The two sides of the coin

Again, to bump:

 

Lorazepam, Terry (Florida, abcd, Sofa and the "all meds are bad" side of this coin),

 

Allow me to clear up any confusion.  I am not looking for support or affirmation, nor am I popping up BECAUSE things are not going well.  Ironically, for me the opposite is true.  This is the most depressing place on the internet and I stay away when I am at my sickest. 

 

In general, I do not care what other people think OF ME.  I do care about benzobuddies, and what other people THINK because I am always looking to learn.  Many buddies have sent me useful articles, and I thank them.  I stay away when I am at my sickest and have nothing to add, but come back when I find something to add whether I am sick or not.

 

I think my psychiatrist did his best.  His best did not help me in the long run, so I did further research and found different doctors, and with their help, I will start new, more science-based treatment.  If I weren't so sick, I would be grateful for the experience.

 

Kpin, thank you for the clarification.  I am glad you are on a better path now.

 

Offandon, I blame my reinstatement on my quitting smoking.  I absolutely HAD to quit because my NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate, a type of glutamate receptor) in my colon had upregulated so badly that every cigarette was a violent laxative.  It would have been ok if I could have limited it to the morning, but in the absence of anything else, I was smoking and exploding 3 or 4 times a day (sorry for the visual) and gastro churned constantly,  so I quit.  Totally lost my mind.  Constant rage, anxiety, and panic attacks for months.  My nerves were raw from multiple benzo withdrawals, and the cig quit broke me. 

 

The two schools of thought on tobacco are:

1- If you are protracted, you might need to quit tobacco to get better.  There are a few success stories of people who finally got well 'x' months off tobacco.

2- Do not quit tobacco until you are finished with benzo withdrawal, however long that takes.

 

Note that I say "tobacco" and not nicotine.  If you can vape or patch or chew a nicotine substitute, I can almost guarantee it will not effect your benzo healing.  Nicotine is a stimulant, practically a pure glutamate booster via the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors for which they are named.  Tobacco does dozens of things, most relevantly it boosts excitory amino acid transport (EAAT) and takes glutamate away from the synapses.  This might slow healing in some people, thus the 2 schools of thought.

 

I did what I did because I had no choice.  I would much rather be smoking than taking valium, but I would literally die of GI distress.

 

Hope that helped.

 

Ramcon1

 

Believe me.  Or don't.  Take a med.  Or don't.  And, "One man's meat is another man's poison," is a very, very old saying because it is true.

 

ramcon1

 

(Kpin, if you are Vineet2 you owe abcd an explanation.  If you are not then please deny his/her claim publicly)

 

Kpin99  actually wrote a post when he came back admitting to being Vineet, 

 

which I also read,   

 

 

i left this forum because of moderation issues. my earlier ID used to be "vineet." i do not intend participating again. i am a lurker. i created this ID to that end.

[/b][/size]

 

 

so abcd is correct in her assertions,  :thumbsup:

 

proven by his own posts back then. :'(

 

Not everyone is game to call  it out.

 

 

Sometimes on here things are not always as they seem  :'(

 

That’s a very good point, Skyblue. We don’t know for certain many things. 

I am having a horrific day.  I had a 3 hour window yesterday.  If I cannot find something to stop the pain that is not a benzo, I know I am not going to make it.

Good luck to all of you.

 

ramcon1

 

Allow me to clear up any confusion.  I am not looking for support or affirmation, nor am I popping up BECAUSE things are not going well.  Ironically, for me the opposite is true.  This is the most depressing place on the internet and I stay away when I am at my sickest. 

 

There is no shame in saying "I am not doing well".

Believe me.  Or don't.  Take a med.  Or don't.  And, "One man's meat is another man's poison," is a very, very old saying because it is true.

 

ramcon1

 

(Kpin, if you are Vineet2 you owe abcd an explanation.  If you are not then please deny his/her claim publicly)

 

Kpin99  actually wrote a post when he came back admitting to being Vineet, 

 

which I also read,   

 

 

i left this forum because of moderation issues. my earlier ID used to be "vineet." i do not intend participating again. i am a lurker. i created this ID to that end.

[/b][/size]

 

 

so abcd is correct in her assertions,  :thumbsup:

 

proven by his own posts back then. :'(

 

Not everyone is game to call  it out.

