Jana has reinstated!!!!

[[Fi...]]

I'm delighted to read this, Jana. Yes, the Internet can be an ugly place and anonymity allows people to show their worst.

[[Co...]]

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 

 

Hi Jana,

 

Not withstanding your rebuttal/correction of assertions about your reinstatement (I have no reason to doubt you), it is not as though you are some ordinary anonymous person withdrawing from benzodiazepines. Certainly, if the opening post to this thread was about an ordinary member of BB, your forum, or from any other group, it would have been edited or removed. But, you and I are not ordinary citizens withdrawing from benzos. You owned and operated your own benzodiazepine withdrawal support forum and published (an patented) your own 'method' - this has been, unsurprisingly, widely discussed at BB. I could have decided upon not allowing discussion of your group and method at my forum - I did not do that.  So, in this paradigm (owning your group; the patent; your members bringing discussion of your method to BB), you should take the rough with the smooth. Of course post a rebuttal or correction, but to a certain degree you I an have to put up with stuff like this - others should not.

 

Once or twice I've posted rebuttals, but as far as I can recall, I did this at BB. And unless I'm very mistaken, I did not call for the removal of the wrong information from elsewhere or make claims about it being against the websites policies or rules. I mostly take such things on the chin. Or at least I try to.

 

I also note that you make several unsubstantiated claims in your rebuttal. And they seem more personalised that the statements from the OP. Additionally, the threshold for proving 'liable' is the US is very high. Simply because statement is false (assuming ti to be false - I have no reason to doubt you), this does not mean that it fulfills the legal standard of liable.

 

Anyway,  thank you for posting your correction. I am glad to hear that you are well and are recovered. Good luck to you.

[[Fi...]]

Um, Colin?  Why are you so much more interested in taking Jana to task than you are in coming down on the original poster who apparently lied in saying Jana had reinstated?  Isn't quibbling over the definition of libel with her a bit like quibbling with a victim over the definitive of sexual harassment?

 

This is pretty much the attitude you took toward me and also Monica Cassani.  To me it looks as if you are threatened by people who AREN'T worried about anonymity.  Yes, you will have your specific rules you can site that we broke, but the overall pattern is that while people on the board go on and on about getting our stories out there and helping make sure others don't go through this, people who actually make moves in this direction are punished.  Those of us who refuse to join in the fear of speaking out become the subject of your censure while you protect people who are not honest.

 

And, Benzogirl, thank you so much for acknowledging my original reaction to the OP.  Much appreciated.

[[be...]]

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?

 

:thumbsup:

[[ke...]]

Jana

 

Just wondering, were you ever granted that US patent for milk microtitration (MMT pp)?

[[Fi...]]

And you have nothing by way of apology here? No sense of shame or embarrassment?

[[bu...]]

Um, Colin?  Why are you so much more interested in taking Jana to task than you are in coming down on the original poster who apparently lied in saying Jana had reinstated? 

 

[[Lo...]]

I have a guess. A guess is all it is, so please don't jump on me. It is possible that his relapse was not what he says it was. He might have an underlying condition that led to his initial benzo use, and has now reared its ugly head again.

 

He would have us believe that his healed nervous system was so fragile that seven years of abuse crashed it again. That;s a possibility, but I can think of other things that might also explain it.

 

Obviously I don't know. But why should we all get freaked out and worried that we will never truly recover 100% and will always have this hanging over our heads if we drink too much coffee? As long as it's possible that his problem was not simply a return to withdrawal seven years later, why should we worry about it?

 

I don't think Matt Samet did the benzo community any favors by scaring the hell out of us. As long as there are other possibilities, I choose to ignore Matt Samet's claim that we never really recover from benzo use. On average, I'm sure we are not all like Matt Samet.

 

I completely agree. I read his book and he seems like quite the drama queen.

 

I doubt there will be any apology to Jana by the OP. The OP apparently thought at one point that Matt Samet was a drama queen. There seems to be a pattern on his part of disparaging people who have gone public with their tales of suffering from benzodiazepines. Considering the fact that Matt's mother attempted to take her own life 3 times when Matt was 10 (it's in the book), and his subsequent parents' divorce and the lingering shocks of that and being jumped and developing agoraphobia and panic attacks later, it's clear to me that Matt is not a drama queen. I don't see why the OP had a need to bash another visible survivor, but if he'd bashed Matt in the past, I am not surprised that he was willing to tell untruths about Jana...

[[ke...]]

Just to be clear, I was told this by a former member of hers. Maybe it wasn't accurate. But Jana has deliberately spread misinformation about BB and Colin for years, insinuating that he was on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies and even that he sold BB for profit. She has never apologized for this. She has also blamed Prof Ashton for causing at least 3 suicides. Totally false.

