User talk:Roman Becker. Member talk:Roman Becker Roman Becker psychiatrist biography

The category is proposed for renaming. "Sexual deviations" is an outdated term. - Mx. Mrak (obs.) 17:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

About the articles

Good afternoon. As a patrolman with more than a decade of experience, please tell me if it is normal for a patrolman with more than a decade of experience to create articles like this:
** Big tank
**+ see below:

Protein kinase C type zeta)

Protein kinase C type zeta is too short quick removal criteria

Making an article too short (Sparzheim, Johann Gaspard)

Dear participant! The article you created Spartzheim, Johann Gaspard is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an article too short (Crichton-Brown, James)

Dear participant! The article you created, Crichton-Brown, James, is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an article too short (Bridge Cistern)

Dear participant! The article you created Bridge Cistern is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Creating an Article Too Short (ASCL1)

Dear participant! The ASCL1 article you created is too short . According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an article too short (Otx1)

Dear participant! The Otx1 article you created is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an article too short (Leash Cores)

Dear participant! The Leash Core article you created is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an article too short (OTX2)

Dear participant! The OTX2 article you created is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Creating an Article Too Short (HES1)

Dear participant! The HES1 article you created is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an Article Too Short (Epithalamic Leash)

Dear participant! The article you created The epithalamic leash is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an Article Too Short (Bridge Tire)

Dear participant! The article you created Bridge tire is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted.

Making an article too short (Cisterna cistern)

Dear participant! The article you created, Cisterna cistern, is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted. Dolby Lizard (obs.) 11:41, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

thermoreceptor

Pingan just in case, suddenly there will be time to add something or by. --Fedor Babkin talk 11:05, February 26, 2018 (UTC)

Bioorder at the end of 2017

		Bioorder II degree
		Dear Roman Becker , The Biology Project is awarding you the BioOrder II degree for writing a good article Thalamus . We wish you new success! Sincerely, Demidenko 11:25, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

Happy New Year!

Happy New Year 2018! I wish you success in everything! Congratulations also on the excellent article "Thalamus"! Alexey Karetnikov (obs.) 05:58, December 31, 2017 (UTC)

Mutually, dear colleague, many thanks :) You, too, happiness, joy, creative and professional success, good health and everything you wish for yourself :) And - a big addition to the list of publications both here and in magazines :) Roman Bekker (obs. )

AC:1042

Dear colleague, please note that the arbitrators are waiting for your applications for challenges on the new composition of the AK until the end of next week (if you have them). TenBaseT (obs.) 19:44, December 2, 2017 (UTC)

I have no challenges (just as the previous team would not have had them if, more than expected, they bothered or managed to accept the application). Everything suits me. I will write now. Roman Becker (obs.) 23:57 December 2, 2017 (UTC)

Making an article too short (Serotonin Transporter)

Dear participant! Thank you for contributing to Wikipedia by creating the Serotonin Transporter article. Unfortunately this article is too short. According to the rules of Wikipedia, such articles are subject to removal without further discussion in accordance with quick removal criteria. Please keep in mind that if the article is not updated within the next two days, it will have to be deleted. Abiyoyo (obs.) 19:10, November 22, 2017 (UTC)

You don't have to, guess why. Roman Becker (obs.) 19:41, November 22, 2017 (UTC)

Tear and lacrimal gland

Hello!

Please look at these articles and their discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%B8%D0%BA%D0%B8%D0%BF%D0%B5%D0%B4 %D0%B8%D1%8F:%D0%9A_%D0%BE%D0%B1%D1%8A%D0%B5%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BD%D0%B5%D0%BD% D0%B8%D1%8E/31_%D0%BE%D0%BA%D1%82%D1%8F%D0%B1%D1%80%D1%8F_2017#%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B5 %D0%B7%D0%B0,_%D0%A1%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%BD%D0%B0%D1%8F_%D0%B6%D0%B5%D0%BB %D0%B5%D0%B7%D0%B0,_%D0%A1%D0%BB%D1%91%D0%B7%D0%BD%D1%8B%D0%B9_%D0%B0%D0%BF %D0%BF%D0%B0%D1%80%D0%B0%D1%82 . I lack the knowledge of the rules to take the necessary steps, namely to consolidate the data on the lacrimal gland into one article and leave the second under the name "Tear". Maybe you can help? Glagolev (obs.) 16:51 November 19, 2017 (UTC)

topic ban

Doesn't it apply to the news forum? Good Will Hunting (obs.) 06:38, November 4, 2017 (UTC)