 

 

Sometimes on here things are not always as they seem  :'(

 

That’s a very good point, Skyblue. We don’t know for certain many things. 

 

Thanks, Skyblue, sometimes I tend to assume others are already aware of certain things.

 

Reminds me of this quote:

 

“Don't trust everything you see...Even salt looks like sugar.”

 

― Maryum Ahsam

To bump, and Take 2:

 

I was in a wave/triggered yesterday.  I am a lot better today.  That did not motivate me to come back.  It did motivate me to lose my patience quickly.

 

Lorazepam, Terry (Florida, abcd, Sofa and the "all meds are bad" side of this coin),

 

Allow me to clear up any confusion.  I am not looking for support or affirmation, nor am I popping up BECAUSE things are not going well.  Ironically, for me the opposite is true.  This is the most depressing place on the internet and I stay away when I am at my sickest. 

 

In general, I do not care what other people think OF ME.  I do care about benzobuddies, and what other people THINK because I am always looking to learn.  Many buddies have sent me useful articles, and I thank them.  I stay away when I am at my sickest and have nothing to add, but come back when I find something to add whether I am sick or not.

 

I think my psychiatrist did his best.  His best did not help me in the long run, so I did further research and found different doctors, and with their help, I will start new, more science-based treatment.  If I weren't so sick, I would be grateful for the experience.

 

Kpin, thank you for the clarification.  I am glad you are on a better path now.

He admitted to drug use.  People change

 

Offandon, I blame my reinstatement on my quitting smoking.  I absolutely HAD to quit because my NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate, a type of glutamate receptor) in my colon had upregulated so badly that every cigarette was a violent laxative.  It would have been ok if I could have limited it to the morning, but in the absence of anything else, I was smoking and exploding 3 or 4 times a day (sorry for the visual) and gastro churned constantly,  so I quit.  Totally lost my mind.  Constant rage, anxiety, and panic attacks for months.  My nerves were raw from multiple benzo withdrawals, and the cig quit broke me. 

 

The two schools of thought on tobacco are:

1- If you are protracted, you might need to quit tobacco to get better.  There are a few success stories of people who finally got well 'x' months off tobacco.

2- Do not quit tobacco until you are finished with benzo withdrawal, however long that takes.

 

Note that I say "tobacco" and not nicotine.  If you can vape or patch or chew a nicotine substitute, I can almost guarantee it will not effect your benzo healing.  Nicotine is a stimulant, practically a pure glutamate booster via the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors for which they are named.  Tobacco does dozens of things, most relevantly it boosts excitory amino acid transport (EAAT) and takes glutamate away from the synapses.  This might slow healing in some people, thus the 2 schools of thought.

 

I did what I did because I had no choice.  I would much rather be smoking than taking valium, but I would literally die of GI distress.

 

Hope that helped.

 

Ramcon1

how do you measure mental illness? who measures it? do those who measure it have a vested interest?

 

You measure it with the number of people who are on government disability. This isn't some radical anti-med group pulling numbers out of the air, it is government data.

Like I mentioned in a previous posts, the FDA is much more rigorous about newer drugs hitting the market, especially the ones that are not psychiatric.

 

You can be as rigorous as you want with the data but when the drug companies are allowed to commission their own studies and pick and choose which ones are submitted it doesn't mean anything.

Lorazepam, Terry (Florida, abcd, Sofa and the "all meds are bad" side of this coin),

 

I am not anti-med. I am pro informed consent and pro patient self-advocacy.

 

I currently take a prescription drug to control my blood pressure. I don't take it because my heart feels bad, I take it because I understand the risks of high blood pressure.

 

I had a horrible wave today. Most days I feel somewhat ok but I still have far too many of these days where I feel like death. I understand that I could take one or more of any number of AD's, anxiolytics or antipsychotic drugs and maybe I might have fewer days where I feel like I am going to die. Or, I might not be so lucky and it effectively makes my situation worse. The preponderance of evidence tells me that I am not likely to find sustainable, long term relief from pharmaceutical drugs and there is a very good possibility that I could just end up compounding my problems so I choose to avoid taking drugs, especially the same class of drugs that landed me here in the first place.

