![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 1 to 17 of 17. This is the beginning of the thread.
Posted by IsoM on January 11, 2002, at 1:33:48
Dr. Bob. While I believe Cam is being too rude in his comments to you about Dolphin's new post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89672.html
by stating "Do you have the balls to stand up to this pseudoscientific nonsense? I doubt it!", I do agree in principle with his reply to her post "What They Don't Want You To Know".It bothers me that she & similar people can come on a respected forum where others are seriously looking for answers about depression & post such misleading information. If it was simply a matter of her honestly believing in the benefits of sound nutrition & she personally chose not to use medication, I'd be happy with it. But she's in on a pyramid scheme, perhaps leading people who do need the medical health to the company she works for.
I have a great deal of respect for you & the forums you've set up. Can you not prevent Psycho-Babble from being used to promote such claims as made for the purpose of advertising their products & misleading others?
Posted by akc on January 11, 2002, at 12:12:02
In reply to Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition, posted by IsoM on January 11, 2002, at 1:33:48
Dr. Bob,
Aren't you ultimately the big boss and don't you just have to make a decision on what you want? If you allow the continued push of such products on the board, those who came here because they believed they had found a supportive community where they could get some rational (for the most part) feed back, will look elsewhere, no matter the friends they have made. I will be one.
I know that somewhere you have some concept of what this "experiment" is all about, that none of us may ever understand. All I truly understand -- truly believed when I first got here, was I could find out some information about the meds I was on and find some support for the illness I suffered, from others who truly knew what I was going through.
But when anyone comes on the board and pushes something, the board is not safe. Be it religion (think SalArmy4me) or overpriced "nutritional" supplements -- especially when it is at the expense of things we are here to talk about.
I don't know what your goal is with this board, but it is at a juncture. I hope you make a decision that doesn't cost anyone his or her health or life. At some point, you must step in.
akc
Posted by Krazy Kat on January 11, 2002, at 18:24:21
In reply to Re: Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition, posted by akc on January 11, 2002, at 12:12:02
"I hope you make a decision that doesn't cost anyone his or her health or life."
akc:
This is awfully harsh and unfounded from what I can see. If Dr. Bob has to worry unduly about what people post, and the influence that Might have on others, nothing will ever get said. It's not even as if this person were posting a direct criticism.
I have to agree with Tina - things seem a little too controlled at the moment.
Posted by Sulpicia on January 11, 2002, at 19:15:22
In reply to Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition, posted by IsoM on January 11, 2002, at 1:33:48
> The purpose of psychobabble:
"Psycho-Babble
This is a message board for mutual support and education. It focuses on medication-related issues. Psycho-Social-Babble is for non-medication-related issues
(including "just" being social), and Psycho-Babble Administration concerns the operation of this site. If what you want to do is support someone more than discuss
an issue, just post to whichever board they posted to."the key term would seem to be "medication-related."
since a fair number of these outlandish and potentially dangerous
nutritional claims/cures/whatever tout themselves as dietary supplements, which are currently
defined as foods -- thanks to the marvelous foresight of the Hatch Act & DSHEA, these products are
CLEARLY not drugs or treatments, does discussion of them belong on PB?and yes, there are exceptions, and I imagine that you, and probably most of us, would
recognize them.S.
Posted by akc on January 11, 2002, at 19:17:46
In reply to Re: Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition » akc, posted by Krazy Kat on January 11, 2002, at 18:24:21
Thatis your opinion. If a person comes in touting an unproven product, publishing pieces of "papers" saying the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are conspiring against patients to line their pockets, and a single person quits taking his or her meds, goes into a suicidal depression, and takes his or her life -- yeah, I put that on Dr. Bob and every other person on this board who sits back and doesn't say something.
Some of these recent posts are doing just that -- telling people to quit listening to their doctors and quit taking their meds, and instead take some "nutritional" supplemental as the cure all of their mental illness. That is a very, very dangerous message to allow to be posted even once, but to allow it to continue again and again borders on the edge of irresponsibility.
