• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

The Death of Vince Foster - What Really Happened? (1995)

My word! This is really delusional.

It's not delusional at all. All anyone need do is examine the posts in this thread. Have you done that, angrysoba? Let's see.

You entered this debate in post #84 in the thread from which the latest posts in this thread were moved (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6388927#post6388927 ). It that post you stated you had not read the edition of Aaronovitch's book that deals with Foster and said "I don't know very much about the case". You certainly didn't present any facts about the case or dispute any facts that I had already offered about it. You briefly talked about Kennedy and 9/11 conspiracies instead.

Then you made post #415, in this thread. There you never mentioned the Foster case directly. You indirectly tried to dismiss it, however, with a one-liner claiming republicans had a greater motive for finding Clinton guilty of murder than covering it up. You spent the rest of that post talking about Kennedy and Bush.

And in post #418, although you were applauding a comment made by another poster who himself has studiously avoided addressing the facts in the Foster case, you again presented and discussed no facts. You again studiously avoided every fact that I had posted.

I decided to respond to you in post #419 because although you had nothing to say about the Foster case itself, you had tried to defend the Aaronovitch book. I proceeded to list for you a host of more facts that prove Aaronovitch has not accurately portrayed the events surrounding the Clinton administration … specifically in the matter of Ron Brown's death and Whitewater. That he's tried to deceive his readers using among other things, the claims of proven liars.

In post #422, I responded to your one-liner about republicans having more motive to prove Clinton murdered than cover up a murder by listing a string of facts showing reasons why Bush might not have wanted to pursue allegations of foul play by Clinton's administration and democrats, and then showed you some examples where that appears to be precisely what Bush's adminstration did … not pursue allegations of foul play.

You ignored all that and started off post #434 again stating that you are not that familiar with the Foster case. Then, instead of discussing the Foster case facts I'd offered, you dishonestly misrepresented my stated views on the case in an attempt to make it seem that the "official" scenario might be "just as likely". Next, you tried to link me and my methodology to that of birthers. And you again tried to defend Aaronovitch by suggesting his remark on the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that I'd cited was "probably" being used ironically to mock the Clintons instead of defend them as I had indicated. You closed this post by then admitting that you haven't "actually read most of what" I've written.

My response to that was post #436, where I showed that you (1) misrepresented what I've said about what happened in the Foster case, (2) made claims about Foster having depression without offering any facts and clearly having ignored all the data I'd already offered proving that claim false, (3) were dishonest in trying to link the Foster case to birthers, (4) were acting like a Truther in ignoring the 95% of the evidence that brings into doubt the government's theory and relying only on the 5% being used by the government to suggest a suicide, (5) apparently were ignorant of the facts about Lisa Foster even though they'd been covered in my posts, and (6) completely mistaken about the intent of Aaronovitch's comments on the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Did you respond to that by challenging any of the specifics I'd noted? No. Instead, in post #437, you responded with a flippant one liner that again avoided all discussion of the facts in the Foster case, and failed to acknowledge or deal with anything I'd posted to you.

And here you are calling me delusional after I pointed out that folks on your side of the debate have studiously avoiding the facts and keep making unsupported and often downright false claims in truther-like fashion. LOL! Hate to tell you, but you are a poster child proving that I'm right. :D
 
It's not delusional at all. All anyone need do is examine the posts in this thread. Have you done that, angrysoba? Let's see.

[...]

And here you are calling me delusional after I pointed out that folks on your side of the debate have studiously avoiding the facts and keep making unsupported and often downright false claims in truther-like fashion. LOL! Hate to tell you, but you are a poster child proving that I'm right. :D

Honestly, I haven't been able to find a site that debunked your horsecrap point by point, and there's no way I'm doing all the original research myself. It's just not a big enough issue to spend time on, and your arguments are self-debunking because of their reliance on ridiculous fantasy scenarios.

Three investigations, one of which took three years, not a hint of another suspect. Given the type and quality of your objections, that's more than enough for me.

You employ the same argumentative methods in the economics threads: just dump an insane amount of information in a post and hope the size intimidates people. I know enough about those subjects to be able to dismiss your insanity quickly, and I have immediate access to better sources than the vapid right-wing blogs you rely on. Thus, by analogy, I know that you're tossing out terrible information. I'm just not going to wade through it.

