Former Pharma Sales Rep Talks About Benzo Withdrawal

[nobbc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FEIg1as2ppc[/nobbc]

 

 

Edit: deactivated link.

~Colin.

Good video.      Lucky lady.  10 years on xanax and off in only 6 months.  I wish I could go that fast.

Hi JCurley,

 

There's no reason why you should know this, but Gwen Olson has some kind of association with Scientology. To say that this undermines her credibility, would be something of an understatement.

 

I reference our policies on anti-psychiatry propaganda and the Wikipedia entry for CCHR (Scientology anti-psychiatry front group):

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=73877.0

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

 

I am also going to disable your link to the video (to make it non-clickable) as per our linking policies:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=71804.0

 

Thanks.

Hi JCurley,

 

There's no reason why you should know this, but Gwen Olson has some kind of association with Scientology. To say that this undermines her credibility, would be something of an understatement.

 

I reference our policies on anti-psychiatry propaganda and the Wikipedia entry for CCHR (Scientology anti-psychiatry front group):

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=73877.0

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

 

I am also going to disable your link to the video (to make it non-clickable) as per our linking policies:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=71804.0

 

Thanks.

 

That is somewhat Stalin-esque.

 

Whatever, you run the board.  I'm not a Scientologist, but are you trying to say that anything a Scientologist says has no credibility?

 

Well, violate a person's civil liberties to speak in the public square if you must -- but I recognize book-burning when I see it.

[nobbc]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o9fLCYX-O3Y[/nobbc]

 

 

Edit: deactivated link.

~Colin.

Let Gwen Olsen speak in her own words.  She laughs at being called a Scientologist.

 

[nobbc]http://www.stankovuniversallaw.com/2013/05/trip-rabbit-hole-started-pharmaceutical-industry/[/nobbc]

 

by Gwen Olsen, May 10, 2013

 

[nobbc]www.stankovuniversallaw.com[/nobbc]

 

Since I began speaking out about the drugging of our children with the publishing of my book,Confessions of an Rx Drug Pusher, in 2005, I have been labeled a lot of different things. First, I was accused of being a Scientologist after receiving a human rights award from the Citizens Commission on Human Rights in 2007. Subsequently, I was dropped like a hot potato by a mainstream Christian publisher that I was negotiating with to re-publish my book. This label greatly amused me considering I had previously sold psychiatric drugs for Pharma.

 

Next, I was accused on a number of blogs and viewer’s comments under YouTube videos I released, of being a radical, charismatic Christian because of my upbringing and use of Biblical scripture in response to the fundamentalist critics who had accused me of being a Scientologist!

 

Then, I was accused of attending a New Age church when a popular Christian poet declined my request to use of one his poems in my book. Apparently, the Web site of the Unity Church I attended did not pass muster upon review and he deemed it to appear “New Age”. None of these characterizations of me or my belief systems were accurate. In fact, I consider myself a sovereign spiritual being.

 

However, there is no label that makes me chuckle harder than to be called a “conspiracy theorist”. If they only knew, I think to myself. There are many days that I would gladly put that rabbit back into the hat if I could! It is painful enough to be awake and empathic to the horrors taking place all around me. But to be attacked and ridiculed by a zombified collective of brain-dead idiots while I am trying to alert their asses to the dangers all around them, can be very frustrating at times. Yes, I realize that I must forge on and continue to sound the alarm to whomever is willing to listen–labels and personal discomfort be damned! So, I do it for our children. I do it for the human race!

 

I never intended to become a whistleblower or an activist of any kind. I considered myself an over achiever and aspired to attain a higher socio-economic standing than birth into my family of origin had provided. I never really felt like I fit into the whole corporate America “suit” role but I was a good actress. I had grown up on the stage in various capacities such as musical performances and pageantry. In other words, I knew what was expected of me in order to succeed in the control matrix and I played my part well.