I'm not a scientist, but I am fairly intelligent and have an idea of what is good science and what is bad. I also have experienced first-hand good medical treatment and really, really rotten treatment. So I think I can set forth my opinion in a rational manner and calmly challenge Dr. Bob to take a stand on this issue. Even if it seems harsh.
The message being touted scares me because I know how irrational at times I become when in the midst of a bad episode, and am capable of making some really bad decisions. One person -- one person being misled is all it takes. If I was in Dr. Bob's shoes, I would want someone to call me on it and say, "hey think about this."
Maybe it is the lawyer in me -- I'm paid to think about all the scenarios sometimes. No -- really, that is not it. I really do care for that one person who is misled. And if you think it is too harsh, then that is your opinion. My position will not change.
akc
Posted by akc on January 11, 2002, at 20:57:07
In reply to Re: Dolphin's New Posting:Dr. Bob's definition, posted by Sulpicia on January 11, 2002, at 19:15:22
S.
You are after my own heart -- that is someone thinking like a lawyer -- and you make an excellant point, IMHO!
Thanks for bringing it up.
akc
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 10:55:49
In reply to Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition, posted by IsoM on January 11, 2002, at 1:33:48
[Posted by Jane D on January 12, 2002, at 2:41:35
In reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89672.html]
> So - do I have this right?
>
> The post is objectionable because we want to protect innocent people, desperate for a cure, from hearing these claims and believing them.
>
> Dolphin went looking for a cure. Dolphin believes these claims. Therefore Dolphin is a bad guy, not an innocent victim.
>
> People who might be misled by pseudoscience in the future are worth endless consideration; people who already have been are not.
>
> There's a problem with the logic here as bad as the ones in the original post.
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 10:56:46
In reply to Re: Double standard? « Jane D, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 10:55:49
[Posted by akc on January 12, 2002, at 10:40:34]
> Jane D,
>
> For me, it is the tone of dolphin's posts that is the problem. If dolphin wants to come share how this product has helped him, great. But that is not what dolphin is doing. Instead, dolphin is trying to get people to ignore their doctors, quit taking their drugs, and buy an overpriced, unproven, "nutritional" supplement. Most of us are aware of how dangerous such advice can be.
>
> Dolphin may also be a victim, and I am more than willing to help -- but dolphin hasn't asked for help. However, there are a lot of others who have come to this boarding seeking our support and our help (in the form of our stories, our advice, our knowledge). So, I don't see a double standard here.
>
> akc
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 11:47:09
In reply to Re: Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition » Krazy Kat, posted by akc on January 11, 2002, at 19:17:46
> It bothers me that she & similar people can come on a respected forum where others are seriously looking for answers about depression & post such misleading information. If it was simply a matter of her honestly believing in the benefits of sound nutrition & she personally chose not to use medication, I'd be happy with it. But she's in on a pyramid scheme, perhaps leading people who do need the medical health to the company she works for.
>
> IsoMI agree, it's trickier when there's a conflict of interest. Which is what makes this different than recommending movies. OTOH, just because someone might benefit from the sale of a product doesn't make it a bad product. Should it be against the rules for people who work for drug companies to post here? Those who own stock in drug companies?
*Misleading* information is a different problem. Can you give me an example of something she said that you'd consider misleading?
> If you allow the continued push of such products on the board, those who came here because they believed they had found a supportive community where they could get some rational (for the most part) feed back, will look elsewhereIt's the *pushing* per se that's the problem? Haven't others advocated the use of particular products? Would you say she's *pressured* others? That I would consider uncivil...
And what about people who'd like rational feedback on supplements or whatever?
> I hope you make a decision that doesn't cost anyone his or her health or life.
>
> akcMaybe that thread's already *helped* sjb to make a more informed decision regarding her health?
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89718.html
> If a person comes in touting an unproven product, publishing pieces of "papers" saying the pharmaceutical companies and doctors are conspiring against patients to line their pockets, and a single person quits taking his or her meds, goes into a suicidal depression, and takes his or her life -- yeah, I put that on Dr. Bob and every other person on this board who sits back and doesn't say something.I sure don't want anyone to take his or her life! However:
1. Just because a product is "unproven" doesn't mean it's a bad product. And at what point should it be considered "proven"?
