![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 6 to 30 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 13:13:48
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by bassman on February 4, 2007, at 11:22:19
>I never thought I'd read anything by Ashton that I thought was sensible, either.
I'm not sure what you're getting at bassman. Everything I've read by Prof. Ashton has been sensible and rational - often exceptionally clear-sighted. Even when I disagreed with her opinions I would never have argued with that.
>I think Dr. Ashton is just mainstream, "let the mentally-ill suffer".
Where in her letter did Prof. Ashton advocate neglecting the mentally ill? It seems to me she's actually defending long-term benzodiazepine users from abrupt the withdrawal some doctors have made their patients endure after receiving shoddy advice from the Chief Medical Officer:
__________________________________________________"You do not seem to understand or acknowledge the distinction between long-term prescribed benzodiazepine users and those who misuse or abuse the drugs recreationally, along with opiates, cocaine and other "hard drugs". The problems and needs of prescribed benzodiazepine users were described in detail to you in our meeting in 2004. The only one of our suggested recommendations that you supported was to persuade the Chief Medical Officer to send a letter to doctors asking them to reduce their prescribing of benzodiazepines. At the meeting I personally offered to assist the CMO in drafting such a letter. This offer was ignored and his badly worded letter was a predictable disaster which resulted in many general practitioners abruptly reducing benzodiazepine prescriptions to long-term patients and some PCTs reducing their budgeting for such drugs - with similar unfortunate effects on patients."
"Prescribed benzodiazepine users do not have proper access to primary health care services because general practitioners lack the expertise and time to withdraw long-term prescribed patients from benzodiazepines, and the waiting list for psychological therapists, who are in any case not properly trained, is up to two years in most PCTs. These prescribed patients also do not have access to secondary health care services: they are regularly refused treatment because they are not abusing opiates or other hard drugs."
__________________________________________________This is hardly black and white simplicity. To my mind it shows a deep empathy and understanding for benzodiazepine users and abusers and also a willingness to defend their right to humane treatment against the will of self-serving politicians.
Q
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 13:39:32
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2007, at 12:15:09
>But she doesn't say that some people need them maybe she's seeing that the atypicals can create diabetes and need withdrawal too along with SSRI's Love Phillipa
Here are some quotes that I think give a summary of her advice for long-term benzodiazepine users:
__________________________________________________The advantages of discontinuing benzodiazepines do not necessarily mean that every long-term user should withdraw. Nobody should be forced or persuaded to withdraw against his or her will. In fact, people who are unwillingly pushed into withdrawal often do badly. On the other hand, the chances of success are very high for those sufficiently motivated. As mentioned before, almost anyone who really wants to come off can come off benzodiazepines. The option is up to you.
http://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha02.htm
__________________________________________________The major clinical advantages of benzodiazepines are high efficacy, rapid onset of action and low toxicity. Adverse effects include psychomotor impairment, especially in the elderly, and occasionally paradoxical excitement. With long term use, tolerance, dependence and withdrawal effects can become major disadvantages. Unwanted effects can largely be prevented by keeping dosages minimal and courses short (ideally 4 weeks maximum, and by careful patient selection. ***Long term prescription is occasionally required for certain patients.***
http://www.benzo.org.uk/asgr.htm
__________________________________________________There is more on her views on SSRIs here:
http://www.benzo.org.uk/ssri.htmQ
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 13:42:31
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2007, at 12:15:09
__________________________________________________
"Chemical Imbalance"
Professor C Heather Ashton DM, FRCP
August 28, 2001School of Neurosciences
Division of Psychiatry
The Royal Victoria Infirmary
Queen Victoria Road
Newcastle upon Tyne NE1 4LPThe Ashton Manual · Professor Ashton's Main Page
Question posed by Barry Haslam: "Is mental illness caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain... ?"