 

You are desperate to find some relief, I understand that. It just makes me cringe to see you doing all of these mental gymnastics to try to justify something that you should know is extremely risky.

I am on bp pills for blood pressure problems (thanks to the benzos). I am not anti-med. That was a quick presumption you made, ramcon. Nor am I entirely against benzos. I feel that they're good for short-term. What I am against are doctors who  prescribe these drugs hastily, without a thought, no informed consent.

I am also not anti-med or anti-doctor, I am however anti-b.s.

 

 

 

Offandon, I blame my reinstatement on my quitting smoking.  I absolutely HAD to quit because my NMDAR (N-methyl-D-aspartate, a type of glutamate receptor) in my colon had upregulated so badly that every cigarette was a violent laxative.  It would have been ok if I could have limited it to the morning, but in the absence of anything else, I was smoking and exploding 3 or 4 times a day (sorry for the visual) and gastro churned constantly,  so I quit.  Totally lost my mind.  Constant rage, anxiety, and panic attacks for months.  My nerves were raw from multiple benzo withdrawals, and the cig quit broke me. 

 

The two schools of thought on tobacco are:

1- If you are protracted, you might need to quit tobacco to get better.  There are a few success stories of people who finally got well 'x' months off tobacco.

2- Do not quit tobacco until you are finished with benzo withdrawal, however long that takes.

 

Note that I say "tobacco" and not nicotine.  If you can vape or patch or chew a nicotine substitute, I can almost guarantee it will not effect your benzo healing.  Nicotine is a stimulant, practically a pure glutamate booster via the nicotinic acetylcholine receptors for which they are named.  Tobacco does dozens of things, most relevantly it boosts excitory amino acid transport (EAAT) and takes glutamate away from the synapses.  This might slow healing in some people, thus the 2 schools of thought.

 

I did what I did because I had no choice.  I would much rather be smoking than taking valium, but I would literally die of GI distress.

 

Hope that helped.

 

Ramcon1

 

Thank you for the reply. I’m sorry you had such severe GI issues on top of everything. I’m glad you quit smoking though. I don’t know if I can but I will keep trying.

You haven't been here for a while, so I am guessing you might have found some stability and peace and solace for a time being. Then something backfired. You are sick. You need support. Chewing the fat isn't exactly the place to seek support. It's a discussion area, and conflicts are frequent. When I need support, I call a helpline, PM a member, talk to a family member or an acquaintance (when they show up once in a blue moon). There is nothing wrong with admitting you're not doing ok. Nothing wrong at all.

 

Loraz, my thoughts exactly.

 

People pop up here whenever things are not going well for them. It's as simple as that, or to see if someone responded to their post. I would not care to be back if I felt better. I would, in fact, love to go far, far away from BB someday. I've spent far too much time here (as signified by the number of posts I've written along with my plog. Zounds!!!).

 

In Ram's defense, he started this thread on the Protracted board where we're all well acquainted with these types of posts by him, lol.  The Team then moved it to Chewing the Fat.

 

 

Lorazepam, Terry (Florida, abcd, Sofa and the "all meds are bad" side of this coin),

 

Like FG and Terry and mp, I am not anti-med.  I am pro quality of life, and informed consent, and honesty and integrity in science.  I've been taking Flexeril off and on for years and I'm not prone to exaggeration when I say, if not for this med ... dot dot dot.  But that doesn't mean I'm praising the sweet Lord Thank Heavens for inventing Flexeril, it means I'm very saddened that this appears to be my only resort to keeping myself alive at this time, and that the medical field has nothing better to offer me.  It is constantly forefront in my mind what further damage I may be doing to my CNS and body by having to ingest these chemicals but I simply do not have the luxury of going without it.

 

Am I anti-psychiatry though?  Yes, 100% that I am!  Psychiatry is a joke and a terrible one at that, their claims are absolutely preposterous.  Psychological/emotional "stuff" emanates either from the *mind* (NOT a broken physical brain) - or - it can have physiological roots, e.g. thyroid, etc, etc.  And maybe if they spent their time and money investigating other physiological causes, rather than pretending they're knowledgable in "diseases of the brain", well, maybe just maybe we might eventually get somewhere.