You still don't know that it's filmed? Have you read WP:FA? Did you ask former mentors? Roman Bekker (obs.) 06:46, 4 November 2017 (UTC) Or maybe some admins see a template on their page and on their talk page that hasn't been there for a while? Roman Becker (obs.) 06:51, 4 November 2017 (UTC) First, I apologize if I offended you. I didn't want to, plus I have a broken finger, so I was working from a tablet and asked the question above in the shortest possible way. I saw your application for arbitration, and in it you asked to remove the topic ban imposed by decision 587. At the same time, I saw your post on the news forum, I was surprised that, on the one hand, you ask to remove the topic ban imposed by decision on application 587 , and on the other hand, you actually participate in the discussions. That is why I asked you a question. Your reaction, however, seems to me absolutely inadequate to the question I asked, so the answer to it no longer interests me. --Good Will Hunting (obs.) 15:03, November 4, 2017 (UTC) Sorry, please :) No, you didn't offend me at all. And here I am, apparently, unwittingly offended you. You just understand, the fact is that, unfortunately, for a long time there has been a certain number of participants who react nervously to the very fact of my existence and / or participation in Wikipedia, to my nickname itself, and are ready to look under a magnifying glass at my every step and sneeze, to find a reason to "block me indefinitely". Right in the discussion of the lawsuit, you can see a vivid example in the statements of a certain Phil Vecherovsky - for a minute, identically equal to Uncle Fred, a former AK-9 referee and a former administrator. It is quite natural that in such an environment, to put it mildly, not very favorable for work, a participant who is subjected to such treatment and attitude begins to react nervously to everything that seems to him to be persecution or prejudice. At first it seemed to me that your question was "with a trick" and that it was from the same series, and that it could be followed by a "block for violating the topic ban" (which the mentors, I repeat, removed, see Vladimir Solovyov's post on FA). That’s why I reacted so nervously (at the same time, once again wondering to myself how some of the participants, who don’t know me and obviously haven’t come across me before, can have a bad attitude towards me; however, at least the participant Sirozha recently admitted that his attitude towards me is due to the fact that he read about me on an unnamed resource included in Wikipedia in the spam list). The AK-9 decision is not entirely about this, and did not provide for such a topic ban, but provided, for example, for a ban on voting. Good luck to your finger. And once again, sorry for the involuntary PZN. Roman Becker (obs.) 15:31 November 4, 2017 (UTC)

thalamic stimulator

Please do not remove service templates from the pages without making sure that the problem indicated in the template has been fixed, or without indicating the reason for the removal. Templates have been restored. Thank you for your attention. Alexander Konstantinov (obs.) 08:20, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

It was explained to you in the most detailed way WHY EXACTLY the templates were removed, and WHY, and WHAT is happening with the article DIRECTLY AT THE MOMENT. Roman Becker 08:25, 24 October 2017 (UTC)

Duplicate posts across forums

Wikipedia does not accept. -DZ- 14:18, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