Answer by Professor Heather Ashton: You ask what seems to be a simple question, but I am afraid the answer is far from simple. The idea that mental illness is caused by an imbalance of chemicals in the brain started in the 1950s when nearly all the currently used psychiatric drugs were discovered by chance to alleviate the symptoms of certain mental illnesses. For example, the monoamine oxidase inhibitors (MAOIs) were originally developed as a cure for tuberculosis, but it was found that patients with advanced TB became unusually happy when taking them, and this led to their use as antidepressants - e.g. phenelzine. The neuroleptics were originally introduced as antihistamines but it was found serendipitously that they alleviated some of the symptoms of schizophrenia which led to their use in that condition - e.g. chlorpromazine. The tricyclic antidepressants have a similar structure to chlorpromazine and were first tried in schizophrenic patients. It was noticed (by nurses) that those with depression became less depressed and this led to trials in patients with depression. Benzodiazepines were also discovered by chance when it was found that they calmed down aggressive and frightened experimental animals - and stopped Siamese fighting fish from fighting. They were then tried in humans and found to have dramatic effects in alleviating panic attacks (in very large doses), and their use then enlarged to include all forms of anxiety.
Many of the early trials of all these drugs were financed by the drug companies whose chemists had developed these drugs and were looking for a market. The drugs were mostly initially tried in hospitals in Europe which had chronic patients, usually with schizophrenia or TB. However, the psychiatrists quickly embraced the idea that if chemicals could help mental conditions, then the conditions must be caused by chemical imbalances.
This idea stimulated further research (largely by drug companies) to find out the actions of the drugs. Neuroleptics were found to block dopamine receptors and from that grew the dopamine theory of schizophrenia. Antidepressants were found to increase monoamines, including serotonin, and from that grew the serotonin theory of depression. Benzodiazepines were, later, found to bind to GABA receptors (like barbiturates) and that engendered a spate of similar drugs which were used in all anxiety conditions (which are very common).
While drug companies certainly encouraged the idea that mental illnesses are caused by imbalance of brain chemicals (and even "invented" illnesses to go with the drugs - see accompanying book review), psychiatrists quickly lapped up the idea because it gave them an easy (and better at the time) form of treatment. Also it started a sort of revolution in scientific thought because for the first time symptoms that were thought of as merely "psychological" appeared to have a real physical/chemical basis; this provoked much further research into the way the brain works.
There is probably a grain of truth in this idea, although it is now clear that it is a gross oversimplification. You just cannot just say schizophrenia = dopamine imbalance; depression = serotonin imbalance; anxiety = GABA imbalance, etc. However, it is now recognised that the brain works on a physicochemical basis and that every symptom has a real cause which probably involves complicated interactions between a large number of neurotransmitters. Whether psychiatric or psychological symptoms can be cured by drugs is of course another matter. Furthermore, when the drugs were introduced nobody thought of long-term effects, dependence or withdrawal reactions! We still don't know the answers, but we have to admit that some drugs have helped some people (sometimes dramatically) and that they have increased understanding of brain functions. It is clear that drugs have to be used judiciously with awareness of their adverse effects and hope that things will improve as understanding grows. Whether drugs will ever "cure" mental illnesses remains a matter for doubt.
I enclose a book review about psychopharmacology which I wrote by request for the British Journal of Psychiatry. This covers some other facets of your question, and you will see that I am as troubled about the influence of the drug companies as you are.
Congratulations on your recent award as campaigner of the year.
Best wishes,
Heather
C.H. Ashton
__________________________________________________Q
Posted by Declan on February 4, 2007, at 14:53:27
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by bassman on February 4, 2007, at 11:22:19
"people are either normal and just being weenies about their symptoms or they are howling-dog mad and should be permanently tied to a large metal anchor and medicated heavily "for their own good" and of course, to protect the "normal" people from the many heinous crimes constantly perpetrated by these unhealthy and immoral beings."
Oh, That was wonderful. My only reservation is that todays meds suck, mainly because of the fear of addiction, misuse etc has lead to unpromising lines of enquiry and the banning of the best ones.
