Jump to content

Jana has reinstated!!!!


[ke...]

Recommended Posts

I have it on solid authority. Evidently her lingering problems from her old site and her disappointment over not getting a patent for her milk microtitration method put her in a wave. She now realized that she tapered too quickly the first time so she has reinstated to 1mg K and will do a proper slow taper this time. Pulling for her.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 120
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

  • [be...]

    19

  • [Fi...]

    16

  • [Co...]

    10

  • [ke...]

    10

Top Posters In This Topic

Jana from that benzodetoxrecovery site ?

 

I don't know her history, but it looks like she really messed up. Of course, that's not uncommon.

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have no idea who this poor person even is, but do you two realize you sound rather gleeful about her troubles?  You can say that you're not, but you chose these words, and that's how they come across. :-[
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Putting words in my mouth, FJ ? You're one to talk !

 

I'd never be gleeful about something like that. It's tragic.

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Okay, I misspoke.  It was Keagan who sounded gleeful with this exclamation-pointed announcement.  You, Liberty, were merely judgmental. Since to reinstate means a person was at least off the drugs for some period of time--a goal you yourself are apparently yet to achieve in this journey--where do you get off tut-tutting that she "really messed up?"

 

And what was the point of posting this sad bit of news in the first place? :-[

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We have a Report to Moderator about comments on this thread.  I have to agree, what is the point of posting this?  It's gossip and it's unsubstantiated.

 

That's my personal opinion, not my 'admin' opinion, by the way. 

 

I don't see any rules broken here, although the quibbling is borderline and needs to stop.  However, if this thread continues to be gossipy and contentious it will be locked.

 

Thanks,

Challis

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are some unsubstantiated remarks to this thread, but there are some important points I feel I should address irrespective of the factual basis for the claims about Jana's 'reinstatement.'

 

Hi FJ,

 

It seems that you (and probably the majority of those reading this thread) are unaware that for many years Jana had her own benzodiazepine withdrawal support forum, where she promoted a system of withdrawal (Dual TitrationTM) which she claimed to be superior to all other methods. She would personally devise individualised withdrawal regimes for her members based upon a secret recipe. She eventually filed for a patent on her method - the patent made little sense to me or anyone I asked to review it. I had nothing to say about Jana and her formula until: 1) her method and her forum were being heavily promoted at BB by a few of her members; and 2) she published her (hitherto secret) method via a patent application.

 

There was a long thread developing at BB about Jana's method and patent. At this point I posted some detailed remarks about her method and its promotion at BB. My comments did not go down well with the few individuals attempting to promote Jana's method at BB. Please note, I never disallowed discussion at BB regarding Jana's method, her forum or her patent. However, I did heavily (and quite rightly) critique her system and how it was being promoted at BB and elsewhere. It is worth noting that at Jana's forum (and at BB via her supporters), Prof. Ashton's protocols were being (groundlessly) demonised as "cut and suffer". You can read more about this matter and my comments from this post, onwards:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=72390.msg973423#msg973423

 

Anyway, that's the background. The thing is, if I reinstated benzodiazepines, with my higher online profile within these circles, it probably would be news at BB and related spaces. But, it really shouldn't be. Not, at least, in such 'shocked tones'. If I reinstated, I could rightly point out that I do not promote my personal experience of withdrawal as being any more valid than that of anyone else. Nor do I promote a personally devised method as being superior to all other methods. In short, I am not a 'withdrawal guru' and am careful in how I promote myself to avoid such a mistaken perception. Jana is no more immune than me or anyone else to problems which might lead her to reinstate. My criticism is that Jana should not have played the role of 'withdrawal guru'. I've seen this elsewhere, within and without the benzodiazepine withdrawal community. It is unhealthy and can lead to unrealistic and/or mistaken expectations of outcome (good or bad). Seeing your 'guru' falter might lead you to question your own progress. I am sure that being 'guru' to many people going through benzodiazepine withdrawal was never Jana's intention, but if you do play such a role, supporters will feel let down when others point out problems with your method, or you suddenly close your forum and cease providing tailored withdrawal services, or when you 'fail' in some manner. This is one of the  main reasons why BB is organised as a peer-support environment.