P.S. Vladimir Solovjev, putnik and Melirius, how does this (and the deleted duplicates from the main and the attention of the participants) fit in with the TB that I accidentally noticed above? -DZ- 14:18, October 26, 2017 (UTC)
- I apologize for the duplication. However, it is due to the fact that the activity of participants compared to 2013, it seems to me, has become noticeably lower, and many do not read.
- Regarding the "topic ban" - a) when I contact the admins with some question (recently I asked why the vikifier stopped working in Chrome), I regularly receive answers like "well, write to the Technical forum" - and everyone seems to have a little spit on this "topic-ban", and when I remind you of its existence, and ask "do you want my indefinite period?", they answer "oh, come on, VP: IVP and the goal of improving Wikipedia. But, if you're afraid, then write to one of the mentors, and let them transfer it to the forum or wherever it is necessary. And the same answer - "write to the forum ask" - I get from Solovyov and Putnik. It would not be difficult for me to turn to them for the official removal of the notorious "topic ban" and the termination of "mentoring" with an official announcement of this on the FA, which I no longer need (not to mention the fact that even then, to put it mildly, I did not consider that I really need it) - but I consider this a rather humiliating occupation for myself, for which reason I deliberately do not apply, although this "topic ban" and this "mentorship" are a hundred years old at lunchtime and it has not been relevant for a long time, like the circumstances of it overlays.
- b) If you want to block me indefinitely "for violating the topic-ban" and "forum spam" - do not be shy, do not hold back "noble impulses of the soul." The shaggy Centenary Arbitration Committee, with the active participation of Uncle Fred, allowed it. Not really saying that I should be "banned indefinitely", but by saying that I should be "banned on a progressive scale for violations of WP:EP and WP:NO". And imposing a number of restrictions on me, such as a ban on voting in elections (but Arbkom did not impose any topic-ban on me). And again, because of the prescription of years, I could LONG AGO apply to the AK for the removal of restrictions. As MANY other participants do, proving their integrity and ability to comply with the imposed restrictions and benefit the project. But he did not apply, because he considered the decision itself unfair and undeserved, and humiliatingly ASKING for its revision was humiliating for himself. But who ever bothered with the formalities if someone didn't like the participant? Once, a hundred years ago, after this decision of the AC, for another violation of the EP - not even BUT - in a heated discussion around, it seems, the next renaming of the Signal molecules of gaseous substances right in the process of its discussion at the CCS - one admin immediately blocked me indefinitely. Despite the fact that before this, there were no blockages at all, it seems, for a week. No, but what? It's also progressive. How exactly it should progress is not written. And in general, the blocking is to prevent further violations. And there is no better way to prevent them than an indefinite block, you see. And this admin agreed to remove the indefinite term only on the condition that I "find three mentors who will vouch for me" and agree to a full topic ban outside the space of articles. I found mentors, but from the very beginning I categorically disagreed with this approach. Disagree even now. But then and now I was too lazy and humiliating to argue and prove something.
- So, if you decide to "prevent further violations" and oblige me, following the example of that admin, you are free to do it at least this second. I don't particularly value my participation in Wikipedia. I already have somewhere to publish and where to contribute. Don't worry, I won't write to AK, I won't challenge the blocking either. I'll just get back to another job. Roman Becker (obs.) 17:25, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
  - I only read the first paragraph. Everything else is not clear to whom it is addressed.. If mentoring is not relevant, it must be removed so as not to mislead those who just walked by and noticed a pattern from above. -DZ- 17:34, October 26, 2017 (UTC)
    - Good. I will do so. Although I thought that the esteemed mentors would think of it themselves :) And the message was addressed to you, and explained the circumstances of both the "imposition of mentorship" and the "topic ban", and the circumstances of the AK decision that preceded this, without which there is no indefinite period and no "unblocking under mentorship and topicban" would not be. One hundred years in the afternoon of that decision, without even going into its justice. Roman Becker (obs.) 17:39, 26 October 2017 (UTC)
    - Publicly wrote to t-tutors. Waiting. Roman Becker (obs.) 14:07, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

I am very glad to see you

A figure in wikihistory and pleasant, unlike)))) There will be another article about you one day. And about your persecutors - except perhaps the mentions in it - Severoved (obs.) 19:56, October 26, 2017 (UTC)

A group of short-term elected contributors to Wikipedia, designed to resolve conflicts that have proven impossible to resolve other methods.

The arbitration committee is solely by the judiciary. It does not form Wikipedia's policies and rules (which are formed by consensus by the community), but it has the right to interpret them in relation to the case at hand.

For other ways to resolve conflicts - see Wikipedia:Conflict Resolution.

Parties

The essence of the claim

The member constantly harasses and insults other members.