 

When I left the pharmaceutical industry in 2000 with a DSM label and a shattered self esteem, I never dreamed of becoming a psychiatric poster child, or even considered where this activism journey might take me 13 years later. My trip down the rabbit hole began long before I wrote my book in 2005. But I really only started to connect the dots to the bigger picture of harm when I began research for my niece who was withdrawing from antidepressants. She was suffering from manic psychotic episodes coupled with suicidal and homicidal ideation and she eventually died from self-immolation.

 

It was utterly clear to me that a meta-analysis of all the clinical evidence of the dangers of antidepressants versus the nominal efficacy should have truncated their use in the general population–particularly in children–except for the treatment of severe episodic depression. However, the risk-to-benefit ratio of these drugs was completely ignored and a massive marketing campaign ensued, by the pharmaceutical industry and their lapdogs in the APA and the FDA, ensnaring consumers into believing they could “design their own moods” with a feel good pill. Prozac even graced the cover of Time magazine being promoted as a breakthrough designer drug for personality.

 

 

Edit: deactivated links.

~Colin.

There's no reason why you should know this, but Gwen Olson has some kind of association with Scientology.

 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

Who cares if she has "some kind of association with Scientology." She does not promote it on her tape or in her book.

 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

To the extent that scientology opposes psych drugs I don't argue with them.

 

The enemy of my enemy is my friend.

 

Hi JCurley,

 

There's no reason why you should know this, but Gwen Olson has some kind of association with Scientology. To say that this undermines her credibility, would be something of an understatement.

 

I reference our policies on anti-psychiatry propaganda and the Wikipedia entry for CCHR (Scientology anti-psychiatry front group):

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=73877.0

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

 

I am also going to disable your link to the video (to make it non-clickable) as per our linking policies:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=71804.0

 

Thanks.

 

That is somewhat Stalin-esque.

 

Whatever, you run the board.  I'm not a Scientologist, but are you trying to say that anything a Scientologist says has no credibility?

 

Well, violate a person's civil liberties to speak in the public square if you must -- but I recognize book-burning when I see it.

 

Please explain, precisely, how your 'civil liberties have been violatied' and how 'BenzoBuddies is a public square'?

 

BenzoBuddies has rules and guidelines - rules and guidelines to which you agreed when you joined us.

 

Scientology has an anti-psychiatry agenda. CCHR is a Scientology front-group and is funded by Scientology. CCHR is less than open about its deep association with Scientology.

 

Gwen Olsen was involved with CCHR. Gwen Olsen accepted an award from CCHR and, from what I've been told, 'does not regret past affiliations with CCHR'. I did not write that 'Gwen Olsen is Scientologist'. What I wrote was, "Gwen Olson has some kind of association with Scientology" and that "this undermines her credibility." How is this incorrect?

 

You will note, I did not remove the link - I merely disabled it (to make it non-clickable). My reasoning is explained in our policy documents:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=73877.0

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=71804.0

 

I particularly object to hidden agendas - CCHR dishonestly attempting to hide its association with Scientology and its spreading of propagandist videos. CCHR does not engage in honest discourse.

"I particularly object to hidden agendas - CCHR dishonestly attempting to hide its association with Scientology and its spreading of propagandist videos. CCHR does not engage in honest discourse."

 

You are making assumptions based on information that could quite possibly be disseminated by the pharmaceutical industry.  And that is also your personal opinion as displayed by your comment above.

 

I think what Gwen Olsen is saying is very accurate based on my experiences with the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors that push their "medicines."

 

On what basis do you say she has a "hidden agenda?"

 

And you should not censor a woman who is working diligently to help spread knowledge of the affliction we suffer based on hearsay.

 

Might does not make right.  Just because you have the power to censor something based on personal opinions/dislike means that you should.

 

Opposing people who are trying to bring to light this terrible situation we suffer is not helping people on this board.

"Gwen Olson has some kind of association with Scientology" and that "this undermines her credibility." How is this incorrect?