 

I must also address the proposal of reinstatement of benzodiazepines after very many years of abstinence 'to do the taper properly': pharmacologically speaking, this makes absolutely no sense! Of course, such a reinstatement does not equate with the reversal of a cut because an individual has tapered too quickly and cannot bear the withdrawal symptoms. Nor does it equate with someone who has quit (for however long) who subsequently decides to reinstate for whatever (considered) reason. However, I really do wish to nip in the bud the proposal that following a protracted period of abstinence from benzodiazepines that there are any good reasons for reinstatement for the sole purpose of 'withdrawing again, properly'. I've seen this idea crop quite a number of times over the years. It just does not work like that. The three realistic options would be: 1) stay off benzodiazepines; 2) reinstate because it is your (and your doctor's) considered opinion that this is best for you; or 3) reinstate with a goal of withdrawing sometime in the future when circumstances are better. But to reinstate (after many, many years abstinence) to 'do withdrawal right'? No way! That's plain wrong.

 

I have it on solid authority. Evidently her lingering problems from her old site and her disappointment over not getting a patent for her milk microtitration method put her in a wave. She now realized that she tapered too quickly the first time so she has reinstated to 1mg K and will do a proper slow taper this time. Pulling for her.

 

I wish Jana very best - I really do. I do not criticise Jana or anyone else who wishes to reinstate their use of benzodiazepines (I refer you all to the BB Mission Statement). But for the benefit of our members and anyone else who might read this thread: there is absolutely no pharmacological benefit/basis to the reinstatement of benzodiazepines years after withdrawal purely for the purposes of supposedly withdrawing again, but this time, 'properly'.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thank you Colin.  I always enjoy reading your thoughtfully worded posts.  So much insight, big picture perspective and wisdom. 

 

Knowledge, ideas, theories, insights, titration methods--these are things I believe should not be patented for personal gain.  These are things that should be shared freely to help others and, by doing so, to raise the level of consciousness and compassion throughout all humanity.  I've never really understood the whole concept of "intellectual property" as something that should be owned with some sort of exclusivity. 

 

Just my musings.

 

Sofa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the creators of "intellectual property" need to eat too.  Are you asking everyone who comes up with an idea that would be helpful to humanity to give it away out of the goodness of their heart?  Nobody suggests farmers should grow food and give it away for free just because it's helpful to everyone to eat!  Society couldn't move forward if we penalize the people who work with their intellect rather than their hands.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the creators of "intellectual property" need to eat too.  Are you asking everyone who comes up with an idea that would be helpful to humanity to give it away out of the goodness of their heart?  Nobody suggests farmers should grow food and give it away for free just because it's helpful to everyone to eat!  Society couldn't move forward if we penalize the people who work with their intellect rather than their hands.

 

I don't know where the idea that intellectual property is any less valuable than tangible property comes from. I always knew that ideas can be very valuable but having effectively lost much of my ability to generate anything creative has really underscored it's value for me.

 

If people couldn't profit from their intellectual creations, no one would create anything. That's not a world I would want to live in.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

FJ,

 

Some how I knew you would take issue with this.  Ha!

 

I'm just talking about "in a perfect world."  Not this one.

 

Sofa

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I detailed what I thought were the main problems with Jana's patent application in my linked comments in my previous post. I would argue that the patent system actually does not provide enough protection for the patent holder. Unless you have substantial resources (money) available, it can be near impossible to protect your patent from a determined infringer. Having said this, patents must fulfill quite stringent criteria to be valid. Just because the patent application is accepted, it does not mean that it is valid. Comments from the OP suggest that Jana's patent application was rejected. I did not know this, but I am not the least bit surprised. Even from my limited knowledge, her patent failed on several grounds and would be rejected or would be impossible to protect. And, actually, the details of the patent made no sense anyway.

 

In my original post to this thread, I indicated that Jana had Trade Marked "dual titration" - I might be mistaken about that. I understand that was the name she originally used for her system. Or maybe that was another system - I really do not know for sure. What I do know is that she trade marked 'BenzoMicroTaperTM'. Supposedly, she did this to protect her method from being commercialised by someone she partnered with for a while. I also believe this is the reason she patented her method (to protect it from commercial exploitation by others). At least, this is what she claimed - I have no real reason to doubt her motives. Irrespective of what I understood to be terminal failures in the patent application, I took issue with the very idea of attempting to patent this method and the trade marking in these circumstances. By the way, MicroTaper was coined by a member of this forum before Jana's use and Trade mark application. So, it would be unenforceable too (at least at BB, and probably anywhere in relation to the titration of benzodiazpeines and withdrawal. Just sayin'!

