![[dr. bob]](/dr-bob-sm.gif)
Dr. Bob is Robert Hsiung, MD,
bob@dr-bob.orgShown: posts 35 to 59 of 133. Go back in thread:
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 10:25:09
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 7:53:26
What is, then, in peoples' opinion, the reason why the UK is so particulary 'benzophobic'? I always assumed (wrongly?) that it was down to Prof Aston's work. To be fair, I thought that she was some sort of academic anomaly, but perhaps I can see what Quintal is saying. But then, I'm curious, what caused the benzophobia?
Posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 10:26:03
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by valene on February 5, 2007, at 10:14:55
>
>
> > 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.
>
> I once read the site and even joined the forum a few years ago. Benzo.uk is owned by a guy who was "addicted to valium", said it ruined his life, and successfully sued his doctor and then set up the site.
>
> When you join the forum, you must agree and I quote "benzodiazepines were created in the depths of hell by the very devil himself, and distributed freely here on earth by his demons". Hope that answers some questions about the origins of benzo.uk or whatever. I refuse to ever go back there, as it scared the daylights out of me with the extreme notions that *any* and all psych. meds are horrendous and people got thrown off the forum for taking a vitamin (not kidding).
>
> Val
>
I was at that group some years ago. The person you are referring to is Ray Nimmo [?]. When I joined (I think it was 2001 or 2002) there was no such pledging to the belief that demonic forces of evil are responsible for benzos, as a condition of joining the group. Things must have changed considerably. Are you sure you are not referring to somebody who had suffered withdrawals and posted that as a hyperbole?Also, I don't want to mention names, but I know some professionals who also believe that benzos can be addictive and are not necessarily needed for long-term treatment, as anxiety can be transient or circumstantial. In some cases, they are due to medical conditions and in most, i would say it is a side-effects of antidepressants. This last one does require long-term adjunct treatment.
Squiggles
Posted by valene on February 5, 2007, at 10:36:35
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 10:26:03
Yes, when I joined the opening statement before you join is "you must believe........created in the depths of hell, etc." Not lying. I cannot say for certain that the owner made this statement but had to be endorsed by him.OTOH, I have been taking a benzo for 25 years and I do respect Heather Ashton, but she is not the final authority on benzodiazepines. I have seen a doctor with very high credentials, won't go into all of it but he was the chairman of the task force on Benzodiazepines, a study coducted by the APA several years ago and he recommends that I stay on the small dose of benzo I am currently on. He has written many many articles and textbooks and no he is not the final authority either. So, none of us can judge what an individual on this forum "needs" that would be ridiculous. We can say "in general the benzos should not be prescribed for life" or the "SSRI may be needed for life" but not in specific cases and there are many people on this forum who are not the run of the mill. That's all I am saying.
> I was at that group some years ago. The person you are referring to is Ray Nimmo [?]. When I joined (I think it was 2001 or 2002) there was no such pledging to the belief that demonic forces of evil are responsible for benzos, as a condition of joining the group. Things must have changed considerably. Are you sure you are not referring to somebody who had suffered withdrawals and posted that as a hyperbole?
>
> Also, I don't want to mention names, but I know some professionals who also believe that benzos can be addictive and are not necessarily needed for long-term treatment, as anxiety can be transient or circumstantial. In some cases, they are due to medical conditions and in most, i would say it is a side-effects of antidepressants. This last one does require long-term adjunct treatment.
>
> Squiggles
>
Posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 10:39:48
In reply to Just a question, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 10:25:09
> What is, then, in peoples' opinion, the reason why the UK is so particulary 'benzophobic'? I always assumed (wrongly?) that it was down to Prof Aston's work. To be fair, I thought that she was some sort of academic anomaly, but perhaps I can see what Quintal is saying. But then, I'm curious, what caused the benzophobia?
I've read some of Charles Medawar's works on the
topic and it seems to be that some drugs go through fashions in medical trends. I think there is such a thing as a vogue when you have a fluid development in medical treatment. There are some drugs that are not available in some countries, even though they are better. Hopefully, there is also a trend towards greater integrity and knowledge. I think that there is safety in numbers in this area.Squiggles
Posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 12:02:41
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 10:26:03
> I was at that group some years ago. The person you are referring to is Ray Nimmo [?].
Ray owns the domain benzo.uk.org & won a landmark case against his doctors for giving him benzos. This makes the site biased toward one persons viewpoint.
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:13:04
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Quintal, posted by yxibow on February 5, 2007, at 1:04:39
>Well he's entitled to his opinion too.