 

I do not need to agree 100% with scientology in order to agree with 1% of what they believe.  It does not make me a scientologist if I hate psych drugs.

 

If a scientologist claimed that "The Sun rises in the East," would you say that is not true because scientologists have no credibility?

 

If a scientologist said E = mC^2 would you say Einstein has not credibility?

 

You cannot condemn Gwen Olsen just because she has a few beliefs in common with scientology. I take her at her word when she claims she is not affiliated with scientology. She certainly does not promote scientology in her tape or in her book. She has more in common with us than with scientology.

 

Some of what scientology claims is absolutely correct, even if some is not correct.

I think what Colin is trying to do for this site is stick with the most reputable sources that will not cause issues for most members.

 

Scientology, might be on the ball about certain things regarding psych drugs comes with a myriad of other issues along with their own agenda. I won't get into them because it's not worth the time beyond the fact that they are a source of information that comes with baggage. By baggage I mean that they are so severely tainted to the majority of people that having links to anything with even the whiff of scientology could and likely would drive away people who need help getting off of the benzos because they might mistakenly believe that BB is some kind of scientology off shoot. At least that is how I think of it.

 

Also, be aware that there are people that have tried to undermine BB and its members which is why Colin has gone to great lengths to protect our anonymity. Witness the top right hand corner of every page in the forum where it says 'changes to the PM system and security advice' and 'Improvements to the name redaction system' - all of this has been done to protect BB members as well as to keep BB 'clean' as an separate entity making it clear that there are no affiliations to organizations that might cause issues for some that would seek help in this forum. At least that is how I view it and it seems to be a good policy as there are member of this forum that are taking other psych drugs and perhaps intend on taking them for the rest of their lives. Much as a few of us might feel that is not safe, fact is that BB is a benzo community that is here to help people dealing with benzo issues. Scientology targets all psych meds which would alienate those who need help for benzos but feel they still need their antidepressants. The objective of this forum is to help people with benzo issues. Alienating part of that group would not be in the best interest of those who need help with the benzos especially since there seem to be no other benzo forums around.

 

This is my interpretation of what Colin is doing and based on that interpretation, I feel it is done to help rather than harm. If that means a few videos aren't direct linked (notice he did not even remove the link but only removed the direct link) then so be it if it means not alienating part of the group that BB aims to serve.

"I particularly object to hidden agendas - CCHR dishonestly attempting to hide its association with Scientology and its spreading of propagandist videos. CCHR does not engage in honest discourse."

 

You are making assumptions based on information that could quite possibly be disseminated by the pharmaceutical industry.  And that is also your personal opinion as displayed by your comment above.

 

You are wrong. Gwen Oslen accepted an award from CCHR. I also had a comment of Gwen's forward to me (with Gwen's permission) where she states that she does not regret her past affiliation with CCHR. CCHR is not about 'Human Rights' (Citizen's Commission for Human Rights) - it is about spreading Scientologist anti-psychiatry propeganda. Of course, CCHR tried to hide the fact that they are a Scientologist front-group, but the truth of its origins has been known about for years now.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_Commission_on_Human_Rights

 

Scientology campaigns for an end to psychiatry because of their own peculiar religious dogma. CCHR has been used to to spread this Scientology dogma - it obfuscates its true intent and affiliations. CCHR has nothing to do with 'Human Rights'. How can a propagandist organisation have anything to do with Human Rights? It must, first of all, be an honest broker. Deliberately misleading people is diametrically opposed to human rights.

 

You are making assumptions based on information that could quite possibly be disseminated by the pharmaceutical industry

 

I've made no assumptions. All you offer in counterargument is unsupported speculation: "could possibly". Really!?

 

I think what Gwen Olsen is saying is very accurate based on my experiences with the pharmaceutical industry and the doctors that push their "medicines."

 

I have made no attempt to judge the veracity of Olsen's claims. I have merely enacted our forum policies to disable a link (again, I did not remove the link). Oslen may have some very valid points, but, as I said, her credibility is indeed undermined by her association with Scientology (through her admitted involvement with CCHR). It is matter of fact (and obvious) that this association does undermine her credibility - maybe not with you, but with me and most other people.