The participant is known for constant attacks against me, which were analyzed in the previous lawsuit against me. He has just started commenting again on each of my edits with the transition to personalities, threats and offensive attacks. Since such actions are becoming systematic, I ask you to allow the progressive blocking of Roman Becker and explain to him the rules of the VP: BUT, related to the inadmissibility of personalization, threats and aggression . I also ask you to allow me to personally block Roman Becker in case of repetition of violations, since his actions are provocative and not related to a personal conflict. in accordance with clause 5.2.2 of the WP:FS.

If AK needs evidence of the systematic attacks on me and other Wikipedia members, I can cite them in sufficient quantity, on the systematic nature of the violations of the VP: BUT from the side of Roman Becker, the Lock Log shows.

neon 12:34, June 13, 2007 (UTC)

join

I will join the lawsuit and demand a progressive block for Becker, because there is a fact of harassment and threats of this participant in relation to me. - Ols 13:10, June 13, 2007 (UTC)

Diffs? R Oman B ekker this is worth a lot, I will also add that this participant is exclusively engaged in flooding and insults. - Ols 13:18 June 13, 2007 (UTC) Where is the insult? Submitting a valid request for verification (if it wasn't valid, it wouldn't be accepted by the checkers) can't be an "insult", and shouldn't be taken to the point of absurdity. R Oman B ekker 13:22 June 13, 2007 (UTC)

I join with clarification

Personally, the insults of member Roman Becker are not as interesting to me as his destructive actions, the most dangerous of which are four:

Destructive kickbacks that paralyze the work on articles (such kickbacks are usually accompanied by sweeping accusations of the opponent of all conceivable and unthinkable sins), and sometimes even vandalism of articles (for example, the case of "Animal Homosexuality").
Lobbying admins (OckhamTheFox, putnik, S.L., Torin, MaxSem, Shuklin...) leading to more serious damage to articles, for example by summing up discussions on deletions in violation of the rules.
Constant complaints about other members to administrators.
Vote fraud with the help of mitpuppets (see the corresponding decision of the AK; in addition, there are serious reasons to believe that Roman Becker's mitpuppets chose MaxSem "a as a steward).

To stop these destructive behaviors, progressive™ blocking would be helpful. Smartass 01:06 June 14, 2007 (UTC)

I’m not ready to join the lawsuit (because I was unfairly accused of “insulting” Roman Becker, see Participant:Ramir#Suit against me), but being a victim of the third paragraph, I fully confirm Roman Becker’s tendency to persecute individual participants, often only for their opinions ( see Lawsuit against me, in which Roman Becker himself happily participated, launching a wave of dubious accusations in my direction.) On the first point, I was also a victim of this participant's unexplained kickbacks in articles about the repression of political minorities. Please also pay attention to the fact that it seems that everyone pursued by this participant is male. Ramir 01:43, June 14, 2007 (UTC) Also (on the third point): Roman Becker appears to be one of the most contributors, most obviously using non-existent, unwritten"rules" for harassment of individual participants, in this case, me. This, however, is a general problem that deserves a separate claim to the arbitration committee. Ramir 02:01, 14 June 2007 (UTC) Please consider these Ramira observations as an addition to my text. From myself I will add that not all the persecuted are males (as far as this can be judged by the registration of accounts). For example, a member of Udacha is being harassed. Smartass 13:20 June 14, 2007 (UTC)

I join the claim

I join the lawsuit in connection with the obvious destructive and arrogant behavior of Roman Becker. This participant is constantly trying to prick me, laugh at me, twist the facts, including outside Wikipedia (if necessary (if so required by AK) I can privately convey the approximate nature of Becker's behavior outside Wikipedia), tries to disclose my personal data, suits, trolling and clowning both in articles and in discussions, as well as on service pages, is rude to the administrator. If you need an additional number of diffs, then I will collect any, just tell me. I demand from AK to enter for the defendant progressive blocking (1 day, week, month, year, indefinitely)+ no stalking me Regards, -Afinogenoff 02:08 June 14, 2007 (UTC)