Of course he is, but dbc claimed he said nothing negative of Heather Ashton. That isn't true - that was my point.
>Benzo tapers should be something done as a collaborative effort between a rational psychopharmacologist and his or her patient. But that doesn't mean that it takes 2 years to get off of a few milligrams of Valium nor does it say you should drop benzodiazepines like a lead brick.
The point Jay is that very few people (hardly any in fact) have access to a psychopharmacologist in the UK. Many struggle just to get a bi-annual appointment with an frazzled, over-worked pdoc with limited resources and experience. That is the deficit that Heather Ashton tried to address in her work running benzo withdrawal clinics from 1982-1994. As I've said, when she was forced to retire by law at age 65, she wrote the Ashton Manual and provided it free on the internet so that she could continue to help people who have no access to decent support services withdraw safely and comfortably from benzodiazepines. She has no sinister motives as far as I can tell, other than those which people like to attribute to her.
>That's what I mean by trolling -- the deliberate posting of inflammatory and odd arguments to generate large amounts of waste of time posts.
Some people may find that topic interesting and stimulating. If you feel that it's a waste then don't read or post to the thread.
>Well that's fine, I didn't argue about that. The UK has always been behind with benzodiazepine dispensing.
That could be construed as a jibe against the UK being a backward country Jay. I could suggest on the contrary that the drug laws here are more progressive than those in the US; afterall benzos were once extremely popular here too. Here are a few quotes from Richard Davenport-Hines' book "The Pursuit of Oblivion: a global history of narcotics" that I think sum up the history of medical prescription of drugs of abuse in the UK quite well:
__________________________________________________"The National Health service set up in 1948 was funded by tax contributions, and physicians found it hard to refuse patients who felt that as tax-payers they were entitled to NHS drugs by right. General practitioners were paid according to the number of patients in their NHS practices. This made it hard, as a Newcastle physician regretted in 1962, to restrict prescriptions for substances like amphetamines. After requesting transfer to a doctor's list, the patient often produced a tablet and asked for a further supply. The doctor seldom refused for fear of losing a year's payment not only for the patient but also in all probability for her family. Patients only had to change doctors to get all the barbiturates and amphetamines they desired."
"In Britain during 1946 32,500 kilograms of barbiturates were sold, rising to over 40,000 kilograms in 1951. Barbiturates, for the British, reported the Daily Mirror in 1955, were 'as much a part of the daily routine for thousands as cleaning their teeth'."
"After 1960, when the clinical effectiveness of chlordiazepoxide was established, barbiturates were gradually supplanted by a new group of drugs, the benzodiazepines. Chlordiazepoxide was followed by the even more successful diazepam. Twenty-five types of benzodiazepines were available within twenty years. By the early 1980s these were the most widely used of all drugs in Britain."
"According to an estimate of 1981, 10 per cent of all British males and 20 per cent of adult females took tranquillizers or hypnotics, mainly benzodiazepines, at least once a year. Of these one-half to two-thirds took tranquillizers for at least a month at a time. Two per cent of adults, say 600,000 people, were taking tranquillizers every day or night of the year. Over 4 per cent of all prescriptions were for diazepam."
__________________________________________________>I'm not sure about the against their will part, but again I'll agree to disagree.
The original benzo addicts were similar to the people today who began taking SSRIs like Paxil in the belief that they were safer and had minimal side effects and no withdrawal symptoms compared to older meds. In other words they were mislead either through ignorance on behalf of their doctors or by deliberate deceit. They felt very angry about that and Heather Ashton supported their views and defended them against the medical profession which at that time were trying to dismiss the problems surrounding withdrawal and related problems.
>The sniping came from the person who runs the site, not how decorated this professor may be.
I really don't know what that means Jay, or what you're getting at.
Q
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:16:36
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 12:02:41
>Ray owns the domain benzo.uk.org & won a landmark case against his doctors for giving him benzos. This makes the site biased toward one persons viewpoint.
Never in the world! I mean it's not like this site could be considered biased to any particular approach now could it?
Q
Posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 12:22:48
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » notfred, posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:16:36
> >Ray owns the domain benzo.uk.org & won a landmark case against his doctors for giving him benzos. This makes the site biased toward one persons viewpoint.
>
> Never in the world! I mean it's not like this site could be considered biased to any particular approach now could it?