[[so...]]

Keagan,

 

It’s apparent from your posts and your spread of misinformation about Jana that you have some axe to grind with her.  What you did was irresponsibly put forth a piece of damaging gossip against another person without checking your resources or the claims being made.  It’s the fodder of rag magazines that damage celebrities’ careers and don’t even bother to apologize for or retract the gossip they printed.

 

This forum was not the appropriate place for you to do your gossip mongering.  I don’t think there is any appropriate place for this.  It speaks to your character and I am embarrassed for you.  It’s amazing how some people don’t change much from the nasty schoolyard children they once were.

 

Sofa

[[be...]]

Keagan,

 

It’s apparent from your posts and your spread of misinformation about Jana that you have some axe to grind with her.  What you did was irresponsibly put forth a piece of damaging gossip against another person without checking your resources or the claims being made.  It’s the fodder of rag magazines that damage celebrities’ careers and don’t even bother to apologize for or retract the gossip they printed.

 

This forum was not the appropriate place for you to do your gossip mongering.  I don’t think there is any appropriate place for this.  It speaks to your character and I am embarrassed for you.  It’s amazing how some people don’t change much from the nasty schoolyard children they once were.

 

Sofa

 

:thumbsup:

[[be...]]

And you have nothing by way of apology here? No sense of shame or embarrassment?

 

:thumbsup:

[[Co...]]

Um, Colin?  Why are you so much more interested in taking Jana to task than you are in coming down on the original poster who apparently lied in saying Jana had reinstated?  Isn't quibbling over the definition of libel with her a bit like quibbling with a victim over the definitive of sexual harassment?

 

This is pretty much the attitude you took toward me and also Monica Cassani.  To me it looks as if you are threatened by people who AREN'T worried about anonymity.  Yes, you will have your specific rules you can site that we broke, but the overall pattern is that while people on the board go on and on about getting our stories out there and helping make sure others don't go through this, people who actually make moves in this direction are punished.  Those of us who refuse to join in the fear of speaking out become the subject of your censure while you protect people who are not honest.

 

And, Benzogirl, thank you so much for acknowledging my original reaction to the OP.  Much appreciated.

 

Well. OK. Although I think we've been over all this before...

 

"Apparently lied"? That's quite a supposition. I take what Jana has claimed at face value - just because the statement was (apparently) incorrect, this does not mean the Keagan 'lied'. When I compare what Keagan claimed with what Jana has claimed, Keagan's comments seem mild by comparison. A couple of quotes will help:

 

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.

 

From Jana's response yesterday to the above, incorrect, but hardly nasty or excoriating.

 

Keagan's comments seemed like tittle-tattle (if that translates) - I described them as 'unsubstantiated' at the time. I instead posted about the more important related issues.

 

Your original comment to this thread:

 

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.

 

Me:

 

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 Titration^TM) 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'.

 

You responded with:

 

Thanks, Colin, for this interesting background on the issue.

 

Me, again:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=159823.msg2138227#msg2138227

 

And you, again:

 

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.

 

So, what has changed? Nothing, that's what. It is not a surprise that the claims in the OP are incorrect - I am glad that Jana posted a correction to that:

 

 

[...]

 

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.

 

[...]

 

 

I have no problem with any of that (or much of her other unquoted comments).

 

However, Jana also included the following claims and remarks (emphasis is mine):

 

 

[...]

 

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.

 

[...]

 

 

I have already addressed the claims of liable (so I'll spare you all a repeat). But there is no evidence of 'malice'. Jana then indicates that she knows Keagan's true identity, 'has history' and makes apparent threats of doxxing (revealing Keagan's identity - how Jana can be sure of her true identity is a mystery anyway)! Those kind of threats are completely unacceptable. Jana then goes on to call Keagan a 'coward', and hints further at doxxing her identity. Jana also suggested that this thread and some of the comments within, are at adds with the BBs stated mission. They are not. BB is a discussion forum - most benzo-related topics and news are fair game. As I've already explained, 'leaders' within the benzo community cannot realistically expect the same kind of anonymity and courteousness as ordinary members and team members of these groups.

 

My above comments bring me to this:

 

Just to be clear, I was told this by a former member of hers. Maybe it wasn't accurate. But Jana has deliberately spread misinformation about BB and Colin for years, insinuating that he was on the payroll of pharmaceutical companies and even that he sold BB for profit. She has never apologized for this. She has also blamed Prof Ashton for causing at least 3 suicides. Totally false.