 

I'm not an all black and white person, Ram, I actually typically see so many shades and shapes and sizes of grey, that most times I have one foot on either side of the coin.  But, here's the thing, Ram, you're veering towards taking Zoloft, an extremely potent psychotropic medication.  The side effects are no secret, we don't have to educate you on that, including the possibility of enduring another difficult withdrawal.  What I'm wondering is, why an SSRI?  The bane of your life is your GI problems, right?  Why an SSRI and not eye drops or knee replacement surgery?  Serious question.  One has to build a case, what case have you built that leads you towards trying an SSRI for severe GI issues?

 

I hate that you're in such wicked shape, Ram, hate it for all of us.  Just, please, be very careful moving forward.

You haven't been here for a while, so I am guessing you might have found some stability and peace and solace for a time being. Then something backfired. You are sick. You need support. Chewing the fat isn't exactly the place to seek support. It's a discussion area, and conflicts are frequent. When I need support, I call a helpline, PM a member, talk to a family member or an acquaintance (when they show up once in a blue moon). There is nothing wrong with admitting you're not doing ok. Nothing wrong at all.

 

Loraz, my thoughts exactly.

 

People pop up here whenever things are not going well for them. It's as simple as that, or to see if someone responded to their post. I would not care to be back if I felt better. I would, in fact, love to go far, far away from BB someday. I've spent far too much time here (as signified by the number of posts I've written along with my plog. Zounds!!!).

 

In Ram's defense, he started this thread on the Protracted board where we're all well acquainted with these types of posts by him, lol.  The Team then moved it to Chewing the Fat.

 

 

Lorazepam, Terry (Florida, abcd, Sofa and the "all meds are bad" side of this coin),

 

Like FG and Terry and mp, I am not anti-med.  I am pro quality of life, and informed consent, and honesty and integrity in science.  I've been taking Flexeril off and on for years and I'm not prone to exaggeration when I say, if not for this med ... dot dot dot.  But that doesn't mean I'm praising the sweet Lord Thank Heavens for inventing Flexeril, it means I'm very saddened that this appears to be my only resort to keeping myself alive at this time, and that the medical field has nothing better to offer me.  It is constantly forefront in my mind what further damage I may be doing to my CNS and body by having to ingest these chemicals but I simply do not have the luxury of going without it.

 

Am I anti-psychiatry though?  Yes, 100% that I am!  Psychiatry is a joke and a terrible one at that, their claims are absolutely preposterous.  Psychological/emotional "stuff" emanates either from the *mind* (NOT a broken physical brain) - or - it can have physiological roots, e.g. thyroid, etc, etc.  And maybe if they spent their time and money investigating other physiological causes, rather than pretending they're knowledgable in "diseases of the brain", well, maybe just maybe we might eventually get somewhere.

 

I'm not an all black and white person, Ram, I actually typically see so many shades and shapes and sizes of grey, that most times I have one foot on either side of the coin.  But, here's the thing, Ram, you're veering towards taking Zoloft, an extremely potent psychotropic medication.  The side effects are no secret, we don't have to educate you on that, including the possibility of enduring another difficult withdrawal.  What I'm wondering is, why an SSRI?  The bane of your life is your GI problems, right?  Why an SSRI and not eye drops or knee replacement surgery?  Serious question.  One has to build a case, what case have you built that leads you towards trying an SSRI for severe GI issues?

 

I hate that you're in such wicked shape, Ram, hate it for all of us.  Just, please, be very careful moving forward.

 

Whew, thank you abcd 

 

I’ll co-sign this so I don’t have to end on “anti-b.s.” 

how do you measure mental illness? who measures it? do those who measure it have a vested interest?

 

You measure it with the number of people who are on government disability. This isn't some radical anti-med group pulling numbers out of the air, it is government data.

 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/theapothecary/2013/04/08/how-americans-game-the-200-billion-a-year-disability-industrial-complex/#44a256864b6d

In the past three decades, the number of Americans who are on disability has skyrocketed. The rise has come even as medical advances have allowed many more people to remain on the job, and new laws have banned workplace discrimination against the disabled. Every month, 14 million people now get a disability check from the government.

 

florida,

 

will you allow me to conclude that since the number of people seeking disability has increased since disability was introduced, it is medical advances that causes disabilities to increase?