 

On the other side, the patent system is being abused by powerful interests. Probably the most egregious is patent applications for human genes (and the genes of other species). These are, surely, discoveries, not inventions. These genes already existed in nature. They deserve no such protection and only serve to stifle research.

 

The other main type of intellectual property (IP) protection relates to copyright. This is simpler in many ways. If you create a piece of writing, or music, art, etc., it automatically enjoys copyright protection. You all own your words at BB and anywhere else (unless you license them away). And, fair use principles excepted, no one else has the right to use  them without your permission. Otherwise they risk legal action. I should point out that when you join BB you agree to an unrevocable license arrangement, where BB can use you posts in anyway it wishes for its own purposes (but you retain ownership). The reason for the license is two-fold: 1) It means that we can protect the integrity of content from other posters by preventing en masse deletion of content generated by members (making Swiss cheese of affected threads); 2) It allows other members to quote other BB generated posts at BB.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I had no idea there was so much more to this story when I reacted to the headline-style  announcement of Jana's reinstating.  Given all this, I can see why it would definitely be considered news.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Colin, are you related to William Shakespeare?  Your a great writer! I always enjoy your thoughtful responses. :thumbsup:

:smitten:

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Colin. Have you ever thought about writing a monthly column for BenzoBuddies? You really articulate well and have a wealth of experience to draw from. I know it would be the first thing I would read.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

But the creators of "intellectual property" need to eat too.  Are you asking everyone who comes up with an idea that would be helpful to humanity to give it away out of the goodness of their heart?  Nobody suggests farmers should grow food and give it away for free just because it's helpful to everyone to eat!  Society couldn't move forward if we penalize the people who work with their intellect rather than their hands.

 

Tell me about it........... :tickedoff:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought the point of the op posting this, was merely to make it known that Jana had reinstated, being that she had her own forum (I think).  Not that the op was happy about it, just that many folks knew of her from her forum, and that she tried to help others taper off of benzos.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, yes, exactly.  I didn't know who she was when I jumped on the OP and had no idea how newsworthy this really was.  So I'm sorry.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read through Jana's patent application and thought it was nonsense. IMO, there was no way a patent would ever be granted for what she claimed.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I read through Jana's patent application and thought it was nonsense. IMO, there was no way a patent would ever be granted for what she claimed.

 

Agree, total rubbish.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

Dear BB’s:

Most of us agree that returning to benzo-use after a significant time is not a good idea. The idea of using benzos again after more than a decade off is not only a bad idea; it is an absurd idea. A well person, who has recovered from a severe version of benzo withdrawal, certainly will not take that drug again...not ever. This is the obvious reason that you should have known that this post was a fake.

 

Whether you know Jana or not, can you believe that anyone would have any reason to take a benzo  again once he/she had tapered to recovery over a decade ago? On March 23, 1018, Jana will have been benzo-free and without withdrawal syndrome for twelve years. This statement does not come from an unnamed “source”. It comes from me; I am Jana.

 

This poster engaged in not just slander but libel. A few BB’s believed this malicious post and added to it. I won’t address those motives. It could be that some of you were innocently taken in, but still I must ask why  anyone would believe this fantastic claim?

 

Who is this poster anyway, and why would she risk being identified and her reprehensible behavior exposed? Each of you may have a different answer, but this woman has a history of this sort of thing. She operates anonymously. She is a coward.

 

The libel is easy to prove, but the poster has committed more offenses than this. It may be best to leave her comeuppance to Karma and to Federal law.

 

Ugly things easily are said when perpetrator believes that his/her identity is hidden. So I suggest just using some sense and some decency in responding to suspicious and shocking posts. This event has underscored my 2014 decision to remain off benzo sites and to continue to work only with and through my chosen physician. Absurd things can happen via the internet. I am here today only to address this post as unbelievable when any former benzo-patient is concerned.  This spurious thread offers no support or helpful information to current benzo-sufferers; it  is not in keeping with BB’s stated mission; yet here it is.

 

Benzo-free and Drug-free, Jana  :)

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I should add this: I tapered 15.0mg of Diazepam in seven months and three weeks. During the middle months, I lost 3.0mg Diazepam per month.  It ended well. No, I did not need 4.16 years to taper 15.0mg of Diazepam! This should be encouraging.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...