Posted by bassman on February 4, 2007, at 15:19:28
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » bassman, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 13:13:48
We just disagree with what Dr. Ashton is advocating. I've been reading her site for years. As a panic disorder person, for whom long-term benzo usage is an important alternative, she comes across like she is running the equivalent of a anti-smoking site...the assumption is that benzos are bad for you (they lead to "addiction, tolerance, etc. all of which have been disputed in the literature) and everyone should get off of them; and people should, of course, use her method. I do agree with her that sometimes people abuse benzos (but seldom PD folks) by taking doses that are quite high and get themselves into the unfortunate situation that the side effects have become intolerable, but they are heavily dependent and have trouble decreasing the dosage-and that is a very bad situation to be in. The best thing for such people may be to have a structured taper, but there are lots of good ones, not just with Valium-and maybe those people, like alcoholics, should stay away from benzos period for their own well-being. But that is an individual decision, not one that should be made by "the state". I think she has contributed to the benzophobia in the UK that to my mind, causes unnecessary suffering.
I see what you are saying and I think I see why you feel she is in some ways a mental health advocate (her letter certainly was entertaining!)-perhaps you can see that I see her mission differently and her reliance on available data outside the UK somewhat inflexible.
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 16:46:07
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by bassman on February 4, 2007, at 15:19:28
>As a panic disorder person, for whom long-term benzo usage is an important alternative, she comes across like she is running the equivalent of a anti-smoking site...
She is. Remember she ran a specialist benzodiazepine withdrawal clinic from 1982-1994 and that is where she obtained most of her data and experience. She published 'The Ashton Manual' free on the internet after being forced by law to retire from the NHS at the age of 65, so that her work could continue to help people who would otherwise have little or no support. I think it's awful Heather is so villified for doing that.
>the assumption is that benzos are bad for you (they lead to "addiction, tolerance, etc. all of which have been disputed in the literature)
Oh come on bassman....benzos do lead to addiction - I know they do because I became an addict that started with legal prescriptions; they do lead to tolerance - that's so obvious and well documented it's hardly worth arguing over; they do lead to dependence, as do nearly all psychiatric drugs taken long term.
>and everyone should get off of them;
I posted a quote from Heather herself further up this thread that contradicts your statement.
>and people should, of course, use her method.
I've never seen any evidence of that - quite to the contrary. She's very objective.
>I do agree with her that sometimes people abuse benzos (but seldom PD folks)
I think her stance on this issue might be that the ultimate aim of any treatment should be for the patient to achieve wellness so that they no longer require the treatment, rather than lingering dependence on substances that (to some degree) impair normal, healthy brain function. So even though people initially feel better (and do indeed function better) when taking benzos, the final goal should still be independent wellness. She maintains this view with regard to antidepressants and other commonly prescribed drugs in the treatment of anxiety disorders - it's not just benzos. I think it's a very good point and a refreshing one too coming from a highly qualified member of the medical community.
>The best thing for such people may be to have a structured taper, but there are lots of good ones, not just with Valium
There are withdrawal charts for several benzodiazepines in the Ashton manual, not just Valium, for use if people wish to taper off directly from their drug of choice. Ashton recommends people do so if they have reservations about switching to Valium, or if Valium is poorly tolerated.
>But that is an individual decision, not one that should be made by "the state".
It is still an individual decision in the UK today. Heather Ashton is protecting that very right in her letter to Rosie Winterton.
>I think she has contributed to the benzophobia in the UK that to my mind, causes unnecessary suffering.
All Heather Ashton has done is produce excellent work from which facts have been drawn. Other people seem to have taken it upon themselves to use her work as propaganda for some quasi-evangelical inquisition against benzos. This was mainly lead by the talk show host Esther Rantzen on her TV consumer advice show 'That's Life!' in the 1980s - she more than anybody has done the most to provoke anti-benzo hysteria in the UK. If you read the benzo.org site regularly you'll see how often Ashton gets annoyed with people misquoting her and trying to use her work to further their own ends. Heather has asked one particular anti-benzo organisation to stop using her work without prior permission on her part because she disagrees with their intention of forcing all benzo addicts to withdraw against their will. I'll try to find a link.
>perhaps you can see that I see her mission differently and her reliance on available data outside the UK somewhat inflexible.
