high as 150–200 mg. ... snip ... For treatment of depression, trazodone is gradually increased to the effective therapeutic dosage of 300–400 mg, although some individuals may require dosages up to 600 mg."

http://books.google.com/books?id=4g...a=X&oi=book_result&resnum=9&ct=result#PPP1,M1

Symptom-Focused Psychiatric Drug Therapy for Managed Care, By Sonny Joseph ... snip ... For treatment of insomnia and as an adjunctive medication, the dosage range is 50 to 150 mg, given at bedtime for insomnia

http://209.85.173.132/search?q=cach...+dosage+AD+Schmetzer&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=3&gl=us

Primer For Prescription Medicines ... snip ... Two of the most commonly used medications for insomnia in the United States are ... snip ... and the antidepressant trazodone (Desyrel) used in the range of 25 to 150 mg, which is lower than its effective antidepressant dose.

And let me add a few more links.

http://www.pdrhealth.com/drugs/rx/r...es1128.html&contentName=Desyrel&contentId=173

Desyrel is prescribed for the treatment of depression.

... snip ...

The usual starting dosage is a total of 150 milligrams per day, divided into 2 or more smaller doses. Your doctor may increase your dose by 50 milligrams per day every 3 or 4 days. Total dosage should not exceed 400 milligrams per day, divided into smaller doses.

http://www.inhousedrugstore.com/anti-depressants/desyrel.html

The daily dosage is usually administered in three divided doses.

Adults

Depression - The optimal dosage is between 300 - 400 mg/day. It is suggested that a starting dose of 150 mg/day is given for the first week, increasing to 300 mg/day or higher according to the clinical response (600 mg/day dosage has been reported).

http://www.realmentalhealth.com/medications/trazodone.asp

For relief of depression.

... snip ...

An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for out patients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

http://www.druglib.com/druginfo/desyrel/indications_dosage/

DESYREL is indicated for the treatment of depression. ...snip ... An initial dose of 150 mg/day in divided doses is suggested. The dose may be increased by 50 mg/day every three to four days. The maximum dose for outpatients usually should not exceed 400 mg/day in divided doses.

http://www.drugs.com/cons/desyrel.html

Adults—Oral, to start, 50 milligrams per dose taken three times a day, or 75 milligrams per dose taken two times a day. Your doctor may increase your dose if needed.

So ....

To summarize the above, the recommended STARTING dose for treating depression is not 50 mg/day (Foster's starting dose) but 150 mg/day. And the 150 mg/day starting dose is to be divided into several doses a day rather than one dose prescribed at bedtime, as Foster's prescription specified. For depression, the starting dosage is increased every 4 to 5 days ... with the therapeutic range higher than 150 mg/day.

In contrast, the STARTING dose to treat insomnia is 25-50 mg at bedtime. Just like Foster was prescribed. The word STARTING means it can go higher than that. According to the above sources that dose can range from 50 to 200 mg/day. Foster's prescription went to 150 mg/day ... which is lower than the effective antidepressant dose and only the STARTING dose for use as an antidepressant. The dosage for insomnia is to be given at bedtime (as Foster's prescription directed).

I think it is clear enough from the above that you don't know what you are talking about. Would you like to continue this charade ... *doctor*?

 

[BeAChooser]

Obviously it means that Apothecon Inc, the manufacturer of Desyrel, is part of the Clinton-loving conspiracy.

No, obviously you didn't read or understand the links I posted on dosage either. But that doesn't surprise me in your case.

 

[BeAChooser]

I think they can be summarized thusly:

• I hate the Clintons with such rabid intensity that I will believe absolutely anything bad that any crackpot website says about them regardless of the evidence and in spite of the fact that the conspiracy to protect them would involve thousands of people who have somehow never chosen to reveal the evidence for this conspiracy in a way that any court in the land would accept.

Thank you, Tricky.

You have shown your true colors on this thread.

A skeptic, you are not.

Able to argue the facts, you are not.