2. I don't see it as my role to warrant the merchantability or fitness for any particular purpose of any products (to decide whether to consider them proven or not :-).
The idea of this site is to help each other, not to get help from me. I'm not an expert on these products, anyway. YMMV: they might work for some people and not others. And of course it's a legal can of worms.
3. Pharmaceutical companies (their shareholders) do want to line their pockets -- as do doctors. "Conspire" is a little strong, but there's at least one relatively recent example of a company suppressing research not in its interest:
http://thyroid.about.com/library/weekly/aa012798.htm
http://consumerlawpage.com/article/gouging.shtml4. I completely agree, the answer is *not* just to sit back. Thankfully, that doesn't happen very much here. :-)
But I don't think the answer is to be uncivil, either...
> The message being touted scares me because I know how irrational at times I become when in the midst of a bad episode, and am capable of making some really bad decisions.
>
> akcOne approach is regulation, or trying to control bad information. Another is education, or trying to help people make good decisions (partly by recognizing bad information). You can guess which side I'm on! In fact, a number of you have already contributed to a nice discussion of this:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 11:49:10
In reply to Re: misleading information, unproven products, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 11:47:09
[really in reply to http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2616.html]
> Oops! How this ended up on tele I don't know and in double?
Me neither! :-)
> I trust you won't let this issue disrupt the community.
I'm trying! It ain't easy...
> Cam's points are very valid. And it is an emotional issue if you have suffered along with a loved one who has had to endure an illness. We, as a community, empathize with those who have and envy those who are ignorant to such curses. We are protective of each other and do not want to see one of our own exploited.
No matter how valid someone's points are, he or she needs to be civil. Yes, how best to protect each other is the question. Here, the idea is with support and education.
Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 11:57:49
In reply to Dolphin's New Posting On Pseudo-Nutrition, posted by IsoM on January 11, 2002, at 1:33:48
> DR.BOB - HOW LONG ARE YOU GOING TO LET PEOPLE WITH NO BACKGROUND IN PHYSIOLOGY OR PHARMACOLOGY PRINT OBVIOUSLY FRADULENT CLAIMS LIKE THIS? How are people going to know what is science and what is pseudo-science? Check MEDLINE yourself and try to find any validation of Dolphin's misinformation.
Are you saying the board should be restricted to people with a background in physiology or pharmacology?
Maybe people can be taught the difference between science and pseudo-science? Regarding checking Medline myself, please see my other post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/admin/20011216/msgs/2636.html
> I also do not see why [you] make us posters defend "real" science against the snake-oil salesmen.
Who else is going to do it?
> Wouldn't it be more prudent to teach those who have chronic mental disorders to live within the parameters of their affliction
>
> Cam W.
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89687.htmlIt's a tough one sometimes, whether to fight against those parameters or to try to live within them...
http://recovery.hiwaay.net/jtr/serenity.html
> Think of a law court where one person is raving at the judge, always interupting & speaking out of term while the other side keeps calm & unruffled. Which side seems to others to be the sensible side & who gets the judge's & jurors' sympathy. Remember, the old tired cliché "You catch more flies with honey than vinegar" is really true.
>
> it is imparitive that someone at times play big brother. Be it others on this board trying to debunk these supposed methods of treatment, or better yet, Dr. Bob reining in these claims. How he does that, I am not quite sure
>
> akc
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89700.htmlExactly! How would I would do that? :-)
> it is about attraction rather than promotion -- I share MY experience, strength and hope. I don't try to tell you what to do.I agree, that's the ideal, but not very easy to enforce...
> The board is not safe right now, given that there are obviously some folks with an agenda. I am rational and can differentiate between that which may be harmful and that which is not. But I am uncertain on the goal of having a place that is not safe.