 

On what basis do you say she has a "hidden agenda?"

 

CCHR attempted to hide that it was a Scientology front-group. I have still to see CCHR volunteer its association with Scientology in any of its propaganda. Since Scientology seeks to remove people's access to psychiatry because of their peculiar religious dogma, this obviously constitutes a CCHR 'hidden agenda'. I think this is obvious.

 

And you should not censor a woman who is working diligently to help spread knowledge of the affliction we suffer based on hearsay.

 

How, exactly, have I censored Gwen Olsen? I've merely enacted BenzoBuddies forum policies on linking and Scientology (this includes Scientology front-groups and those associated with those front-groups).

 

Might does not make right.  Just because you have the power to censor something based on personal opinions/dislike means that you should.

 

'Might'!? I have enacted a sensible set of rules and Guidelines for this community. I enforced those rules. They may not be perfect (of course), nor to your liking, but they have served the community pretty well. I am not going to allow links to Scientology propaganda (such links are totally removed). Links to content which has one or two degrees of separation from Scientology, are taken more on a case by case basis. In this case, I only disabled the link (made it non-clickable). Olsen was involved with CCHR, does not regret her involvement, and CCHR is is run by Scientology. BenzoBuddies is not an anti-psychiatry website. This is made clear in our Mission Statement and Policy Documents. I will not allow content which seriously distracts from - or seeks to undermine - this position.

 

Opposing people who are trying to bring to light this terrible situation we suffer is not helping people on this board.

 

Allowing Scientologist or CCHR propaganda which seeks to remove psychiatric support for patients is my concern. I have not removed the link to Olsen's video, nor have I closed down this discussion. What I did do, pragmatically, was make the link unclickable because of Oslen's involvement with CCHR.

 

 

Edit: typo.

"Gwen Olson has some kind of association with Scientology" and that "this undermines her credibility." How is this incorrect?

 

I do not need to agree 100% with scientology in order to agree with 1% of what they believe.  It does not make me a scientologist if I hate psych drugs.

 

But, I did not claim that Olsen is a Scientologist. How many times must I repeat this? I wrote that she has "some kind of association", which she does, through her participation with CCHR (Scientology front-group).

 

If a scientologist claimed that "The Sun rises in the East," would you say that is not true because scientologists have no credibility?

 

This is a straw-man argument. Scientology is diametrically opposed to psychiatry - they wish to outlaw its practice. They use CCHR as a propagandist machine to promote this view. Scientology anti-psychiatry dogma is diametrically opposed to BB Policy. I disabled a link to a video by someone who has participated with CCHR (Scientology front-group).

 

If a scientologist said E = mC^2 would you say Einstein has not credibility?

 

Another straw-man argument.

 

You cannot condemn Gwen Olsen just because she has a few beliefs in common with scientology. I take her at her word when she claims she is not affiliated with scientology. She certainly does not promote scientology in her tape or in her book. She has more in common with us than with scientology.

 

I have not questioned Gwen Olsen's word. I simply do not allow Scientology propaganda at BB. This includes content from people who have been (by their own admission) affiliated with CCHR.

 

Some of what scientology claims is absolutely correct, even if some is not correct.

 

Which claims might they be? That 'psychiatry is responsible for the 9/11 attacks and Nazi Germany', perhaps!? Again, Scientology's aims (and its CCHR front-group) are diametrically oposite to our Mission Statement and Policies as they relate to psychiatry. Honest debate is fine. Scientogist anti-psychiatry propaganda is not. Materials which relate to this propaganda, through associations, past and present, are also likely to be affected by our policies. I decided to disable (not delete) the link to Olsen's video.

 

By the way, I've had members thank me when I deleted their links to CCHR (Scientology) video propaganda, as they did realise that CCHR was created and run by Scientology.