I join the claim

I join the lawsuit regarding Becker's destructive actions. In particular, he renamed a number of claims to AC, see the edit history of the page Arbitration: Applications and individual claims: , , , , , , , , , etc. Changing the name of the claim, it seems to me, is tantamount to changing the messages of other participants, it introduces confusion and is a forgery. In addition, Becker staged a rename edit war on the Arbitration:OckhamTheFox page (In brackets - administrator Member: Boleslav1 defended Becker's version of the arbitration request page with the wording "rename war", but did not even issue a warning to this participant.) --Evgen2 21 :56, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

Addendum

Unfortunately, I did not see the apologies that Roman Becker brought to me (see his remark below), it would be nice to show them to me. However, he removed the personal attacks I cited in this lawsuit. I will consider this the first case of a demonstration of good intentions. After reviewing the lawsuit, which has grown during my absence, I realized that the lawsuit is rather formless and vague, so I exclude myself from the list of plaintiffs so as not to flood the arbcom with ill-formed claims. I ask Roman Becker in the future, if he has any comments regarding me personally, write them to my E-Mail, otherwise the lawsuit page in the arbcom is not the best place for this to sort it all out - all the more so repeating situations a thousand times and arguments that have already been considered in AC. neon 23:26, June 18, 2007 (UTC)

Reply from defendant

It was clearly and clearly determined by the 3rd Arbitration Committee that the Neon participant is biased towards certain participants and is in personal conflict with them, and it is not recommended to block them. The Arbitration Committee of the 2nd composition also accepted clarifications on the issue of the situation with Muhosransk. The number and extent of violations listed in our lawsuit against this administrator would have been more than sufficient for his desysop if those violations were fresh at the time the lawsuit was filed. Just defending your own discussion would suffice. Therefore, I ask you to refuse the request “I personally block Roman Becker”. Moreover, this will be another revision of the AK decision and opens a Pandora's box for such a revision.

I did not take any "provocative actions". Provocative are just the statements and allegations that the alleged filing of a reasonable request for verification is “pressure on the participant”, “persecution of the participant”, “negative assessment of the participant and his contribution”, and that I am allegedly engaged in the persecution of participants and pressure on them. The persecution of the participants is carried out precisely by persons like GSB, who massively produce dolls.

No “threats”, no “aggression”, no “insults and personal attacks” on my part, neither to the Neon member, nor to anyone else recently did not have. Wouldn't it be difficult for a Neon participant to explain how I "threatened" the Neon participant and what the "aggression" consisted of? And everything that, even with a big stretch, could be considered "personal attacks", I have already removed (which is recommended by VP: BUT - see diffs). And since blocking is not a punishment, but a PREVENTION of further violations, I see no reason for the requirements of "imposing progressive blocks". I, unlike some, do not tend to offend INTENTIONALLY and CONSCIOUSLY, and, unlike some, I am able to admit my mistakes and apologize (and, by the way, I even apologized to TVM - from Mr. Neon, no apologies for illegal blocking , neither for the proposal to "remove" me from the project, nor for the offensive and unfounded accusations of allegedly "homo propaganda", "using Wikipedia as a tribune" have been reported). And I, unlike some, after leaving the lockdown, do not start to resent and insult again. Therefore, I ask in satisfaction of this requirement refuse. R Oman B ekker 13:11 June 13, 2007 (UTC)

Do not be fooled, AK and the community, dear. - Ols 13:23, 13 June 2007 (UTC) Please show me the diff where Mr. Neon apologizes. Let me remind you that we and they apologized, and the lawsuit in AC was redone a hundred times, removing from it everything that even with the richest fantasy could be considered an insult, and nevertheless, the first paragraph of the decision of AC received a warning. And on the part of Mr. Neon, there was NO awareness of being wrong - on the contrary, he staged a senseless edit war, as if it could change the decision of AK and gloss over the fact that he was not recommended to block certain participants. R Oman B ekker 13:34 June 13, 2007 (UTC)

You have a wild imagination, however. - Ols 21:26, June 13, 2007 (UTC)