 

I had forgotten the source of some of those claims. The 'working for the pharmaceutical industry' claim was pretty funny. I very well recall the pill-splitting withdrawal method (AKA The Ashton Method), and those utilising it, being demonised by Jana at her support forum by referring to it as 'cut and suffer'. Worse, some of Jana's members then attempted to spread the term at BB. I also note, like some other forum owners within the benzo community, Jana suddenly closed down with no notice to members. Unless there is come kind of life emergency, there really is no excuse to close down a support network without notice.

 

If I recall properly, the 'selling of BB for profit' comments were in response to when BB was down for a couple of days (there was a technical problem with the BB domain registrar - we had just moved server and I could not update the DNS records). Were those comments posted at Jana's forum? I honestly have no recollection from where they originated. Anyway, there was quite a lot of ridiculous speculation at various websites at the time. As I recall, when BB was back up, I simply made a joke (at BB) of some of the speculation and reactions. I certainly did not go to the websites concerned and demand retractions, corrections, or rebuke the forums and their administration.

 

Re: Monica Cassani - I fail to see what that has to do with anything. Cassani made some false claims at her blog many years ago. I did not bother addressing her claims at the time. Then, maybe a couple of years ago, a member here made mention of Cassani and another blog entry s/he found troubling. I commented and added some remarks about Cassani's past false claims. I should also point out (for those who do not know) that Cassani is involved Mad in America - so she too has chosen to 'lead', as it were. To a reasonable degree, anyone taking a public lead should expect a certain amount of public critiques and criticism. Sometimes those criticisms might be embarrassing or even unfair. Yes, post corrections and rebuttals, but to reasonable degree, would should accept it. You, FinallyJoining63, of course, already know all about this past matters. Why are we going through this again?

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=152813.0

 

As for your personal gripes - do you really wish to go through that again, here, in public? Frankly, you bring this upon yourself.

 

And, before I go, one more comment about Jana's comments to this thread. Jana assured us that she just wished to correct the record about her recovery (the false claim about her return to using benzodiazepines) and to add some advice for others not to do so after many years abstinence. I saw nothing wrong with any of that. Seemed fair and reasonable to me. However, in addition to all that, Jana made several disparaging remarks to this thread (far worse than the alleged offense against her), and even made threats of doxxing to boot.

 

I can understand (to a degree) why Jana was annoyed with the false comments from Keagan. But her rebuttal is more out of line the original offending post. Not withstanding Jana's recovery and her not returning to benzodiazepines (good news), I do actually disagree with some of her general comments about the nature of withdrawal/recovery/reinstatement: the idea that it is absurd for someone would return to taking benzodiazepines after a decade of abstinence.

 

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.

 

[...]

 

 

Reinstatement happens pretty often, even after many years, for all kinds of complicated reasons. Although I would (obviously) generally (and strongly) discourage members from returning to their use of benzodiazepines after an extended period, I would not suggest that they are 'wrong' to do so. The BB Mission is predicated upon members determining their own healthcare choices. Most of the time (around here) this means quitting benzodiazepines, but they are supported in whatever decision they make.

 

I have no problem with Jana posting a correction; I welcome it. I wouldn't even mind it if there was a bit of 'tone' or attitude behind her rebuttal. However, she went too far, to the point of undermining her reason for posting to this thread in the first place.

 

I should also point out to those taking issue with my comments here: most of you know what would have happened to your account at Jana's forum had you took her to task there - you could not even suggest methods (other than Jana's) for quitting benzodiazepines at her group.

[[Fi...]]

No, Colin, I have no wish to take the time to write out the same amount of verbiage you have.  And what have I "brought upon myself?"  Your annoyance?  Scare me to death.  I'm quaking in my boots. 

[[Co...]]

No, Colin, I have no wish to take the time to write out the same amount of verbiage you have.  And what have I "brought upon myself?"  Your annoyance?  Scare me to death.  I'm quaking in my boots. 

 

No, just the public rebuttal/rebuke. As I wrote in my last post, we've been through all this before. It is waste of time - I think you will agree with me about that at least.

[[Fi...]]

Colin, I see you as a good man who is trying mightily to do the right thing and help people.  My wish for you and all here is that we be free of suffering, and the anger and resentment that can only exacerbate mental and physical pain while hindering healing.

[[Co...]]

Hi FJ,

 

The thing is, by allowing members a lot of scope for decent, they are bound to publicly disagree with the myself and the team from time to time. I accept and expect that. It is the right position to take. I don't know if I am a particularly good man (but thank you for your comment); I just know that I do not have all the answers and try to avoid imposing my opinions upon others. That doesn't mean that I don't enjoy a good debate. In a similar vein, we do not ask prospective team members if they agree with our rules and guidelines; only are they willing to enforce them? I have tried my best to make the rules as unobtrusive as possible; I try to avoid basing rules and guidelines upon my own preferences and biases. I surely will not have totally succeeded in that, but it is my aim. So, I expect that most of the team will probably not totally agree with the guidelines, but generally take the view that they are not totally unreasonable and can live with them. No set of rules will please everyone. Further, I expect that any comprehensive set of rules will only ever fully satisfy the creator.