Perhaps each benzo buddy should view Gwen Olsen's video for themselves and judge its content on it's own merits.

 

I originally saw it long before it was hinted that she is a scientology flunky.  Hearing her accused of being a scientology stooge has not changed my appreciation of the video one bit. I'm glad I viewed it, and would recommend it to others.

 

It's significant that she was once a drug company rep and got hooked on samples. She warns about the addictive nature of Xanax, and describes her withdrawal experience - not much different from the stories many benzo buddies tell.

 

I don't care who gave her an award. Her experience came first and the award followed. She did not fabricate her story to win an award.

I think what Colin is trying to do for this site is stick with the most reputable sources that will not cause issues for most members.

 

Scientology, might be on the ball about certain things regarding psych drugs comes with a myriad of other issues along with their own agenda. I won't get into them because it's not worth the time beyond the fact that they are a source of information that comes with baggage. By baggage I mean that they are so severely tainted to the majority of people that having links to anything with even the whiff of scientology could and likely would drive away people who need help getting off of the benzos because they might mistakenly believe that BB is some kind of scientology off shoot. At least that is how I think of it.

 

Also, be aware that there are people that have tried to undermine BB and its members which is why Colin has gone to great lengths to protect our anonymity. Witness the top right hand corner of every page in the forum where it says 'changes to the PM system and security advice' and 'Improvements to the name redaction system' - all of this has been done to protect BB members as well as to keep BB 'clean' as an separate entity making it clear that there are no affiliations to organizations that might cause issues for some that would seek help in this forum. At least that is how I view it and it seems to be a good policy as there are member of this forum that are taking other psych drugs and perhaps intend on taking them for the rest of their lives. Much as a few of us might feel that is not safe, fact is that BB is a benzo community that is here to help people dealing with benzo issues. Scientology targets all psych meds which would alienate those who need help for benzos but feel they still need their antidepressants. The objective of this forum is to help people with benzo issues. Alienating part of that group would not be in the best interest of those who need help with the benzos especially since there seem to be no other benzo forums around.

 

This is my interpretation of what Colin is doing and based on that interpretation, I feel it is done to help rather than harm. If that means a few videos aren't direct linked (notice he did not even remove the link but only removed the direct link) then so be it if it means not alienating part of the group that BB aims to serve.

 

OMGWTH - you nailed it! That's exactly why I enacted these policies. Except to add, these policies were created long before that troll frequented BB.

 

Thank you.

as goofy and dangerous i think Scientology is if theres one thing they do right is they hit the nail on the head with psychiatry. there documentaries r ace and there info is totally scientific, credible and reliable. they r a great resource for information and i think the anti anti-psychiatry standpoint on benzo buddies is absurd.

 

a lot of people here have been horribly affected by psychiatry (almost every body if it wasn't for psychiatry benzos wouldn't be so prevalent). its a dang shame that this site blocks people from sharing links that can save there ass from more pill hell. CCHR is a tremendous resource of information on psychiatry and the medications that come along with it.

 

saying that i would never step in one of there offices but i did before i found out it was connected to Scientology sign up with them for more info and a free DVD and that was a few years ago and it never escalated beyond receiving the DVD's along with some packet info and a followup email with no references to Scientology.

 

CCHR has freed me from the bondage of psychiatry by providing me with the info i need to get started and get off all the meds including benzos. if it wasn't for them i would of never known what was causing all my problems. i encourage anybody to go check them out don't be spooked by the irrational actions and statements on this site about them.

 

this is a private site and the largest so like facebook if u want to go somewhere else cause u don't like the policies u will go alone to another site that has very few people and thats really sad.

 

i'm more spooked by the stance on anti-psychiatry on benzobuddies then the cult behind CCHR. it makes me wonder whos really behind this site and what there agenda is if there so anti-CCHR and anti any sites or news sources that r anti-psychiatry.