>
> Q"benzodiazepines were created in the depths of hell by the very devil himself, and distributed freely here on earth by his demons"
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:22:54
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 7:53:26
>The only difference between the Benzo group and the mainstream group is that doctors in the Benzo group think it's a good idea to stay away from benzos, while mainstream doctors prescribe them as needed. Ideally, imho, benzos should be administered as needed, and when needed, and if needed, AND monitored during discontinuation.
I think the main difference in Heather Ashton's view and those of most doctors, is that she thinks benzodiazepines are often over-prescribed and people are often given repeat prescriptions without proper review long after the original crisis has passed. In fact most doctors in the UK actually share her view, but they argue that long-term benzodiazepine dependence is an unfortunate clinical reality given the demands and restrictions placed on them in practice. Heather Ashton is a mainstream doctor.Q
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:34:14
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 12:22:48
>"benzodiazepines were created in the depths of hell by the very devil himself, and distributed freely here on earth by his demons"
I have never read a statement remotely resembling that on the benzo.org website. That kind of pseudo-religious hysteria is not something the British normally go in for. I would be more convinced if we could actually see a quote with a link to support it. We already have a statement form one lady who claims she joined the site and did not see any such statement.
Sounds like some people might be paranoid and vulnerable to making up stories and attributing sinister motives to people with conflicting beliefs around here:
"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 don't know."
I'm getting really tired by this (what seems to me) mean-spirited vendetta against people who wish to speak the truth about benzodiazepines. I realize this might make you feel uncomfortable, but that is not my intention. If you feel distressed then please leave the thread and ignore further posts.
Q
Posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 12:37:47
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » notfred, posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:34:14
> I'm getting really tired by this (what seems to me) mean-spirited vendetta against people who wish to speak the truth about benzodiazepines. I realize this might make you feel uncomfortable, but that is not my intention. If you feel distressed then please leave the thread and ignore further posts.
>
> Q
The truth in their eyes, ignoring that many experts disagree. So that makes it their truth
and not "the" truth.
Posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 12:37:50
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Squiggles, posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:22:54
> >The only difference between the Benzo group and the mainstream group is that doctors in the Benzo group think it's a good idea to stay away from benzos, while mainstream doctors prescribe them as needed. Ideally, imho, benzos should be administered as needed, and when needed, and if needed, AND monitored during discontinuation.
>
>
> I think the main difference in Heather Ashton's view and those of most doctors, is that she thinks benzodiazepines are often over-prescribed and people are often given repeat prescriptions without proper review long after the original crisis has passed. In fact most doctors in the UK actually share her view, but they argue that long-term benzodiazepine dependence is an unfortunate clinical reality given the demands and restrictions placed on them in practice. Heather Ashton is a mainstream doctor.
>
> Q
>They are overprescribed, and worse, doctors and
patients are often unware of the consequences of stopping them or interrupting them or reaching tolerance. Dr. Ashton has provided professional help for people who don't know what the *** hit them. (Clonazepam is still a puzzle). I know from experience that I waisted 10 yrs. of productive life on what i call "inter-dose withdrawal", though the high thyroid hormone may have been a co-variable. It was an embarrassing and futile experience, at a time when in North America at least, benzos were not considered major drugs.I think we have a problem in our society, not only with benzos but all medications, esp. antidepressants which require closer and more careful monitoring. We just don't have enough drs. To make things worse, the drug companies have not cooperated with this problem by say, opening up clinics, but rather cloning existing classes of drugs for the sole sake of profit.
As for Ray, what can I say -- he's a born-again Christian with a medal in his pocket. :-) But you can't help but like the man.
Squiggles
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:43:50
In reply to Just a question, posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 10:25:09
>What is, then, in peoples' opinion, the reason why the UK is so particulary 'benzophobic'? I always assumed (wrongly?) that it was down to Prof Aston's work. To be fair, I thought that she was some sort of academic anomaly, but perhaps I can see what Quintal is saying. But then, I'm curious, what caused the benzophobia?
Much anti-benzo hysteria was whipped up by Esther Rantzen on her 'That's Life!' consumer advice programme during the mid 1980's. She set up a help-line and even some sort of 'benzo meter' recording the number of people who had managed to quit them over a period of years since her campaign started. You might have seen enough of her personality to guess that she didn't give up the campaign that made her famous and won so many viewer ratings without a fight.
Q
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 13:36:29
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by valene on February 5, 2007, at 10:36:35
>Yes, when I joined the opening statement before you join is "you must believe........created in the depths of hell, etc." Not lying. I cannot say for certain that the owner made this statement but had to be endorsed by him.
