RECENT article on benzos in our governments library

Here is a recent article- June 29 2011- from the National Institutes of Health and National Library of Medicine.  Other articles posted from these archives have been criticised as being out of date...so I thought it good to find such a recent one.

 

This article is encouraging in the respect that it shows medical scholars are aware of the reinventing of benzos to continue sales and recognizes that dangers are being largely ignored by the medical community.  Here is a blurb from the abstract - followed by the link:

 

"Almost from their introduction the BZDs have been controversial with polarised opinions, advocates pointing out their efficacy, tolerability and patient acceptability, opponents deprecating their adverse effects, dependence and abuse liability. More recently, the advent of alternative and usually safer medications has opened up the debate. The review noted a series of adverse effects that continued to cause concern, such as cognitive and psychomotor impairment. In addition, dependence and abuse remain as serious problems. Despite warnings and guidelines, usage of these drugs remains at a high level. The limitations in their use both as choice of therapy and with respect to conservative dosage and duration of use are highlighted. The distinction between low dose "iatrogenic" dependence and high-dose abuse/misuse is emphasised. Conclusions  The practical problems with the benzodiazepines (BZDs) have persisted for 50 years, but have been ignored by many practitioners and almost all official bodies. The risk/benefit ratio of the BZDs remains positive in most patients in the short-term (2-4 weeks) but is unestablished beyond that time, mainly due to the difficulty in preventing short-term use from extending indefinitely with the risk of dependence."

 

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714826

 

 

 

Just for everyones information- here is the definition of 'iatrogenic' from the medical dictionary:

 

iatrogenic /iat·ro·gen·ic/ (i-ă´tro-jen´ik) resulting from the activity of physicians; said of any adverse condition in a patient resulting from treatment by a physician or surgeon

 

 

This isn't surprising.

 

The Government hides a lot of things!

 

 

For the life of me, there is so so much information out there that these meds are improperly prescribed and so much that makes it obvious, doctors HAVE FREE REIGN and will do what they want to do regardless of guidelines.

 

Why are there not more stringent laws in place for doctors for absolute with no ambiguity in that they have to stick to guidelines and rules or they will be charged.

 

This system no longer makes sense to me. The link you've sent acknowledges serious effects, low dose "iatrogenic" dependence and sheds that in the negative light which it is.

 

IMO they just acknowledged short term can escalate into the risk of dependence. Only it is written in a way like they do not understand why? Is that what I'm reading?

 

Quoted from your link: "The risk/benefit ratio of the BZDs remains positive in most patients in the short-term (2-4) weeks but is unestablished beyond that time, mainly due to the "DIFFICULTY IN PREVENTING SHORT-TERM USE FROM EXTENDING INDEFINITELY WITH THE RISK OF DEPENDENCE."

 

Okay?

 

Why is nobody writing, "being the benzodiazipines can change the brain in as little as 7?8? days (it's written somewhere but I can't find) if taken consistently there is a risk of short term use extending indefinitely with the risk of dependence."

 

It's like they get it, kind of, but not really.

 

It's no wonder the world is on benzos.

I think the attitudes of doctors have succumbed to the courting of the pharmaceutical industry at the very academic institutions where our doctors study medicine.  Here is an interesting article Maranatha sent me regarding this subject:

 

http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.1001037?utm_source=pulsenews&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+plosmedicine%2FNewArticles+%28Ambra+-+Medicine+New+Articles%29

 

 

Also while investigating why the government was not doing anything, I called The National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA).  They are part of the National Institutes of Health (NIH), a component of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.  I spoke with a scientist who deals with benzodiazepines who told me in the 1980's he himself was involved in arguments in medical academia about benzos.  They could not even agree on basic definitions- like 'addiction'- he said that some argued that addiction was only when people took more than prescribed or sought the drug illegally--others argued back saying NO, if a person experiences w/d sx's that means it is addiction--others said NO that is a discontinuation syndrome.  He told me it would be worthless to try to get Congress or the Senate to do anything because of the different schools of thought in medical academia circles.  There is wide and strong disagreement in these circles regarding benzos.

 

 

I also found in PubMed abstracts that supported both sides of this argument.  It seems the most accepted and prevailing school of thought in our countries medical academic institutions is that benzos benefits outweigh the risks, and while there is some acknowledgement of a 'discontinuation syndrome,' Big Pharma has on the whole succeeded in brain washing higher academia into dismissing addiction and protracted w/d.

 

No wonder our doctors are clueless.  The medical institutes are allowing propaganda on the university campuses IMO.

I used to think it was paranoid to think pharmaceutical companies KNOW people are addicted within a short period of time and are chuckling to know that people will keep taking them and they will keep putting money in their pockets.  But oh dear Lord...it's really true!