 

i'v got my religion and it does not go well with Scientology or all the other false religions out there with that said i think its obvious that i'm not a Scientology or pro Scientology or any other religion thats not mine. i don't think any of the false religions of the world have done much good or given back anything of value to society but if there's one that has its Scientology for CCHR and that alone is an incredible contribution.

 

and they really get things done as well unlike the slacktavists who just sit on there ass and blog all day about these problems never actually achieving anything.

I can tell you there is no hidden agenda here at BB regarding Scientology and CCHR . Scientology is wackadoodle....plain and simple. The entire "religion" was created by a science fiction writer. That alone makes me feel it nuts. They believe we were created by aliens. I realize there's a lot more to it than that but that's a good enough start. Why would Colin want any links to that sort of thing on his website? It's as simple as that. You can create an entire conspiracy if you like but sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

lots of religions were created by goofball wackjobs. regardless of when they were established i don't c how most of the world religions can claim any superiority over Scientology just based on how long they have been around. if occupation of the establisher of the religion is the fault what else is there to establish credibility and why is being a sci fi writer so bad as opposed to being a *choose occupation of ur thinking for the main man of any religion*?

 

why would he want links like that on his website? cause there not links like that there links that r relevant to benzodiazapines. no where on CCHR will u find anything mentioning Scientology and while u might think that hiding it is devious or some hidden hook i think its a good thing cause even if Scientology created CCHR its not relevant to CCHR or the information contained within.

i'm more spooked by the stance on anti-psychiatry on benzobuddies then the cult behind CCHR. it makes me wonder whos really behind this site and what there agenda is if there so anti-CCHR and anti any sites or news sources that r anti-psychiatry.

 

Then why are you here?

 

I find it odd that you are posting on a site that you are 'spooked' by.

 

This site has helped many people during their benzo tapers. You may not agree with all of its policies, but you are here nevertheless and criticizing it as you post and probably while you are getting support for your taper. Odd and maybe a tad hypocritical.

 

Colin has good reasons for not wanting anything even remotely related to scientology here at BB. Frankly, I think it's a smart plan. Your plan would alienate all the people on this site who are still on other psych meds but want and need to get off benzos. Your plan would throw them to the wolves because they would no longer feel safe here because they are on other psych meds.

 

And just so you know, I personally feel that antidepressants are dangerous at best and only in extreme circumstances can help certain individuals. But I wouldn't want to see that all over the forum as there is that subgroup that need help getting off benzos but has no intention of getting off ADs. Do I agree with that? Well, it's none of my business actually. But I see the bigger picture which is that scientology will alienate that portion of the people that come here for help. Perhaps you don't care about that portion of people but clearly Colin does and honestly, my thoughts on psych meds aside, I am glad for that because I would hate to see that subset of people not have a place to turn for help getting off the benzos.

 

There is a bigger picture here and it's more important than a few videos which anyone can find using a search engine. They still exist outside BB and people are more than capable of finding them should they choose to do so.

 

i'm more spooked by the stance on anti-psychiatry on benzobuddies then the cult behind CCHR. it makes me wonder whos really behind this site and what there agenda is if there so anti-CCHR and anti any sites or news sources that r anti-psychiatry.

 

 

You're wondering who's "really" behind this site? Colin started it almost a decade ago while he was going through his own withdrawal. He started it to distract himself from his own symptoms. He pays for all expenses out of his own pocket. I know Colin. I was the senior admin for this site for quite a while. He and I worked very closely together. I know all the players. This site is as transparent as they come. Members offer money to Colin to help with expenses. While he appreciates the offer he's always turned them down. I realize it might be hard to believe that there are any truly altruistic people in the world anymore but I happen to know there are and Colin is one of them as far as BB is concerned. There is no hidden agenda. He wants people to have a place to come when they are feeling ill. Frankly, if it were me, I'd have shut this site down long ago. It can be a headache (to say the least) at times but he keeps plugging away so you will have a place to come when you're frightened and don't know where to turn.

 

So, that's who's behind this site. 