No, I don't. Most of her data comes from direct personal experience of working with benzodiazepine addicts in her own clinic - the best type of data in my opinion. I trust her work to be impartial and accurate. It's really quite odd that people use her as some sort of hate figure. She's just speaking the truth and that might sometimes be unpalatable.
Q
Posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2007, at 18:54:15
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » bassman, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 16:46:07
Quintal how do you explain the fact that at age 24 I had severe panic attacks that required going to the hospital to ER's and those docs prescribed benzos and mepbrobamate. I took all till anxiety calmed down and also was raising three small children and running a business. My anxiety was less so I just stopped the mepbrobamate and when I told the doc he acted surprised that I did this. But I didn't need it anymore. Stayed with the valium and gradually cut down to 5mg a day. Then a period of time where I took no benzos at all. I was drinking only 3 beers a night at the time. Then years later when my autoimmune system crashed I was forced to up benzos again I was on xanax . But once the synthroid kicked in I lowered the dose again on my own. And I today take the same amount as I did over 30years ago and recently cut from 20mg of valium to l5 in one night. Ups and downs over the years and different benzos and Mother, Father, Sister, her kids my kids all take a benzo so I believe there is a biological gene or something missing in all our Gaba systems. Now the ad's do nothing for me. So I try and take a minimal dose of luvox and personally think they do nothing for me. Love Phillipa
Posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 19:12:04
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » bassman, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 16:46:07
"Oh come on bassman....benzos do lead to addiction - I know they do because I became an addict that started with legal prescriptions; they do lead to tolerance - that's so obvious and well documented it's hardly worth arguing over; they do lead to dependence, as do nearly all psychiatric drugs taken long term."
>
>The fact that I have taken benzos from over 20 yrs
without increasing the dose nor taking them every day would indicate this is not a absolute statement.
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 19:26:34
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 19:12:04
>The fact that I have taken benzos from over 20 yrs
>without increasing the dose nor taking them every day would indicate this is not a absolute statement.Obviously. I think you know me well enough now to know that I know that as well. It is possible to cover all eventualities in speech and use vast, rambling, convoluted sentences like this to make sure all points are covered, but it tends to bore the *rse off the reader who will mostly be aware of these obvious subtleties anyway. For that reason I try to be as concise as possible, though I realise it will leave me vulnerable to nitpicking and pedantry from certain individuals.
You're right - tolerance to benzos is not universal, but it is very common. Most people develop some degree of tolerance to the initial dose. The same can be said of other drugs of abuse in some circumstances.
Q
Posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 19:37:46
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » notfred, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 19:26:34
> Obviously. I think you know me well enough now to know that I know that as well. It is possible to cover all eventualities in speech and use vast, rambling, convoluted sentences like this to make sure all points are covered, but it tends to bore the *rse off the reader who will mostly be aware of these obvious subtleties anyway. For that reason I try to be as concise as possible, though I realise it will leave me vulnerable to nitpicking and pedantry from certain individuals.
>
The difference between an absolute and general statement is worlds apart.
Posted by Squiggles on February 4, 2007, at 19:45:21
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 19:37:46
I do not believe that clonazepam was available
in the UK. Did Professor Ashton work with
clonazepam withdrawal situations? I ask because
as i have said before, it is the one benzo that
you can take almost indefinitely without raising
the dose to catch up to tolerance. All this stuff is availabe on the Merck about withdrawal etc., nothing new really.Squiggles
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 19:48:35
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2007, at 18:54:15
I'm not sure what you're asking me to explain Phillipa? You suffered severe panic attacks and were prescribed the standard anxiolytics used at that time. You've managed to wean yourself off them for short periods of time when you had little stress - that's good and part of what I mean by the goal of treatment being independent wellness. You seem to know this instinctively but it's something that seems to be forgotten or ignored in psychiatry now, where the focus is most often on obsessively fine-tuning neurochemistry with cocktails of drugs - most of which we are expected to stay on indefinitely under the premise of correcting some sort of hereditary deficit.