Perhaps if you were willing (or able) to make a concise argument on a single point I would be more inclined to deal with the underlying facts, but this scatter-shot aerial bombardment method of yours is just a waste of time.
 
It's not delusional at all. All anyone need do is examine the posts in this thread. Have you done that, angrysoba? Let's see.

You entered this debate in post #84 in the thread from which the latest posts in this thread were moved (http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?p=6388927#post6388927 ). It that post you stated you had not read the edition of Aaronovitch's book that deals with Foster and said "I don't know very much about the case". You certainly didn't present any facts about the case or dispute any facts that I had already offered about it. You briefly talked about Kennedy and 9/11 conspiracies instead.

Then you made post #415, in this thread. There you never mentioned the Foster case directly. You indirectly tried to dismiss it, however, with a one-liner claiming republicans had a greater motive for finding Clinton guilty of murder than covering it up. You spent the rest of that post talking about Kennedy and Bush.

And in post #418, although you were applauding a comment made by another poster who himself has studiously avoided addressing the facts in the Foster case, you again presented and discussed no facts. You again studiously avoided every fact that I had posted.

I decided to respond to you in post #419 because although you had nothing to say about the Foster case itself, you had tried to defend the Aaronovitch book. I proceeded to list for you a host of more facts that prove Aaronovitch has not accurately portrayed the events surrounding the Clinton administration … specifically in the matter of Ron Brown's death and Whitewater. That he's tried to deceive his readers using among other things, the claims of proven liars.

In post #422, I responded to your one-liner about republicans having more motive to prove Clinton murdered than cover up a murder by listing a string of facts showing reasons why Bush might not have wanted to pursue allegations of foul play by Clinton's administration and democrats, and then showed you some examples where that appears to be precisely what Bush's adminstration did … not pursue allegations of foul play.

You ignored all that and started off post #434 again stating that you are not that familiar with the Foster case. Then, instead of discussing the Foster case facts I'd offered, you dishonestly misrepresented my stated views on the case in an attempt to make it seem that the "official" scenario might be "just as likely". Next, you tried to link me and my methodology to that of birthers. And you again tried to defend Aaronovitch by suggesting his remark on the "vast right-wing conspiracy" that I'd cited was "probably" being used ironically to mock the Clintons instead of defend them as I had indicated. You closed this post by then admitting that you haven't "actually read most of what" I've written.

My response to that was post #436, where I showed that you (1) misrepresented what I've said about what happened in the Foster case, (2) made claims about Foster having depression without offering any facts and clearly having ignored all the data I'd already offered proving that claim false, (3) were dishonest in trying to link the Foster case to birthers, (4) were acting like a Truther in ignoring the 95% of the evidence that brings into doubt the government's theory and relying only on the 5% being used by the government to suggest a suicide, (5) apparently were ignorant of the facts about Lisa Foster even though they'd been covered in my posts, and (6) completely mistaken about the intent of Aaronovitch's comments on the "vast right-wing conspiracy".

Did you respond to that by challenging any of the specifics I'd noted? No. Instead, in post #437, you responded with a flippant one liner that again avoided all discussion of the facts in the Foster case, and failed to acknowledge or deal with anything I'd posted to you.

And here you are calling me delusional after I pointed out that folks on your side of the debate have studiously avoiding the facts and keep making unsupported and often downright false claims in truther-like fashion. LOL! Hate to tell you, but you are a poster child proving that I'm right. :D

I am saying it is delusional to assume that every rational person reading the thread who hasn't commented must be in agreement with you.

In fact you even define a rational person as someone who hasn't tried to challenge you and made a number of assumptions about their thought processes.

I think that is delusional. However, I will eat humble pie if the silent rational majority out there would stop being coy and chime in to say that they agree with BeAChooser.
 
I think that is delusional. However, I will eat humble pie if the silent rational majority out there would stop being coy and chime in to say that they agree with BeAChooser.

LOL! I see you and TrainWreck still don't want to discuss a single bit of the data I provided. That you're still assidiously avoiding any discussion of the actual facts in the case. You'd rather talk about silent majorities, it seems.