 

I am interested in who you think is behind this site? 

lots of religions were created by goofball wackjobs. regardless of when they were established i don't c how most of the world religions can claim any superiority over Scientology just based on how long they have been around. if occupation of the establisher of the religion is the fault what else is there to establish credibility and why is being a sci fi writer so bad as opposed to being a *choose occupation of ur thinking for the main man of any religion*?

 

 

With all due respect to Colin, I have to say I think I'm in love with rubberduck now because of this paragraph ^

Hi Mairin33,

 

I think you will find that rubberneck's remarks were made in response to Hope1962's comments. I have said nothing about Scientology except where it relates to anti-psychiatry propaganda. CCHR, on the other hand, is all about anti-psychiatry propaganda - this is what it was set up to do.

 

I think those who 'support' CCHR should read more about the organisation, their aims and tactics. They are anti-psychiatry and and even anti-psychology. Their aim is to remove peoples' access psychiatric, psychologic and counselling services and replace it with their brand of spirituality.

 

The Scientology and Psychiatry page is a very interesting read, with lots of references. I do not understand how anyone can use Scientology and/or CCHR as a source for any reliable information. They have their own peculiar agenda and will do, write and say whatever they need to further that agenda. They are in the business of misinformation.

 

i'm more spooked by the stance on anti-psychiatry on benzobuddies then the cult behind CCHR. it makes me wonder whos really behind this site and what there agenda is if there so anti-CCHR and anti any sites or news sources that r anti-psychiatry.

 

 

You're wondering who's "really" behind this site? Colin started it almost a decade ago while he was going through his own withdrawal. He started it to distract himself from his own symptoms. He pays for all expenses out of his own pocket. I know Colin. I was the senior admin for this site for quite a while. He and I worked very closely together. I know all the players. This site is as transparent as they come. Members offer money to Colin to help with expenses. While he appreciates the offer he's always turned them down. I realize it might be hard to believe that there are any truly altruistic people in the world anymore but I happen to know there are and Colin is one of them as far as BB is concerned. There is no hidden agenda. He wants people to have a place to come when they are feeling ill. Frankly, if it were me, I'd have shut this site down long ago. It can be a headache (to say the least) at times but he keeps plugging away so you will have a place to come when you're frightened and don't know where to turn.

 

So, that's who's behind this site. 

 

I am interested in who you think is behind this site? 

 

Thank you, Hope. But, I think you are too generous. I think I'm just mostly stubborn! And, of course, most of the work is provided by the wider team and the peer-support of members.

Scientology's comments about psychiatry remind me that even stopped clocks are right twice a day.

 

 

 

i'm more spooked by the stance on anti-psychiatry on benzobuddies then the cult behind CCHR. it makes me wonder whos really behind this site and what there agenda is if there so anti-CCHR and anti any sites or news sources that r anti-psychiatry.

 

 

You're wondering who's "really" behind this site? Colin started it almost a decade ago while he was going through his own withdrawal. He started it to distract himself from his own symptoms. He pays for all expenses out of his own pocket. I know Colin. I was the senior admin for this site for quite a while. He and I worked very closely together. I know all the players. This site is as transparent as they come. Members offer money to Colin to help with expenses. While he appreciates the offer he's always turned them down. I realize it might be hard to believe that there are any truly altruistic people in the world anymore but I happen to know there are and Colin is one of them as far as BB is concerned. There is no hidden agenda. He wants people to have a place to come when they are feeling ill. Frankly, if it were me, I'd have shut this site down long ago. It can be a headache (to say the least) at times but he keeps plugging away so you will have a place to come when you're frightened and don't know where to turn.

 

So, that's who's behind this site. 

 

I am interested in who you think is behind this site? 

 

Thank you, Hope. But, I think you are too generous. I think I'm just mostly stubborn! And, of course, most of the work is provided by the wider team and the peer-support of members.

 

Is my cheque in the mail?  It better be a big one. I said a lot of nice things.  ...and I need shoes.