>
> akc
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89723.htmlMaybe think of it not as unsafe, but as free?
http://www.bartleby.com/66/93/15593.html
> I do see Dr. Bob's problem, though, with running an open board. When a post obviously seems out of a marketing brochure, perhaps it is time to step in and delete it, but the free expression of opinions is what this board is about. And the opposing points of view to a post is what gives people the information to make a decision. For example, we are allowed to post "Effexor sucks" or "Effexor is fabulous" or "Psych meds have ruined my life and I'm going off them" or "Psych meds are the entire answer to depression and no one needs therapy." Either view might lead someone to make the wrong decision on medications, but taken all together the posts balance each other out.Thanks! See also the section of the FAQ on trust:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/faq.html#trust
> I know that you probably feel that you and St James and a few others are forced to do too much of the balancing act, and maybe the rest of us could try to help out on that, so that you could feel free to ignore those posts.
>
> Dinah
> http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020110/msgs/89730.htmlI agree, it might help a lot to share the responsibility.
Bob
Posted by IsoM on January 12, 2002, at 17:10:50
In reply to Re: misleading information, unproven products, posted by Dr. Bob on January 12, 2002, at 11:47:09
Dr. Bob, looking back I can see that my comments to Dolphin were uncivil due to feeling upset about losing Cam & perhaps others on this forum.
I do feel however that she is using this forum as a place of business, posting her comments & then later including her e-mail address and/or the name of the company she works for..
> > (Dr. Bob’s comment) ”Which is what makes this different than recommending movies. OTOH, just because someone might benefit from the sale of a product doesn't make it a bad product. Should it be against the rules for people who work for drug companies to post here? Those who own stock in drug companies?”
Yes, it’s hard to distinguish who to allow making posts here, but when I made the comment about her getting freebies, it was based on what she previously posted:
“Not only can I get it free, but they can too.” (and) “If I refer people to Life Force, I can get the products free.” Does someone who owns stock in drug companies get free meds too. If we recommend a movie or restaurant to someone, do we get free tickets or meals? There is a real difference, I believe & others can see it too.> > (Dr. Bob’s comment) *Misleading* information is a different problem. Can you give me an example of something she said that you'd consider misleading?
Yes, quite a few examples actually. These comments may contain some truth to them but when they’re this overblown & not backed up with references, it IS misleading. And the thing is, I’m a very strong believer in eating healthy & agree that foods no longer have the nutrients they were meant to but I prefer to present my information in as factual a manner as I know of & not use it to sell products. Here’s her comments that I feel are misleading:
1. “Body Balance is not a common vitamin. It is derived from hundreds of feet beneath the Arctic Ocean from sea vegetables, which is free from herbicides, pesticides, and heavy metal contamination. It contains every vitamin, macro mineral, trace mineral, enzyme, amino acid, fatty acids, and bioflavonoid known to man. This is everything that our body needs for life.” (from a previous posting of hers)
(my comments - There is no one group of kelps or algae that contains “every vitamin, macro mineral, trace mineral, enzyme, amino acid, fatty acids, and bioflavonoid known to man”.)2. “ Dr. Walford, proved it with the Biosphere Project in Arizona. The test proved, if they keep on the diet designed by Dr. Walford, they would live 165 years.”
(my comments – Where’s the so-called proof?)3. “In 1993 the World Health Organization said our soil is now totally baron and 95% depleted of the basic survival ingredients.”
(my comments – The only place I can find this statement is on other sites promoting their supplements. I’d like to see a reference for this statement. I could find nothing on either the WHO or the FAO [Food & Agriculture Organisation] sites.)4. “The deficiency disease best known in America is death.”
(my comments – That comment is similar to what one author wrote in a novel ‘the cause of death was heart failure – that is, after the gunshot to his head, his heart ceased to beat.’ That’s got to be one of the stupidest comments I’ve read in a long time.)5. “ADD (Attention Deficit Disorder) and ADDH (Attention Deficit Hyperactivity disorder) are now linked to mineral and enzyme deficiencies.”
(my comments – Oh? Somehow with all the science journals I read & science news sites I frequent, that one slipped through & seems to invalidate previous findings about brain differences & activities in ADD.)6. “Until they find out about people who live 120 to 140, and these people aren’t advanced like America.”