I don't really accept this notion any more because as you've already said, your anxiety decreases depending on your circumstances - to the point where you no longer need benzos. The goal of therapy is to get you to reorganize your life so that the demands of your circumstances match your limitations and temperament. Using drugs to push boundaries and alter personality is to me more suggestive of performance enhancement than treatment of a medical condition.
Q
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 20:05:22
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by Squiggles on February 4, 2007, at 19:45:21
Clonazepam is available in the UK as the brand name Rivotril, but it is mostly used to treat rare forms of epilepsy and has no license for anxiety. I managed to get a locum GP to prescribe it off label for me though. I wrote a post on my experiences with Rivotril earlier today so I won't repeat it all here. Here is a link to that post:
http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070201/msgs/729575.html
I imagine Prof. Ashton worked with international colleagues to arrive at her conclusions for drugs like Xanax and Klonopin. She has also produced withdrawal schedules and equivalence charts for some very obscure and rarely used benzos. Prof. Ashton doesn't usually deal with personal enquiries about benzodiazepine withdrawal but she may be willing to clarify academic details of her work to interested parties. You can contact her here if you wish:
Department of Psychiatry
Royal Victoria Infirmary
Newcastle upon Tyne
NE1 4LP
England UKQ
Posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 20:28:53
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » bassman, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 16:46:07
"She is. Remember she ran a specialist benzodiazepine withdrawal clinic from 1982-1994 and that is where she obtained most of her data and experience. She published 'The Ashton Manual' free on the internet after being forced by law to retire from the NHS at the age of 65, so that her work could continue to help people who would otherwise have little or no support. I think it's awful Heather is so villified for doing that."
When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 20:42:34
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 20:28:53
>When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
I get the impression you're trying to troll me somewhat notfred. If not, would you kindly clarify and get to the point of your argument instead of vicious sniping? I find all this cat-like behaviour very wearing.Q
Posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2007, at 20:46:55
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Phillipa, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 19:48:35
Quintal I have to disagree to a point. My life is organized to create the least amount of anxiety. But what happens for instance when you Son loses his eyesight and two fingertips in Dessert Storm and you must keep working and at the same time travel to Washington DC to the hospital where he is being flown in from Lanstal Germany. Your stress rises whether you like it or not and no amt of CBT can change the outcome. Or losing your identity nursing which was your life and getting old nothing can change that except hard theraphy work to change your thinking and while doing this you need help with a benzo or you won't get it know what I mean? Love Phillipa
Posted by dbc on February 4, 2007, at 20:47:07
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 20:28:53
Despite how nice it is what she said The Ashton Manual is complete and utter b*llshit. It says the titration period for 2mg of klonopin is 12 months! I mean really...seriously...thats absurd.
Also benzo.uk.org is an anti benzo site and if you dare to read their forums you will find out its a complete haven for anti medication, anti psychiatrist, anti basically everything to do with mental health care. They're like cultists...maybe they are scientologists, i really dont know.
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 21:05:08
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Quintal, posted by Phillipa on February 4, 2007, at 20:46:55
Then you may look to withdraw from the harshness of reality and seek comfort in a pill, which might be what you've done. I'm sorry to hear about your son's injury but my liking for you as a person is separate from the truth of the matter; pleas for sympathy are a weak form of argument.
Perhaps humanistic counselling would be more appropriate in this context? They are more willing to allow you to explore feelings in whatever way you find comfortable. CBT tends to be much more clinical and restrictive. Have you tried this approach?
Q
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 21:19:12
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by dbc on February 4, 2007, at 20:47:07
Heather Ashton has produced the most comprehensive and accurate guide to benzodiazepine use and withdrawal ever written. She and her immediate colleagues are not scientologists. I am as sure of it as I possibly can be. That accusation is all too common and easy to throw around here as defensiveness toward any criticism of current psychiatric practice. It is also the last resort of people who know they are out of their depth and have no sound argument to present.
It seems to me that you're speaking out in anger against some perceived attack. I suggest you take them time to calm down and re-read the Ashton Manual thoroughly. I'm sure you will find that on the whole it is a thorough and well researched scientific document. I'm curious about the example you cite - would you please provide a link and quotation from the passage in question?