Hey, I have an idea. Maybe you can talk someone from YOUR silent majority into joining this thread and actually discussing the facts I offered ... say the facts proving instances where the FBI and Starr tampered with evidence and witnesses? Think you can do that? Or is that hopeless? :D

And by the way, do you agree with TrainWreck that this is "not a big enough issue to spend time on"? That the possible murder of a top government official who was in the Whitehouse and the personal lawyer of a President, followed by a deliberate effort by the government to cover that murder up is not a major issue? ;)

And if that's the case, I wonder if TW (and you) feel the same way in the Ron Brown case? That the potential murder of a Secretary of Commerce, and 30+ other people, in a case involving possible treasonous activities, is just "not a big enough issue to spend time on"? :D
 
You employ the same argumentative methods in the economics threads: just dump an insane amount of information in a post and hope the size intimidates people.

Oh, the Alex Jones method.

LOL! Do I need to simplify things for you two? Tell you what ... let's just discuss the "green oven mitt". Want to do that? :D
 
I am saying it is delusional to assume that every rational person reading the thread who hasn't commented must be in agreement with you.

In fact you even define a rational person as someone who hasn't tried to challenge you and made a number of assumptions about their thought processes.

I think that is delusional. However, I will eat humble pie if the silent rational majority out there would stop being coy and chime in to say that they agree with BeAChooser.
I think that most of us have really just reached a point in which we simply avoid an argument in which the failure to address every single line of text will be seen as a reason why he has won the argument.

Sorry to say that sometimes you can simply judge a book by its cover and look at the source (Arkansas Project) and view the so called "evidence" through that lens.
 
LOL! ...

And by the way, do you agree with TrainWreck that this is "not a big enough issue to spend time on"? That the possible murder of a top government official who was in the Whitehouse and the personal lawyer of a President, followed by a deliberate effort by the government to cover that murder up is not a major issue? ;)

And if that's the case, I wonder if TW (and you) feel the same way in the Ron Brown case? That the potential murder of a Secretary of Commerce, and 30+ other people, in a case involving possible treasonous activities, is just "not a big enough issue to spend time on"? :D

It's obviously serious enough that you begin every one of your posts with "LOL!"
 
It is the forum version of..."There you go again." or "Say it ain't so Joe" or simply a chuckle. It is a way of making fun of you to the audience or in this case an imaginary audience who really believes in the Arkansas Project invented Clinton is a murdering drug lord conspiracy.
 
Still don't want to address the facts or even answer the questions I specifically asked you? Seems to me you are hiding, AS. :D

Why should he, when you'll just ignore any dismantling of your ridiculous theories and keep right on posting like it never happened. I posted right in this very thread about how Klowleton's statement being attached to the report didn't at all mean that the judges agreed with Knowleton's delusional claims (complete with citations of the reasoning given by not just the panel of judges, but also Knowleton's own lawyer).

And yet there yoju are, just a few posts above, talking melodramatically about what the judges might have done had they learned about MORE of the non-evidence in this case, as if all my posts telling you that things didn't work that way had never happened.

A better example of "I reject your reality and substitute my own" I've never seen.
 
One more observation about the "Vince Foster truthers".

The fundamental assumption, for which, as far as I know now evidence whatsoever has been provided, is that if Vince Foster was murdered, Clinton did it, or was responsible for it.

As far as I can tell, the "logic" (using the term very loosely) is: Foster worked for Clinton; Clinton was evil; therefore Clinton did it.

Of course, in the real world, if you want to nail Clinton for murdering Foster, proving that it was actually a murder is just the first step. Foster, if he was murdered, could have been murdered by his wife, his wife's jealous lover, his lover's jealous wife, a friend who believed Foster betrayed him somehow, his bookie, his drug dealer, some random burglar, CIA agents/FBI agents/Whitehouse staffers/Mafia hitmen acting under orders from Clinton, the NWO or the Reptilians (roughly in descending order of probability).
 
Last edited:
I posted right in this very thread about how Klowleton's statement being attached to the report didn't at all mean that the judges agreed with Knowleton's delusional claims

LOL! After all this time, and with two tries, you still can't even have Patrick Knowlton's name right. :rolleyes:

I'm not going to rehash all this again. It's a circular of waste of time debating you. You'll make the same arguments, utter the same dishonesties. Besides, readers need only go look at this thread and the ones it links (like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129329&page=1) to see how utterly dishonest and Truther-like you have been in this debate, ANTPogo. They'll see example after example.