I'm curious why you, as a seemingly vehement supporter of long-term benzodiazepine use, decided to join a benzo withdrawal support group?
Which support forum did you join specifically valene? It appears there are several independent of benzo.org, though the website contains links to those sites for interested parties: http://www.benzo.org.uk/support.htm
I've searched through the site just now valene and I see no religious fundamentalism there. There is the symbol of the cross and the fish of course, but I think that's a harmless symbol of the faith that helped Ray Nimmo through the hardship of withdrawal. There is no pressure to conform to any particular belief system that I can see there.
Q
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:16:03
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 12:37:47
>The truth in their eyes, ignoring that many experts disagree. So that makes it their truth
and not "the" truth.So the anti-benzo people are solipsistic? Isn't that a surprise? To my eyes they are much the same as the pro-benzo people. People at opposite extremes of a political spectrum are actually often very much alike in my experience.
This is starting to look more and more like trolling notfred. If you have nothing more than glib sniping to add to this thread then kindly leave it.
Q
Posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 14:22:30
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » notfred, posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:16:03
"The truth in their eyes, ignoring that many experts disagree. So that makes it their truth
> and not "the" truth.
>
> So the anti-benzo people are solipsistic? Isn't that a surprise? To my eyes they are much the same as the pro-benzo people."
Then there are those like me that do not use black and white thinking. benzos are good options for some and bad options for others.I am free, just as anyone else, to engage in threads as I like.
Posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 14:25:56
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 4, 2007, at 20:28:53
> "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.
This means that when one only works with one group
of people the tendancy is to generalize across all groups.
Posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 14:28:10
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 14:22:30
Clonazepam remains a pharmaceutical enigma.
Maybe, it's like one of those other drugs a poster
recently wrote about, tr***something or other
that stood out in its class once they changed
a single molecule.Only your neighbourhood chemist knows for sure.
Squiggles
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:28:42
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 14:22:30
I posted this further up the thread:
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
__________________________________________________I think those quotes are a good enough antidote to this:
"Then there are those like me that do not use black and white thinking. benzos are good options for some and bad options for others."
>I am free, just as anyone else, to engage in threads as I like.
You are welcome to post on this thread if you have fresh information or some new perspective to add. You are not welcome here however, if you come to annoy and disrupt, no matter how free you may be to do so.
Q
Posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 14:31:35
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » notfred, posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:28:42
>
> You are welcome to post on this thread if you have fresh information or some new perspective to add. You are not welcome here however, if you come to annoy and disrupt, no matter how free you may be to do so.
>
> QYou are not in control of who is welcome or not.
Do not read my posts if you are bothered by them.
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:35:03
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 14:25:56
>This means that when one only works with one group of people the tendancy is to generalize across all groups.
I don't think Heather Ashton is prone to generalization. She is far too experienced a scientist for that and I've seen no evidence of it myself. You may be able to isolate certain quotes from restricted passages to give that effect, but on the whole, the vast body of her work is very thorough in weighing up the subtleties of the problem.
Q
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:35:55
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 14:28:10
In what way do you think clonazepam is unique Squiggles?
Q
Posted by Squiggles on February 5, 2007, at 14:41:43
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks! » Squiggles, posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:35:55
As I have said before, you can take 0.5mg
for 10 years and not have to raise it
for tolerance. It is also very difficult
and in some cases impossible to withdraw from.I don't know of any other benzos that have
those properties.Squiggles
Posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 14:44:03
In reply to Re: Ashton Rocks!, posted by notfred on February 5, 2007, at 14:31:35
>You are not in control of who is welcome or not.
I am indeed in control of who I welcome and who I do not, though as you have said, I can't stop you posting.
This seems to be getting extremely childish and off-topic and that's the reason I don't welcome you to this thread I started. If you have something significant and insightful to add then please do so. Your opinion on this topic has been noted, thank you for providing it. However, your continued sniping is starting to seem to me like a wilful and malicious attempt to disrupt this thread.
>Do not read my posts if you are bothered by them.
Likewise.
Q
Posted by Meri-Tuuli on February 5, 2007, at 14:44:21
In reply to Re: Just a question » Meri-Tuuli, posted by Quintal on February 5, 2007, at 12:43:50
I didn't know that! I was only born in 1980. Although I do remember watching 'thats life'!
But surely a programme like that can't influence public policy like that? I mean, its one thing that sort of stuff appearing on a show, an other well, I dunno, influencing GPs and NHS policy and that.
Or I don't know? Can it? Perhaps it can.
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.