'Are benzos dangerous?  Hell yes.  More dangerous than most drugs?  Hell yes again.  They put us here.  Is there a medical conspiracy to push drugs and hurt us?  Hell no.  Doctors are doing the best they can, and medicine is improving everyday.

 

Sadly, nothing has changed since 1960's.....

 

https://www.benzo.org.uk/vernon.htm

 

Dr Vernon Coleman

 

The Nightmare Pills – How Millions are Caught in the Tranquilliser Trap: The latest confidential statistics from the Department of Health and Social Security show that in the last 12 months for which figures are available about 30 million prescriptions were written for tranquillisers such as Valium, Librium and Ativan.

 

It was known long before this that the benzodiazepines caused problems. The first scientific paper showing that they could be addictive was published in 1961 – just a year after chlordiazepoxide (the first of the benzodiazepines) had been launched in America. The first clinical report I have been able to find that detailed the addictive qualities of the benzodiazepines was published in a journal called Psychopharmacologia. It was written by three doctors from the Veterans' Administration Hospital in Palo Alto, California. The paper was entitled Withdrawal Reactions from Chlordiazepoxide and it described in dramatic detail how patients who had been taking the drug suffered from withdrawal symptoms when the drug was stopped.

 

The authors of the paper published in Psychopharmacologia described how eleven patients who had been taking fairly high doses of chlordiazepoxide for up to six months were suddenly taken off their pills and given sugar tablets instead. Ten of the eleven patients experienced new symptoms after withdrawal. Six patients became depressed, five were agitated and unable to sleep. Two of the patients had major convulsions or fits. Most of the symptoms developed within two to nine days after the drug was stopped. By the early 1970s a number of other papers had been published showing that the benzodiazepines could cause addiction. In 1975 the International Journal of the Addictions carried a major article entitled Misuse and Abuse of Diazepam: An Increasingly Common Medical Problem.

 

Eventually, in January 1988 the Committee on Safety of Medicines finally issued a warning headed 'Benzodiazepine dependence and withdrawal symptoms'. The warning advised doctors that the benzodiazepines should not be used for more than four weeks, and warned that long-term chronic use was not recommended.

 

By then it was too late for millions of patients. The government, the drug industry and the medical profession should have acted fifteen years earlier – when the evidence they needed was first made available. The medical profession had created the biggest drug addiction problem to originate in the twentieth century. Sadly, even today, three years after that official announcement, I am still getting letters every day from British patients who are being given benzodiazepine tranquillisers and translations of my articles and books about benzodiazepines have shown that the benzodiazepine problem is only just emerging in many other countries.

 

Most alarming of all, perhaps, is the fact that the medical profession, the politicians and the drug companies seem to have learned little or nothing from the tragic benzodiazepine story.

 

I firmly believe that any drug prescribed for anxiety will eventually prove to be addictive, but it seems to me that neither doctors nor drug companies are prepared to abandon the search for a profitable pharmacological solution to anxiety. The result is, I fear, that in the future the problems associated with the benzodiazepines will be repeated time and time again. The benzodiazepines have caused infinitely more sorrow and despair than all illegal drugs put together and yet governments and legislators have been so busy concentrating on the control of illegal drugs such as heroin, cocaine and cannabis that they have consistently failed to act and protect patients until enormous amounts of unnecessary damage have been done. Effective controls on the barbiturates came a decade too late and the significant warning about the benzodiazepines also came well over a decade too late. Politicians and legislators have presumably assumed that because a drug is available on prescription it must be safe. If they had put one per cent of the effort that has gone into an attempt to halt illegal drug smuggling into controlling the promotion and prescribing of the benzodiazepines the public would have benefited beyond all measure.

 

con·spir·a·cy

/kənˈspirəsē/

 

noun

 

noun: conspiracy; plural noun: conspiracies

a secret plan by a group to do something unlawful or harmful.

"a conspiracy to destroy the government"

synonyms: plot, scheme, plan, machination, ploy, trick, ruse, subterfuge; informal racket

"a conspiracy to manipulate the results"

 

• the action of plotting or conspiring.

"they were cleared of conspiracy to pervert the course of justice"

synonyms: plotting, collusion, intrigue, connivance, machination, collaboration; treason

"conspiracy to commit murder"

 

They know benzodiazepines do this— have the absolute potential to seriously harm someone when taken past 2-4 weeks... hmmm, yet nothing ever changes... let’s see, gee. 