(my comments – The examples of people who live to a very old age can’t always be substantiated due to discrepancies in the way birth records were kept or their validity. There are examples of very old people sprinkled about the world, the States included. While good living & eating habits are definitely a factor, more seems to be linked to genetics. They all have had relatives who have longevity as part of their genetic make-up.)7. “Researchers reported an epidemic condition in Americans called Early Pica. Pica is a depraved appetite and most commonly due to nutritional deficiency. …*Everyone* will end up with Early Pica in one form or another.”
(my comments – Pica is still poorly understood & while it may be caused by nutritional or mineral deficiencies, it’s also caused by developmental delays, metabolic disorders, & psychological & mental disturbances. Everyone’s going to end up with it? That’s quite a blanket statement to make.)8. “Because of a raging nutritional deficiency, over several years, your hardest working veins and arteries develop small leaks and cracks. Your body puts band-aids on these leaks and cracks made out of LDL cholesterol and fat lipids.”
(my comments – Pure tripe. Does it really need a rebuttal?)9. “Heart disease and clogged veins is brought by a lack of vitamin C.”
(my comments – Well, that sure seems to refute a lot of what previous research & studies have led us to believe in the role different types of fats, carbohydrates, exercise, & heredity plays.)10. “An ion is very tiny, a single atom, otherwise known as a metallic mineral. A single atom can penetrate just about anything. When minerals are taken as a drink they absorb as soon as they hit your lips, and since your intestines are negatively charged, the positively charged mineral ions absorb instantly, and by magnetic attraction 98% of these minerals speed through the intestine walls and right into your blood stream.”
(my comments – So does that mean that our high school & university chemistry textbooks are wrong about what ions are? Anybody with the most basic chemistry knowledge knows that ISN’T what an ion is. The rest of her comment is nicely rebutted by Cam in another post.)11. “This means when you take your vitamins, your amino acids, and essential fatty acids, the minerals are waiting right there. Scientist call it Catalysis to do all of the chemistry to keep you feeling energetic and living long.”
(my comments – ALL our metabolic chemical reactions are carried on by enzymes (catalytic proteins), in & out of the cells, it’s not simply because someone takes the supplement mentioned. Our entire metabolism is catalysis.)Dr. Bob, in a fairly recent Scientific American issue, there’s an article titled “Baloney Detector” about distinguishing true science from pseudoscience & a related web-site http://www.skeptic.com With your permission, I’d like to condense the points in the article & post it & the web-site each time fraudulent claims are made. Would that be fine?
Posted by akc on January 12, 2002, at 17:57:17
In reply to for Dr. Bob re: Dolphin's Comments, posted by IsoM on January 12, 2002, at 17:10:50
I think this post should always be kept handy to post when folks like Dolphin come around (and should be posted over on PB right now on every thread where his claims are posted). Because even if we could convince Dr. Bob to remove Dolphin's propaganda (not going to happen, though), someone else will probably come around down the line touting this stuff again. It needs to be countered, and what you have done here is very reasoned, without all the emotion so many of us have unfortunately sounded off with over the past few days. Thank you for taking the time to do this. I really appreciate it.
akc
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:58:33
In reply to for Dr. Bob re: Dolphin's Comments, posted by IsoM on January 12, 2002, at 17:10:50
> Dr. Bob, looking back I can see that my comments to Dolphin were uncivil due to feeling upset about losing Cam & perhaps others on this forum.
Thanks for acknowledging that. I don't like losing people, either!
> > just because someone might benefit from the sale of a product doesn't make it a bad product. Should it be against the rules for people who work for drug companies to post here? Those who own stock in drug companies?
>
> Does someone who owns stock in drug companies get free meds too.You're saying that should be the criterion? The hard thing about this job is drawing the line... Hmm, maybe that would make sense... But what if they don't admit they get the product for free?
> > *Misleading* information is a different problem. Can you give me an example of something she said that you'd consider misleading?
>
> Yes, quite a few examples actually. These comments may contain some truth to them but when they're this overblown & not backed up with references, it IS misleading.Thanks for all the examples... Now *that* was a civil, educational response!