Such as when I wrote "It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping", you asked "It is? by who?" How could you possibly have been unaware that Lisa Foster told FBI agents: "FOSTER complained to LISA FOSTER that he was suffering from insomnia, but he did not want to take sleeping pills because he was afraid that he would become addicted to them. FOSTER would get up in the morning and say to LISA FOSTER that he had not slept at all."?

The fact is that you outright lied about what Miquel Rodriguez said in our debate. You totally misrepresented what Knowlton said. And in Truther-like fashion you smeared both. You've ignored fact after fact, witness after witness, and only cherry picked (and then distorted) the few things you think might prove the government scenario is valid. You are one of those who has acts like a Truther, ANTPogo. You have clearly failed the litmus test. Have a nice day. :D
 
One more observation about the "Vince Foster truthers".

CORed, let me offer 10 observations about REAL Vince Foster Truthers:

One. Vince Foster Truthers invariably focus on a very narrow set of what they claim to be the facts and ignore the vast body of demonstrable facts. Whereas I look at the complete body of facts.

Two. Vince Foster Truthers will ignore 95-99% percent of the sourced facts that are offered to support the Vince Foster allegation. Whereas I have directly addressed/disputed *at least* 95% of the claims of fact your side has made.

Three. When Vince Foster Truthers do present what they claim are facts, they often distort them or lie about them. I've proven this over and over on this thread. Point a distortion or lie I've made about the facts.

Four. The response of Vince Foster Truthers to my fact filled posts is to regurgitate the same cherry picked and often dishonest claims, long after they've been debunked.

Five. Vince Foster Truthers are also very illogical beings. They think a witness list that includes the first (and only) doctor to see Foster at the death site, all the EMS personnel, the first person to find Foster's body, another civilian who was at the park at the time Foster supposedly was killed, several Park police officers who witnessed the death scene, the FBI agents who took the statements of Foster's family members and his personal doctor, three experts in handwriting, and Starr's own top investigator before he quit the IOC in disgust charging a coverup, is a "poor" witness list. They think a "good" witness list is one consisting solely of Starr's 3 eyewitnesses to Foster's *clinical* depression, all of whom told the FBI and Park Police for days after Foster's death that he showed absolutely no sign of depression and then changed their account 180 degrees a week later after a meeting in the Whitehouse. And my logic is definitely not that "Foster worked for Clinton; Clinton was evil; therefore Clinton did it." So it's your "logic" that is demonstrably flawed, CORed.

Six. Vince Foster Truthers concoct all sorts of imaginary scenarios out of thin air as their substitute for dealing with the actual evidence. Like you just did in your post when you wrote "Of course, in the real world, if you want to nail Clinton for murdering Foster, proving that it was actually a murder is just the first step. Foster, if he was murdered, could have been murdered by his wife, his wife's jealous lover, his lover's jealous wife, a friend who believed Foster betrayed him somehow, his bookie, his drug dealer, some random burglar, CIA agents/FBI agents/Whitehouse staffers/Mafia hitmen acting under orders from Clinton, the NWO or the Reptilians (roughly in descending order of probability)".

Seven. Vince Foster Truthers often rely on demonstrably untrustworthy witnesses and *experts*. Again, I note the unreliability in the 3 *key* witnesses used to claim Foster was depressed. The unreliability of Starr's expert on depression, Dr Berman. The unreliability of the pathologist, Dr Beyer, who Starr totally relies on to support the claim of an 1" x 1-1/4" hole in the back of Foster's head. Truthers think everyone is lying except their few cherry-picked *witnesses* and *experts*. Well, prove any of my experts and eyewitnesses are liars, like I've proven your side's are, CORed.

Eight. Vince Foster Truthers fall back on personal attacks when their presentation of claimed facts falls flat on it's face. You haven't done this yet. Good for you. But you certainly have decided to take the side of those who have engaged in this tactic on this very thread.

Nine. Vince Foster Truthers like to play the innocent game and accuse their opponent of sinking to the level of debate they are actually already at in the debate. I think you might qualify for this.

Ten. Finally, Vince Foster Truthers often try to link their opponents to other unrelated matters or groups, that they think will discredit their opponents, rather than deal with the actual facts in the case at hand. You did that in this thread, too.