A member of the Cult of Clinton? Most certainly.

 

[A'isha]

No, obviously you didn't read or understand the links I posted on dosage either. But that doesn't surprise me in your case.

Hmm...

"Dosing

1. Sleep
1. Dose: 25-100 mg PO qhs
2. Average: 50 mg PO qhs
2. Major Depression
1. Start: 50 to 150 mg per day in divided doses
2. Effective dose: 400 to 600 mg in divided doses"
(http://www.fpnotebook.com/Psych/Pharm/Dsyrl.htm)

50 to 150mg per day for major depression!

What was Foster prescribed again? 50mg to start, working up to 150mg per day. Remarkable coincidence, don't you think?

And why start with a low dosage and work up to 150mg, with a dose starting at bedtime?

"The dosage should be initiated at a low level and increased gradually, noting the clinical response and any evidence of intolerance."
(http://www.drugs.com/pro/desyrel.html)

Foster complained of insomnia and told his doctor he felt depressed. His doctor gave him a prescription for an anti-depressant, for a dosage higher than that normally given for insomnia (note how few of these drug information websites talk about dosages for insomnia being 150mg, and how many for 100mg or lower), but right in line with the normal starting dose for depression, since it can take a few weeks for the effects of Desyrel to be seen. And, per the official FDA recommendation, Foster's doctor worked him up to that starting dose.

 

[Tricky]

Thank you, Tricky.

You have shown your true colors on this thread.

No, no, thank you for this opportunity. I think I demonstrated my points sufficiently well. If you doubt me, then why don't you demonstrate your confidence by asking the very people you have been preaching to here? Oh. I forgot. We're all in on the conspiracy.

Hey Starr! Where's my silence money check? You better sent it PDQ or I'm gonna crack and tell BAC the real truth!


*****
ETA:
One thing that I always find surprising about Conspiracy Theorists is that they never seem to question why they are allowed to continue to reveal this government suppression of truth. (My brother-in-law 9-11 troofer has never been able to answer this question.) I mean, these guys are totally evil and incredibly powerful, yet, the 9-11 truth sites and the anti-Clinton sites continue to operate without any apparent suppression. What's going on with that?

They're willing to wipe out Vince Fosters and a whole list of other, and suborn Ken Starr and all of the doctors and judges in all the investigations, but they can't manage to take out a bunch of people with websites who are actively involved with revealing all their secrets! So are these operatives incredibly powerful are are they hopelessly inept? Why can't the Clintons put together a decent cabal?

Maybe you can answer that, BAC. Why are you still free to write these things? Why isn't your body being hauled off by Ken Starr's CIA goons?

 

[Darth Rotor]

Yeah. You've claimed that before.

No, I haven't. You are a liar, yet again, or merely mistaken. I'll go with the former on this one, given your habit of deliberately blowing smoke all over a topic.

Gary did not work at 16th Airforce. My associates at 16th Air Force were my original sources of input on that mishap, and the usual message traffic when one is a watch officer. That's over ten years ago. (Gary worked at a USAF unit in Germany.) We didn't meet until 2003. Again, it was odd, having not known he was on the investigation team, to stumble across that in conversation as we were sharing old war stories. So I asked him about your horsecrap. Stop lying BAC about who ran anywhere. I even offered to sign your petition, if you ever began one and if the Brown family actually wanted to reopen the investigation. Your time bandit act got old last time, and it's still old, as is your variation on argument from ignorance.

Back to the Hillary as Secretary of State Topic, not Vince Foster:

The change is that Bill Clinton isn't the Sec State, and Hillary Clinton holds an executive branch job, rather than wearing her husband's stars.

We'll see how she handles it. I predict a few gaffes in the first 100 days. Trying to hard does that to people. I also predict that Bill will provide entertainment for one and all. He can't help himself. His potential to be a different version of Billy Carter in Air F___ One is significantly greater than zero.

Buy some popcorn, it'll be a laugh riot.

DR