Addition

I note that 2 more participants joined the lawsuit: Underground Mole and Medved. "Diffs from them will be presented a little later. -Afinogenoff 01:46, June 15, 2007 (UTC)

Statement

I withdraw my signature from this lawsuit because, after reading it with a fresh mind, it became clear to me that it was chaotically drafted and lacked sufficient diffs to back it up. Attempts to supplement the lawsuit only worsened the matter. I have no doubt that the destructive activities of Roman Becker, which we pointed out in this lawsuit, should be limited, but I believe that it needs to be completely rewritten, more clearly and in detail, so that our claims are completely clear to the arbitration committee. I urge all other plaintiffs to also withdraw their signatures and then participate in the work on a new lawsuit. Sincerely. -Afinogenoff 01:49 June 18, 2007 (UTC)

Last of the Mohicans

I not I withdraw my signature. Smartass 15:27 June 19, 2007 (UTC) I am revoking my signature for the following reasons:

de fide et officio iudicis non recipitur quaestio
adhuc sub iudice lis est
accedas ad curiam
consensus facit legem
absense haeres non erit
abusus non tollit usum
ab abusu ad usum non valet consequentia
curia advisari vult Smartass 08:03 PM June 19, 2007 (UTC)

I am temporarily withdrawing my claim. I'm not Rhombic, I have an interesting life and a lot of things to do in real life. There will be no opportunity to collect diffs for the next two weeks. Although, to be honest, this participant should be banned indefinitely in order to stop his destructive activity. --Subterranean Mole 20:27 June 20, 2007 (UTC)

rombeck Sent: 2009/6/9 8:35 AM Quote:

Socio writes: 2deni1986 hello! I have the same problem as you (http://www.psychoreanimatology.org/m-newbb+viewtopic+topic_id-1538-forum-9-post_id-21330.html), the main thing is that you understand the problem, this is already half success =) 3 months ago, on the basis of social phobia, a very strong psychological and life crisis came to me, a girl left me, I felt like a useless and lost person, but at the same time I came to understand that this was all a consequence of the disease ( social phobia). I wrote a lot, but I received real help only on this forum, from Dr. Becker, he approached my problem with understanding and professionalism, after a detailed diagnosis of my problem, I took blood tests, and I was prescribed adequate treatment. It's been 3 months already, I feel MUCH better, I do such things that I'm shocked by myself =) I can communicate normally with people, I look at life positively, I lost weight, I go to the gym, in general, my life has switched to a much better quality level. I advise you to contact Roman Becker (icq 17799297), I think he will not refuse you;)
And yet, I want to warn you in advance not to self-medicate, I myself started eating pills (Paxil) at the beginning, not knowing the right dosage for 3 sleepless nights from 1 pill, I was drenched in cold sweat and terribly tormented, then I drank Afobazol for a month, which I had no effect at all gave, in general, drinking psychotropic drugs without medical education and without proper diagnosis of the problem is the last thing, and can only aggravate the problem. Before starting treatment with Velaksin (which, by the way, I am also treated with), I need to undergo premedication, relieve anxiety, etc.
Good luck! If you want, we can add in ICQ, I don’t want to advertise my number here, since I’m anonymous here =) but if you want, Doc will give you my number.
Once again, good luck and stay safe!

I confirm that I am the attending physician of this patient. To clarify: this patient was prescribed Velaxin (Venlafaxine) and Lyrica (Pregabalin) and not Velaxin monotherapy. Hormonal analyzes were also carried out and the revealed thyroid insufficiency and excess weight were corrected.

At the initial stage - before Velaxin for 2 weeks - premedication was carried out with small doses of amitriptyline (25, then 50 mg at night) with thioridazine (sonapax), phenazepam, obzidan - since the level of anxiety did not allow to immediately prescribe Velaxin without exacerbation of symptoms. Phenazepam and obzidan were given for some time after the switch to Velaxin. Then obzidan was canceled, and phenazepam was replaced with lyric, which, unlike benzodiazepines, can be taken indefinitely.

Psychotherapy was also carried out.