:D
 
LOL! After all this time, and with two tries, you still can't even have Patrick Knowlton's name right. :rolleyes:

My only excuse for getting that incorrect is that I was posting from my Droid, and so couldn't refer back to the posts with the proper spelling of his name.

I'm glad to see you're just as obsessed about irrelevancies as ever, BAC.

I'm not going to rehash all this again. It's a circular of waste of time debating you. You'll make the same arguments, utter the same dishonesties. Besides, readers need only go look at this thread and the ones it links (like http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=129329&page=1) to see how utterly dishonest and Truther-like you have been in this debate, ANTPogo. They'll see example after example.

Yes, I encourage everyone to read this thread and others, to see just how disconnected from reality BAC's statement above really is.

Such as when I wrote "It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping", you asked "It is? by who?" How could you possibly have been unaware that Lisa Foster told FBI agents: "FOSTER complained to LISA FOSTER that he was suffering from insomnia, but he did not want to take sleeping pills because he was afraid that he would become addicted to them. FOSTER would get up in the morning and say to LISA FOSTER that he had not slept at all."?

Because I was fully aware of that, BAC.

You have a real bad habit of dishonestly editing my posts, BAC. My full response to your statement was "It is? by who? I recall descriptions of Foster's insomnia, but not anything showing that it was particularly severe." Because, in that particular post I was responding to, you were trying to argue that the reason Foster was given a high dosage of Desyrel (suitable for treating depression) and not the lower insomnia dose was that Foster's insomnia was severe enough to warrant that. I was asking you to try and back that claim up, since that's not why Foster's doctor said he prescribed the dosage he did (Foster's doctor was concerned enough about depression in his patient to ask him, point-blank, if he was indeed depressed). In fact, you yourself admitted that Foster's doctor was concerned about Foster's depression, and considered his level of insomnia a symptom of that depression.

Strangely, in the very same post that you quote-mined my statement above from, I once again point out that admission to you (you'd been ducking it for a while), and ask you to explain why you were trying so hard to dissociate Foster's insomnia from his depression, backpedalling furiously from your admission that they were connected (something you never did explain).

Now, are you going to continue to pretend you never said that, like you have been, and pretending that my repeated posts on the subject never existed? Perhaps aided in your self-delusion by a bit more judiciously and deliberately misleading editing of my posts?

The fact is that you outright lied about what Miquel Rodriguez said in our debate.

By quoting his exact words.

You totally misrepresented what Knowlton said.

By quoting the exact words of both his lawyer and the panel of judges.

And this is far from the first time that you've accused me of lying and misrepresentation, to which I responded by correctly noting that I merely quoted their exact words. As noted in the links above, we had this exact same exchange over a year ago. You're bordering on the pathological here, BAC.

Do my posts just not exist in your world? Is there some kind of mental block that renders you incapable of reading what I write?

And in Truther-like fashion you smeared both.

If your "arguments" are reduced to the bizarre claim that quoting people's own words is somehow smearing them, BAC, perhaps it's time you gave up.

You've ignored fact after fact, witness after witness, and only cherry picked (and then distorted) the few things you think might prove the government scenario is valid. You are one of those who has acts like a Truther, ANTPogo. You have clearly failed the litmus test. Have a nice day. :D

Contacted a prosecutor with your earthshattering, shocking evidence yet, BAC?
 
Last edited:
CORed, let me offer 10 observations about REAL Vince Foster Truthers:

VK9bA.png
 
Six. Vince Foster Truthers concoct all sorts of imaginary scenarios out of thin air as their substitute for dealing with the actual evidence. Like you just did in your post when you wrote "Of course, in the real world, if you want to nail Clinton for murdering Foster, proving that it was actually a murder is just the first step. Foster, if he was murdered, could have been murdered by his wife, his wife's jealous lover, his lover's jealous wife, a friend who believed Foster betrayed him somehow, his bookie, his drug dealer, some random burglar, CIA agents/FBI agents/Whitehouse staffers/Mafia hitmen acting under orders from Clinton, the NWO or the Reptilians (roughly in descending order of probability)".