 

...but it’s great money, because why else wouldn’t they stop doing that?

 

Hmmm... let’s think some more.

 

A drug, which is not so easy to stop taking... even when one is not necessarily physiologically dependent, the way we find ourselves here. What is in it for them to keep prescribing past the recommended timeframe?

 

After all, medicine is continually improving and advancing— all for our benefit, all the time!

 

What could this situation, possibly be...?

 

Maybe it isn’t a conspiracy, because it’s provable and they keep doing it. Sort of reminds me of the story about the emperor who has no clothing.

Glad to see the thread spiraled into deeper lunacy while I was sleeping. :brickwall:

 

As someone pointed out I started this in the protracted section, where people have been suffering for a long time, and towing the benzobuddy line of "stay off and in time you will get well."  My whole point was to point out to those who have been sick for waaaaaaaay too long to that there are two sides to the coin of psyche meds, and if you are at year 'x' and life just blows, there are people who benefit from their use, both long and short term.  The original two links showed the two sides of the coin, and in an attempt to remind us that every business exists to make to make money, I liked the irony that it was the anti-med site that was looking to sell something.

 

"You are desperate to find some relief, I understand that. It just makes me cringe to see you doing all of these mental gymnastics to try to justify something that you should know is extremely risky."

 

Forget about the fact that I have spent years studying neuroscience.  This argument is not mental gymnastics to me, just the application of basic reason, backed by logic and math.  It makes me cringe to watch a group of people, collectively and consciously, reject all logic and reason, and make no mistake, if you think that medicine or even psychiatry exists to hurt you and does much more harm than good, you are rejecting all logic and reason.

 

But it is a free internet, and you are free to think what you like.

 

If you are anti-med, anti-psychiatry, or whatever, then you have an orthodoxy, and there is no point continuing this debate.

 

I promise I am not coming back with new posts, but I am going to come back to keep bumping THIS EXACT POST to the top 100 times for benefit of those who do not possess your toxic orthodoxy:

 

If you are getting off benzos for the first or second time, or have been off for less than 2 years, the benzobuddy line is REALLY good advice: Taper off, and hang in there.  It exists because it works more than 90% of the time.

 

However, if you have risk factors such as multiple withdrawals, were polydrugged, or ever reached tolerance, and are sitting there at year 'x' wondering why you are still sick, you are still sick because you have neurological damage that may or may not reverse itself.  Talk about your issues, including your med history, with your doctor, preferably a good neurologist.

 

Be well and good luck.  You'll need it.

 

Ramcon1

Making money, and making money by highly unscrupulous methods and means in the guise of being a primarily beneficial handful of companies and organizations under the same umbrella of “medicine,” for all of humankind while raking in excessive amounts of it for decades and decades are two entirely separate things.

 

The industry of medicine is just that, an industry that formed largely here in the United States and was made commercial. If you or anyone else here trusts the education of Doctors born from an industry comprised of the oligarchical corporations which we now call pharma, and the “medicines” of this industry, then this is your and anyone else’s “choice.”

 

Why I put “choice” in quotations is because the meaning of this word in that sentence is many times not very straightforward. We were not all informed of the decisions we were making when we each made the choice to trust our doctors. Now, there are those of us who may actually benefit from this “side” of the coin you are trying so dearly to defend, those of us who aren’t certain whether stopping a drug from the now global industry of medicine is actually going to lend to our quality of life.

 

I’m still not anti-medicine, “western” or allopathic medications, or anti-doctor. I am pro informed consent and pro truth of the situation and I happen to think and believe and know from personal experience that psychiatry has plainly failed me personally in my own life to such a degree that I am now sitting on this forum, battling out why the industry of medicine does not necessarily need any defenders— as it seems to be making quite a killing all on its own.