(But remember that a lot of what gets posted isn't backed up with references, and some of it could also be considered overblown...)
> Dr. Bob, in a fairly recent Scientific American issue, there's an article titled "Baloney Detector" about distinguishing true science from pseudoscience & a related web-site http://www.skeptic.com With your permission, I'd like to condense the points in the article & post it & the web-site each time fraudulent claims are made. Would that be fine?
That would be very fine. :-) In fact, it might make a nice addition to the FAQ. Like the section on self-medication. Once some general points are laid out, it's easy to repost -- or just to link -- to them in the future. Thanks again!
Bob
Posted by IsoM on January 14, 2002, at 3:00:34
In reply to Re: misleading information , posted by Dr. Bob on January 13, 2002, at 20:58:33
Thanks, Dr. Bob for answering.
> >"You're saying that should be the criterion? The hard thing about this job is drawing the line... Hmm, maybe that would make sense... But what if they don't admit they get the product for free?"
No, I'm not suggesting this should be one of the criteria for deciding whether to let someone post. There's sometimes too many grey areas to decide correctly, but when it's obvious that the poster is benefiting, or lying, or misleading others, I think it's enough to decide. If they don't admit to anything, well, I guess it's innocent until proven guilty, right? At least Dolphin was honest about her benefits & I do feel she's probably very sincere too, just not using sound judgement.
I'll work on condensing the article tomorrow & save it to HD to use as needed. I do think it's a pretty tough balancing act you're doing here & it doesn't help at all for us to jump on you for just doing your job as moderator.
****************************************************************************************************
> > Dr. Bob, looking back I can see that my comments to Dolphin were uncivil due to feeling upset about losing Cam & perhaps others on this forum.
>
> Thanks for acknowledging that. I don't like losing people, either!
>
> > > just because someone might benefit from the sale of a product doesn't make it a bad product. Should it be against the rules for people who work for drug companies to post here? Those who own stock in drug companies?
> >
> > Does someone who owns stock in drug companies get free meds too.
>
> You're saying that should be the criterion? The hard thing about this job is drawing the line... Hmm, maybe that would make sense... But what if they don't admit they get the product for free?
>
> > > *Misleading* information is a different problem. Can you give me an example of something she said that you'd consider misleading?
> >
> > Yes, quite a few examples actually. These comments may contain some truth to them but when they're this overblown & not backed up with references, it IS misleading.
>
> Thanks for all the examples... Now *that* was a civil, educational response!
>
> (But remember that a lot of what gets posted isn't backed up with references, and some of it could also be considered overblown...)
>
> > Dr. Bob, in a fairly recent Scientific American issue, there's an article titled "Baloney Detector" about distinguishing true science from pseudoscience & a related web-site http://www.skeptic.com With your permission, I'd like to condense the points in the article & post it & the web-site each time fraudulent claims are made. Would that be fine?
>
> That would be very fine. :-) In fact, it might make a nice addition to the FAQ. Like the section on self-medication. Once some general points are laid out, it's easy to repost -- or just to link -- to them in the future. Thanks again!
>
> Bob
Posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2002, at 0:59:45
In reply to Re: misleading information » Dr. Bob, posted by IsoM on January 14, 2002, at 3:00:34
> I do think it's a pretty tough balancing act you're doing here & it doesn't help at all for us to jump on you for just doing your job as moderator.
Thanks! It's not being jumped on, it's receiving feedback. :-)
Bob
Posted by jane d on January 17, 2002, at 16:46:51
In reply to Re: balancing act, posted by Dr. Bob on January 17, 2002, at 0:59:45
> Thanks! It's not being jumped on, it's receiving feedback. :-)
>
> BobAre you teaching positive thinking by example here? :)
This is the end of the thread.
Psycho-Babble Administration | Extras | FAQ
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.org
Script revised: February 4, 2008
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/cgi-bin/pb/mget.pl
Copyright 2006-17 Robert Hsiung.
Owned and operated by Dr. Bob LLC and not the University of Chicago.