Interesting: What about my statement that you quoted do you think is imaginary? I was simply giving a generic list of who likely suspects might be in any murder (with the NWO and Reptilians added, tongue in cheek). Is it your contention that if Vince Foster was in fact murdered, that Clinton or people acting on his behalf are the only possible suspects? I think you helped me make my point.
 
Because I was fully aware of that, BAC. … snip … I recall descriptions of Foster's insomnia, but not anything showing that it was particularly severe.

So you were "fully aware" of an FBI interview report that had Lisa Foster saying "FOSTER would get up in the morning and say to LISA FOSTER that he had not slept at all", and you didn't consider that severe insomnia? My goodness what insomnia could be worse than insomina where you don't sleep "at all"? :D

Because, in that particular post I was responding to, you were trying to argue that the reason Foster was given a high dosage of Desyrel (suitable for treating depression) and not the lower insomnia dose was that Foster's insomnia

You got it wrong again. Foster was NOT given "a high dose" of Desyrel, one "suitable for treating depression", and I NEVER suggested that he was. You are a LIAR. I have always stated that he was prescribed a low dose in the range that is clearly identified in the literature as being for insomnia … 50 to 150 mg at night. The pharmacist instructions said to take 1-3 50mg pills at night. His doctor clearly stated the medicine was for insomnia. And the effective dose for clinical depression (which is what Starr and many of you Vince Foster Truthers insist Foster had even though he didn't come close to meeting the DSM guidelines for that) is clearly identified in the literature as 300-400 mg per day (or even higher) in divided doses (i.e., not just at bedtime).

In our previous debates, you made the dishonest claims that 150mg is "the depression dose, not the insomnia dose" and that "insomnia dosages for trazodone are 25 to 50 mg, rarely exceeding 100mg." In fact, you said, right before I said "It is admitted that Foster was having a LOT of trouble sleeping" and you questioned that in your Truther-like fashion, that "His doctor gave him a prescription for an anti-depressant, for a dosage higher than that normally given for insomnia" which is an outright lie … one that I had already debunked prior to your "It is? by who?" response. Here is the post where I made that statemetn: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=4251875&postcount=243 . As anyone can see, by the time you asked "It is? by who?", many posts later, I had already supplied you nearly with a dozen sources that proved your initial claim about dosage utterly false. Here are some of them, again, just to illustrate to our readers how dishonest and Truther-like you were and are still acting, ANTPogo:

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). … 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."

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...t#v=onepage&q=desyrel insomnia dosage&f=false "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, and in divided doses for other purposes."

http://www.questia.com/googleSchola...r3CYYR!-736511869!1551774961?docId=5006792241 "Two of the most commonly used medications for insomnia in the United States are … snip … and the antidepressant trazodone (Desyrel[TM]) used in the range of 25 to 150 mg, which is lower than its effective antidepressant dose."

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. … snip … 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 ... [b/]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://books.google.com/books?id=jG...esult&resnum=3&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false "The main indication for the use of trazodone is major depressive disorder. There is a clear dose-response relationship, with dosages of 250 to 600 mg a day being necessary for trazodone to have therapeutic benefit."

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/508820 "The dose of trazodone needed to induce and maintain sleep is not well understood. Thus, clinicians use anywhere from 25 mg to 150 mg taken at bedtime as a hypnotic dose."

http://books.google.com/books?id=Bc...esult&resnum=6&ct=result#v=onepage&q=&f=false "Mood Disorders By S. Nassir Ghaemi ... snip ... Trazodone was dosed similarly to TCAs, requiring about 300 mg/day or more for effect, which often led to sedation. As a result, trazodone soon developed a niche as a sleep aid, especially in low doses (25 to 150 mg/day)."

http://www.hopkins-hivguide.org/diagnosis/organ_system/psychiatric/insomnia.html "Trazodone (25-200 mg qhs) most common antidepressant used for treatment of insomnia."

http://www.prohealth.com/library/showarticle.cfm?id=2842&t=CFIDS_FM "Drugs commonly used as sleep aids ... Desyrel 50-150 mg"

http://www.medicinenet.com/trazodone/article.htm "For the treatment of depression, the dose for adults is 150-600 mg per day. The initial starting dose usually is 150 mg per day. ... snip ... Doses of 25-75 mg are prescribed for insomnia."