 

Are there uses for these medications by this industry we call pharma, yes I think so. Should it be up to the individual whether and how they use these and what they actually are and do also? Yes, I think and feel so. Do you actually know what they all do after years of studying neuroscience, as you put it, mehhhh— not so sure. Is anyone entirely certain what they do to all of our neurons, cells, hormones and internal structures and systems... not really sure on that one either. Do I now trust the medications who’s companies advertise to me on my own television screen to create income for their industry? Not so much these days. Do I trust the doctors who dole them out when I’m not so certain they aren’t somehow heavily influenced by these same companies, down to the materials they read for their education and the studies they look at which are many times funded by the companies themselves... or who receive perks and benefits for pushing these medications and spend close to no time with a patient or evaluating the same patient’s history before they take out their pens and scratch down and rx on a yellow pad of paper? No, I no longer do.

 

And if you think that the FDA and big pharma and the APA are not all in bed together, you my fellow buddy, are sadly mistaken.

 

The medications may still have their place, in emergencies, for short term use, for end of life stage use, for use when you’ve been so badly maimed on them there is nothing left to do but continue taking them... but should they and those who promote them be scrutinized and held to standards for safety and use by some organization uncorrupted by industry or any other influence. Absolutely, I think so. The FDA, however, hardly qualifies.

 

And this really applies to all medications, not just the utter mess and quagmire of psychotropic compounds and the utter mess and quagmire of the means and unproven theories by which they are administered.

The original two links showed the two sides of the coin, and in an attempt to remind us that every business exists to make to make money, I liked the irony that it was the anti-med site that was looking to sell something.

 

Story #1

The first is right out of the benzobuddy playbook.  "The drugs made me sick and now I am getting off so I can heal naturally:"

https://kellybroganmd.com/the-breaking-point/?utm_source=Kelly+Brogan+MD+Newsletter&utm_campaign=8ad0d48f67-The+Breaking+Point&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_d0f977a8c5-8ad0d48f67-124482271

 

The second is from a health blogger who does everything she can to be healthy, but openly admits she would have severe anxiety and depression without her medication.  I think it is important to note that she is not on a benzo, but an SSRI, and has been on other meds but not benzos.

 

 

Story #2

Here is the link to the second story

https://www.thehealthymaven.com/2018/08/my-mental-health-story.html

ramcon1

 

It seems pretty obvious reading these stories. The mental health blogger in story #2 hasn't gotten through so many medication changes in a relatively short period of time that the person in story #1 has. It also goes with saying that a person in story #1 starts with INCREDIBLE situational anxiety, much more than the one in story #2. There are many knee-jerk medication changes that the person in story #1 undergoes through, and the final result is extreme destabilization. The person in story #2 had had some changes, but has not gotten even close to that point of severe destabilization and is able to stay on one psych med and be ok.

 

So the issue is "too many changes for the nervous system to handle", and that separates #1 from #2

florida,

 

will you allow me to conclude that since the number of people seeking disability has increased since disability was introduced, it is medical advances that causes disabilities to increase?

 

I don't have time to dig through Anatomy of an Epidemic to find it but I believe that Robert Whitaker addresses all of these issues and no matter which way you slice it, the evidence still points to the fact that there is likely a direct correlation between the drugs and increased illness.

florida,

 

will you allow me to conclude that since the number of people seeking disability has increased since disability was introduced, it is medical advances that causes disabilities to increase?

 

I don't have time to dig through Anatomy of an Epidemic to find it but I believe that Robert Whitaker addresses all of these issues and no matter which way you slice it, the evidence still points to the fact that there is likely a direct correlation between the drugs and increased illness.

 

http://freedom-center.org/pdf/anatomy_of_epidemic_whitaker_psych_drugs.pdf

 

I need both coins...

Meds saved my life, and meds destroyed me...

Some Drs Went far and beyond, Some didnt give a shit, -and this total lack tied close to the "system"...

 

What I do understand is that None of the many Drs had a clue once medication aspects went south, And the worst part was that the further up the ladder the Dr was the less help I got... I think Arrogance drove this...  When a Dr says to me -"I dont know, -or understand", That is gold to me.. It means we have a chance at progression, and perhaps I wont be further harmed... Can you imagine the number of times I have been offered ADs, -just incase, or more recently because perhaps its in my head...

Well hell yeah, its in my head... Im slow tapering to get it out as I feel is best for ME... After some convincing that involved a low dose (relitivly) reinstatement on a med.. (that side of the coin)... Support that and we will get on fine Doc... Not so much to ask imo..