 

BB is so structured that members can express nearly any opinion, so long as they remain respectful of their fellow members. It is worth repeating that the kind of disagreements with the team which are quite frequently expressed by our members would have quickly earned them bans at (all) other benzo forums. It actually takes a lot to get banned from BB. Some of the long-time members will be able to confirm how easy it was to earn a ban at some of the other (now defunct) benzo forums. So, I am not holding other 'leaders' of groups or well-known blogs to higher standard than which I hold myself. We need to have thicker skins.

 

 

Edited for typos and clarity.

[[Lo...]]

One thing that unsettles me about this thread is that it's a resurrected old thread that just got re-activated out of nowhere. Specifically, the claim/rumor/untruth/whatever it is, made by the OP was made in Jun 27, 2016. Apparently, Jana did not address this until March 6th, 2018. I don't really understand why such long delay to set the record straight. Apparently, as I have learned, Jana had her own forum and apparently was not a member of this one before (to my knowledge). I do respect Jana's desire to set the record straight, and am not thrilled that OP started this topic if it wasn't backed by rock solid reliable source, but some of us are newer to this and don't know all these convoluted histories of various (now defunct) benzo withdrawal forums/sites prior, and it is kind of stressful to a lot of members who are not familiar with all of this. I appreciate that Colin took the time to give some background on Jana and her role in the general Benzo community, but I surely wish that Jana spent some time to explain some of the circumstances, simply because the whole dynamic of people resurrecting the inactive threads and charging out of the gate to prove/disprove something can be quite stressful and their point can be lost. Yes, it would be nice to have thicker skin, but if someone comes back here healed, and dusting off the cobwebs of long inactive threads, it would be nice of them to be to be as clear as possible in regards to why they are here and what they are trying to prove/disprove and what their contention points are. Things could have been explained in a better way.

[[so...]]

LorazFree,

 

Thank you for your post.  I thought it was right on the mark.  Many of us have been hit hard by other members because we never knew the “history” behind certain people or their posts.  We take what is written at face value.  You shouldn’t have to read volumes in the archives before responding to posts.  I certainly haven’t, and I don’t intend to.  Each post someone writes should contain key elements to ensure that what he/she wants to say is communicated the way he/she wants it to come across.  Readers shouldn’t be expected to dig through and dust off old archives to get the gist of what’s being presented.

 

I wish posts would adhere more closely to BB’s mission statement to SUPPORT.  I applaud Colin and the team for not over-moderating the forum.  “Self-moderation” would be perfect in a perfect world.  We are all far from perfect, especially given the compromised states in which we currently find ourselves.  In the absence of perfection, maybe we could give more thought to whether or not we are being kind and supportive before we post something that may not be.

 

Sigh.

 

Sofa

 

 

[[be...]]

Right on the both of you ladies.

[[ke...]]

I lurked at BDR in 2011 but didn't join for obvious reasons. I was appalled at Jana's persrciptiveness particularly at how she told people to ignore their doctors, told them which meds they should take and at which doses. And also how she casually diagnosed members with other medical conditions that they almost certainly didn't have. And God forbid if someone disagreed with her...BANNED.

 

I suspect that she got in trouble for practicing medicine without a license and that would explain her sudden disappearance. I also suspect that she has resurfaced because the heat is off and she wants to get back in the game.

[[ba...]]

My advice to the newbies and short-term users? Steer away of from these threads; they are hostile and unproductive. While I personally like a good fight once in awhile, it’s gotten stale and frankly meaningless.  Benzos are bad news, that is obvious.  When deciding upon a taper, “TIME ON” matters.  If you are a long-term user (5+ years), it could take a taper of that time.  Short-term users generally are much more successful because of lessened brain and CNS damage. And most do “OK”, but some are dealt a bad card.    IT IS CLEAR that there aren’t specific guidelines regarding individual experience, and that includes the Heather Ashton type of taper schedule.  It works for some and not for others. 

[[so...]]

Thanks, Baby Rex.

[[so...]]

Keagan,

 

I repeat.  What about any of your posts even touches on supporting BB members?  Not a damn thing.  You continue to gossip about Jana and “defend” your opinion of her.  We don’t care.

 

Sofa

[[no...]]

Right on the both of you ladies.

Well I'm more interested in the fact the Bets  ...... has done a ''Gender reassignment'' by stealth job on'' Lorazapam free'' ...its a Guy Betsy, its a guy  .........