Here is a brief account of Prof. Heather Ashton's career - an impressive CV not typical of the average scientologist I'm sure:
__________________________________________________ABOUT PROFESSOR C HEATHER ASHTON, DM, FRCP
Chrystal Heather Ashton DM, FRCP is Emeritus Professor of Clinical Psycho-pharmacology at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne, England.
Professor Ashton is a graduate of the University of Oxford and obtained a First Class Honours Degree (BA) in Physiology in 1951. She qualified in Medicine (BM, BCh, MA) in 1954 and gained a postgraduate Doctor of Medicine (DM) in 1956. She qualified as MRCP (Member of the Royal College of Physicians, London) in 1958 and was elected FRCP (Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London) in 1975. She also became National Health Service Consultant in Clinical Psychopharmacology in 1975 and National Health Service Consultant in Psychiatry in 1994.
She has worked at the University of Newcastle upon Tyne as researcher (Lecturer, Senior Lecturer, Reader and Professor) and clinician since 1965, first in the Department of Pharmacology and latterly in the Department of Psychiatry. Her research has centred, and continues, on the effects of psychotropic drugs (nicotine, cannabis, benzodiazepines, antidepressants and others) on the brain and behaviour in man. Her main clinical work was in running a benzodiazepine withdrawal clinic for 12 years from 1982-1994.
She is at present involved with the North East Council for Addictions (NECA) of which she is former Vice-Chairman of the Executive Committee on which she still serves. She continues to give advice on benzodiazepine problems to counsellors and is patron of the Bristol & District Tranquilliser Project. She was generic expert in the UK benzodiazepine litigation in the 1980s and has been involved with the UK organisation Victims of Tranquillisers (VOT). She has submitted evidence about benzodiazepines to the House of Commons Health Select Committee.
She has published approximately 250 papers in professional journals, books and chapters in books on psychotropic drugs of which over 50 concern benzodiazepines. She has given evidence to various Government committees on tobacco smoking, cannabis and benzodiazepines and has given invited lectures on benzodiazepines in the UK, Australia, Sweden, Switzerland and other countries.
http://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha00.htm#3
__________________________________________________Q
Posted by dbc on February 4, 2007, at 21:39:08
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » dbc, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 21:19:12
My problem was not with ashton nor did i say anything negative of her except that the titration schedules she reccomends seem extremely long and not needed.
As for benzo.uk.org, the individuals on their forums could very well be scientologists among other things as their behaviour and general attitude is rabid and scary.
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 21:42:14
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by dbc on February 4, 2007, at 21:39:08
>As for benzo.uk.org, the individuals on their forums could very well be scientologists among other things as their behaviour and general attitude is rabid and scary.
No sh*t? I wonder what those people would make of the behaviour of some of the people posting here in defence of benzodiazepines?
Q
Posted by dbc on February 4, 2007, at 21:58:23
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » dbc, posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 21:42:14
> No sh*t? I wonder what those people would make of the behaviour of some of the people posting here in defence of benzodiazepines?
>
> QYes, because my panic disorder is an ideology and im just rationalizing poorly when i show up at emergency rooms at 3 am complaining of a stroke and passing out repeatedly due to hyperventilation and having a blood pressure so high im asked more than once "so you walked into the emergency room on your own". This is a belief and not a mental disorder that i have. The benzos that i take are an extension of this ideology.
By the way im in CBT/talk therapy and have been previously.
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 22:12:32
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by dbc on February 4, 2007, at 21:58:23
As usual I'm not sure what you're getting at. I am not anti-med nor anti-psychiatrist, and I follow no fixed ideology.
>im just rationalizing poorly when i show up at emergency rooms at 3 am complaining of a stroke and passing out repeatedly due to hyperventilation and having a blood pressure so high im asked more than once "so you walked into the emergency room on your own".
That's right. Poor rationalization. You're not having a stroke - that's your imagination. I know the feeling since I too suffered panic attacks and extremely high blood pressure when I quit clonazepam cold turkey.