Am I challanging their whole belief system...?? -No, -but some sure acted like I was... (yes, that side of the coin)

 

Hard to comment on a lot of things from the perspective of my situation, -We are all different in body and situation, and that translates to which side of this coin holds more weight than the other..?? -Maybe..??

 

Some well thought out posts here...

Thanks...

 

 

florida,

 

will you allow me to conclude that since the number of people seeking disability has increased since disability was introduced, it is medical advances that causes disabilities to increase?

 

I don't have time to dig through Anatomy of an Epidemic to find it but I believe that Robert Whitaker addresses all of these issues and no matter which way you slice it, the evidence still points to the fact that there is likely a direct correlation between the drugs and increased illness.

 

http://freedom-center.org/pdf/anatomy_of_epidemic_whitaker_psych_drugs.pdf

 

ah! it's a pity whitaker forget to reference florida's posts to back up his claim. that would set up the perfect self-referential chain to convert florida's correlation to causation.

 

 

Daniel Carlat criticized the book as "confusing causation with correlation". While Whitaker notes that the number of persons on federal disability in the U.S. has risen in synchrony with increased psychiatric drug use, Carlat argues that other factors have caused the rise in disability. Among these is a larger number of disorders recognized by the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual; that the greater number of treatments available incentives physicians to look for symptoms of disease; and that changes in federal disability regulations have encouraged more people to seek disability benefits.[25]

I need both coins...

Meds saved my life, and meds destroyed me...

Some Drs Went far and beyond, Some didnt give a shit, -and this total lack tied close to the "system"...

 

What I do understand is that None of the many Drs had a clue once medication aspects went south, And the worst part was that the further up the ladder the Dr was the less help I got... I think Arrogance drove this...  When a Dr says to me -"I dont know, -or understand", That is gold to me.. It means we have a chance at progression, and perhaps I wont be further harmed... Can you imagine the number of times I have been offered ADs, -just incase, or more recently because perhaps its in my head...

Well hell yeah, its in my head... Im slow tapering to get it out as I feel is best for ME... After some convincing that involved a low dose (relitivly) reinstatement on a med.. (that side of the coin)... Support that and we will get on fine Doc... Not so much to ask imo..

Am I challanging their whole belief system...?? -No, -but some sure acted like I was... (yes, that side of the coin)

 

Hard to comment on a lot of things from the perspective of my situation, -We are all different in body and situation, and that translates to which side of this coin holds more weight than the other..?? -Maybe..??

 

Some well thought out posts here...

Thanks...

Thanks Cant for this well thought out post and sharing your experience, most will never go through what you have and be able to tell your story. 💖 Peace and Healing.

 

Daniel Carlat criticized the book as "confusing causation with correlation"..[25]

 

i googled daniel carlat and found something interesting. he his himself critical of the modern psychiatric approach but he is not on the same page as whitman (and honourable breggin et al i suppose).

 

whitman's paper (AoE) targets the "chemical imbalance" thing. see, whether the chemical imbalance hypothesis is true or untrue, has no bearing on the efficacy of SSRIs. other than the chemical thing, whitman has no other case against SSRIs and confesses "they work on some people."

 

now daniel carlat claims that it is not necessarily true that the chemical imbalance theory is incorrect. the truth is that we do not know and with today's tools, it is impossible to know.

 

thus any alacrity whitman (and breggin) display in debunking the chemical imbalance theory is nothing but dishonesty. people who boast of initials like MD, harvard, MIT and oxford cannot be excused for glossing over minute but important, technical details.

 

from wikipedia -

 

Carlat has argued that psychiatry has been inconclusive about how and why it works: "We don't have any direct evidence that depression or anxiety or any psychiatric disorder is due to a deficiency in serotonin because it's very hard to actually measure serotonin from a living brain. Any efforts that have been made to measure serotonin indirectly — such as measuring it in the spinal fluid or doing post-mortem studies — have been inconclusive. They have not shown conclusively that there is either too little or too much serotonin in the fluids. So that's where we are with psychiatry. ... In cardiology, we have a good understanding of how the heart pumps, what electrical signals generate electricity in the heart. And due to that understanding, we can then target specific cardiac medications to treat problems like heart failure or heart attacks.... not perfect, but pretty well worked out."[1]