To summarize the above (all of which was posted before you made your dishonest claims and asked your Truther-like question), the recommended STARTING dose for treating depression with that medicine 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 to be increased every 4 to 5 days ... with the therapeutic range higher than 150 mg/day … much higher … more in the 300 - 400 mg range and as high as 600mg/day. For insomnia, the recommended starting dose is 25-50 mg/day with dosages up to 150 mg/day taken at bedtime. Just like Foster was prescribed by his doctor, who said he was being treated for insomnia.

You, ANTPogo, were displaying and continue to display all the dishonesty of a 9/11 Truther.

I was asking you to try and back that claim up

The above proves that statement a lie. At the time you made that statement I had already provided the above evidence as to what the insomnia and depression dosages are, ANTPogo. Check the thread out for yourself.

Foster's doctor was concerned enough about depression in his patient to ask him, point-blank, if he was indeed depressed.

Again, you are dishonest.

First of all, here is what the report of the FBI interview with Foster's doctor, Dr. Watkins, shortly after Foster's death, said (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1571/is_/ai_17817574 ):

"[Watkins recalled that] Foster sounded a little tired . . . Watkins prescribed desyrel, 50 milligram tablets. . . . Watkins knew that it took 10 days to two weeks to take effect [as an antidepressant] but helps with insomnia, sometimes the very first day. . . . He felt it was important for Foster to start sleeping better and thought if he got some rest he would feel a lot better. He did not think that Foster was significantly depressed nor had Foster given the impression that he was 'in crisis.' From what Foster told him, Foster's condition sounded mild and situational. . . . Foster was not one to come to Watkins with stress-related problems. . . . Lisa [Foster's widow] told him that they had gone away and had a nice weekend on July 17-18. . . . He had the distinct impression . . . that Lisa was taken completely by surprise by this."

That does not say or even imply that the doctor told the FBI he had asked Foster "point-blank" if he was depressed. It only says he did not think Foster was significantly depressed. It says his condition "sounded" mild and situational.

Beyond that, the doctor made no further statements ... until, that is, Starr claimed that the doctor provided him with a note he'd typed shortly after the death, a note that happens to say Foster felt depressed. Here's what that note said according to Starr's report:

"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."

Again, it says Foster complained about insomnia, not depression. Again, any depression he did have was described as only "mild", not "clinical". And the medication and dosage was one routinely used for insomnia ... not depression. And while it does say that Foster "felt he had mild depression", you no idea how that topic came up during the doctor's contact with Foster.

And, we have good reason to suspect the note of being another fabrication that Starr hoped would bolster his depression fiction. Again we have a piece of *evidence* that curiously never turned up during the first two *investigations* of Foster's death but was only discovered by Starr. And this is the same Starr who concocted the green oven mitt evidence that none of you want to discuss, tampered with Lisa Foster's FBI interview statement, lied about Foster losing weight, lied about Foster's family and friends noting Foster's depression, lied by claiming Foster's depression was "clinical", lied about Foster being prescribed antidepressant medication (he was "prescribed" insomnia medication), lied when he said "Foster had called a family doctor for antidepressant medication" (Foster called for help in sleeping), and by the way, also lied about the Filegate FBI files having been returned to the FBI. Given all that, why do you believe this piece of evidence is even authentic?

In fact, you yourself admitted that Foster's doctor was concerned about Foster's depression, and considered his level of insomnia a symptom of that depression.

LIAR. Nothing I posted admitted any such thing. Go ahead, Truther, try to prove that claim by quoting me. Bet you can't. :D

Like I said before, ANTPogo, I have no interest in going around and around with you again on this. I've already made my case and you've made yours, although as I think folks can see, yours is based on disinformation and outright lies. But like a good Truther, you just can't let go and will regurgitate the same false statements over and over and over, no matter what facts are posted to you. I leave it up to our readers to study this and the other threads and see that everything you claim about Rodriguez and Knowlton was debunked by me, just as I debunked your lies about the medication, dosage and supposed doctor contact. I will not waste the time hitting my head again and again against a brick wall. It's why I've stopped posting on 9/11 Truther threads. You can't debate Truthers. You can only show them for what they are, and leave it at that, as I've done with you and a few others here. Have a good day. :D

You're bordering on the pathological here, BAC.

LOL! Sure, Truther, Sure. :rolleyes:
 

Back
Top Bottom