>The benzos that i take are an extension of this ideology.
The benzos that you take are just chemicals relax both your body and your over-active imagination during a crisis. They are not part of an ideology unless you choose to make them so.
>By the way im in CBT/talk therapy and have been previously.
Good to hear.
Q
Posted by yxibow on February 4, 2007, at 22:22:45
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by dbc on February 4, 2007, at 21:39:08
> My problem was not with ashton nor did i say anything negative of her except that the titration schedules she reccomends seem extremely long and not needed.
I would concur on that
> As for benzo.uk.org, the individuals on their forums could very well be scientologists among other things as their behaviour and general attitude is rabid and scary.
Its not clear that benzo.org.uk is "run" by her -- it seems to be some other person disseminating information. I'm not clear of the connection between the foresaid individual and the site.
But while some people may get benefit from that site on here and we've gotten into ridiculous nanny-gate deputy slaps about the site, I think I will stay out of the foray because while I too think the whole thing is kind of scary and we've had several "trolls" about benzodiazepines not to mention a recent person I won't mention who seems to be anti-medicine and new to the board.
Posted by Quintal on February 4, 2007, at 23:06:29
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » dbc, posted by yxibow on February 4, 2007, at 22:22:45
__________________________________________________
> My problem was not with ashton nor did i say anything negative of her except that the titration schedules she reccomends seem extremely long and not needed.
I would concur on that
__________________________________________________In his initial post dbc posted this statement:
>Despite how nice it is what she said The Ashton Manual is complete and utter b*llshit.
Hardly a complement to the venerable Prof. Heather Ashton.
Prof. Ashton's suggested taper schedules are extremely long so as to give people plenty of space and time to adjust their lives around the schedule and produce no withdrawal symptoms at all if followed correctly. She has always maintained that people should adjust the schedules according to their own preferences and reduce the dose at their own pace, not hers, the doctors, the psychiatrist's or anyone else's. Believe me, that way is much better than a Gestapo style 'tough love' withdrawal advocated by some of the true ani-benzo fanatics.
>Its not clear that benzo.org.uk is "run" by her -- it seems to be some other person disseminating information. I'm not clear of the connection between the foresaid individual and the site.
I don't think benzo.org is run by Heather Ashton. I also suspect she has never launched a publicity campaign against benzos herself, but she has taken up invitations to give evidence as a professional speaker on their behalf. I know she has done her best to dissociate herself from those groups who have tried to use her work as a weapon in their scare-mongering to get benzos off the market.
>I think I will stay out of the foray because while I too think the whole thing is kind of scary and we've had several "trolls" about benzodiazepines not to mention a recent person I won't mention who seems to be anti-medicine and new to the board.
I hope you're not trying to imply any connection between myself and that person yxibow? By co-incidence he contacted me via RemedyFind some months ago and I told him my honest opinion then; that I think his perceived lingering symptoms of EPS from a single dose of amisulpride are psychosomatic and the result of negative expectations. Everything I've seen posted here since by that individual has reinforced my suspicions.
I started this thread when I came across Prof. Ashton's letter to Rosie Winterton earlier today when researching for a quote for a different thread. I thought it was excellent and disproved that she is not a benzophobic fanatic that will stop at nothing to rid the UK of those drugs and crush their users. That idea is just absurd, yet it remains incredibly popular here.
I think it's about time someone stood up for Heather Ashton with all the hard work she's done to help people caught up in benzo addiction against their will. What she did for benzos in the 1980s is similar to what many people here wish someone would do for drugs like Paxil and Effexor with their claims of unparalleled freedom from side-effects and withdrawal symptoms - she was an active professional that stood up to the medical profession against fierce criticism, to defend people who were suffering with no support and much ignorance and denial on the part of their doctors. I think she deserves some cheer for that and recognition for her effort, not derision and mindless sniping.>I think I will stay out of the foray
You entered the foray when you decided to post here.
Q
Go forward in thread:
Psycho-Babble Medication | 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.