The two sides of the coin

[Guest [Kp...]]

very interesting what your doc has in mind ramcon. that is what titration means (i'm sure you know this). in BB we imply the reverse by titration. but, for a change, your doc is literally going to employ the DLMT method that we use here!

[[Lo...]]

great post loraz!

 

yes, it is the SSRI + benzo combination that compromises prognosis. *this* the medical fraternity still does not appreciate.  i think highlighting that benzos cause tolerance withdrawal was a remarkable discovery by ashton and this discovery is more important than exposing that benzo withdrawals can be protracted. the discovery is counterintuitive -- how can an anxiolytic cause anxiety? it must be that the patient requires a higher dose of the benzo! even though i cannot find it, i think ashton, in one place comments that benzos should never be prescribed without ADs (but not the reverse).

 

so it's like benzo is disaster, benzo+SSRI is less of a disaster, only AD is the least perilous.

 

 

 

 

Please find it and post it here.

 

https://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha01.htm#14

 

Depression, emotional blunting. Long-term benzodiazepine users, like alcoholics and barbiturate-dependent patients, are often depressed, and the depression may first appear during prolonged benzodiazepine use. Benzodiazepines may both cause and aggravate depression, possibly by reducing the brain's output of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine (noradrenaline). However, anxiety and depression often co-exist and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed for mixed anxiety and depression. Sometimes the drugs seem to precipitate suicidal tendencies in such patients. Of the first 50 of the patients attending my withdrawal clinic (reported in 1987), ten had taken drug overdoses requiring hospital admission while on chronic benzodiazepine medication; only two of these had a history of depressive illness before they were prescribed benzodiazepines. The depression lifted in these patients after benzodiazepine withdrawal and none took further overdoses during the 10 months to 3.5 years follow-up period after withdrawal. In 1988 the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the UK recommended that "benzodiazepines should not be used alone to treat depression or anxiety associated with depression. Suicide may be precipitated in such patients".

 

the above is a rare admission of what we call tolerance withdrawal by a govt. health body. the advisory is very unambiguous -- don't use benzos alone to treat depression or mixed depression and anxiety. add an AD.  i do not think the advisory is followed.

 

ps. abcd, even eli lilly does not "use" me like you do. not only have i received no remuneration from you, i have been verbally assaulted, mauled, insulted and disparaged. the above google search took me 430 seconds. i could have billed big pharma $450 for it.

 

I tried Zoloft in the year 2000, I think. I think I took 2 tablets, only. For some reason, it didn't agree with me. I was on Prozac, but felt "Prozac stigma" as it was a trendy drug, and it was trendy to ridicule it, just like Xanax in that regard. So, I was told by the doctor to just stop prozac for 30 days, which I did, and then try Zoloft. I did all this, tried zoloft (forgot at what dose), but I felt this odd, dizzy feeling in my brain. It was pretty unnatural, and I didn't like it. I was back on Prozac after 2 days. Now, I have no clue if this was just due to Zoloft or due to fast Prozac discontinuation or both. Or maybe I just tolerated Prozac better, personally. But I wanted to share this, as it may be helpful.

 

But I wasn't on benzos then. I re-tried 20mg of Prozac in late 2014 for just one day when I was in acute benzo wd (without knowing that I was), and it sent me into an orbit!!! I was in horrid disbelief, not understanding why something that worked for so long caused such a vile reaction. But I didn't know anything about benzo withdrawal back then, and how AD's can potentially become extremely dangerous if one is in benzo wd and is not careful.

[[Lo...]]

Loraz, whatever differences we may have had in the past, I have an idea.  I also had crap experiences with SSRI post benzo damage, but Zoloft/sertraline is available as a liquid, 20 mg/ml.  Regular syringes like the kind diabetics use are calibrated in 0.01 mg, so 0.05 ml = 1 mg, and you can break the needle off.  After I get my blood tests in next week, if everything looks ok, my docs and I are going to try sertraline liquid "homeopathically," in the literal sense of the word.  A few mgs will make me feel worse, and in theory, my nerves will adapt (and I will benefit from a but of extra serotonin) then when I get back to baseline, add just a few more milligrams, and repeat.  That is not the only thing we are going to do but probably the most important.

 

Then when I get to a dose where I feel I am benefiting (like I can eat something before 10 pm without going insane) I will accelerate my valium taper.

 

I wish you luck, Ramcon1. I shared my Zoloft experience. I hope it didn't scare you. It was just that, my experience, and there were no benzos in the picture, and things were very different back then. And our bodies react differently, no doubt. It looks like you got more mileage out of ativan than I did, so perhaps, you will not get as strong of reactions as I do. I tolerated ativan very well initially, but there were problems from the start. The problems were minor, and were not easily attributable to the drug, but if I were ready and intellectually & emotionally capable at the time to entertain the idea that ativan can be extremely dangerous and toxic to one's health, I would have seen what I was dealing with for what it was. But I wasn't jaded back then, and I really wanted ativan to work the way I was taking it. Apparently, it worked, but in a very different way from how I imagined it would work. Total cognitive dissonance/disconnect on my end.

 

Hope this goes ok for you Ramcon1. Wish you luck

[Guest [Kp...]]

Kpin,

I am sorry that you see logic as an invention and not a discovery.  Logic is like relativity, a discovery and 2+2=4 independent of our existence.  I hope you will see that one day.

Ramcon1

 

the observable universe looks remarkably like a human eye...

 

 

actually this area is highly speculative. there are only opinions and matters of belief in this area and it will probably be that way for some time or maybe a long time unless we develop a working mathematical model of consciousness.

 

so, scratch whatever i wrote. better to leave the imponderables to the professionals. no use wasting life over it.

 

but then what else is there to do in life? lol. gardening!

 

oh, one last peeve to get this subject out of my mind: logic butchered morality (it is not just art and beauty that it scorns). the scientists say that nowhere is it stated that the universe ought to be fair. and nowhere is it stated in the theory of evolution that the brain ought to be just and fair. thus to be amoral is scientific. who does not aspire to be logical and scientific?

[[Lo...]]

Please find it and post it here.

 

https://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha01.htm#14

 

Depression, emotional blunting. Long-term benzodiazepine users, like alcoholics and barbiturate-dependent patients, are often depressed, and the depression may first appear during prolonged benzodiazepine use. Benzodiazepines may both cause and aggravate depression, possibly by reducing the brain's output of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine (noradrenaline). However, anxiety and depression often co-exist and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed for mixed anxiety and depression. Sometimes the drugs seem to precipitate suicidal tendencies in such patients. Of the first 50 of the patients attending my withdrawal clinic (reported in 1987), ten had taken drug overdoses requiring hospital admission while on chronic benzodiazepine medication; only two of these had a history of depressive illness before they were prescribed benzodiazepines. The depression lifted in these patients after benzodiazepine withdrawal and none took further overdoses during the 10 months to 3.5 years follow-up period after withdrawal. In 1988 the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the UK recommended that "benzodiazepines should not be used alone to treat depression or anxiety associated with depression. Suicide may be precipitated in such patients".

 

the above is a rare admission of what we call tolerance withdrawal by a govt. health body. the advisory is very unambiguous -- don't use benzos alone to treat depression or mixed depression and anxiety. add an AD.  i do not think the advisory is followed.

 

ps. abcd, even eli lilly does not "use" me like you do. not only have i received no remuneration from you, i have been verbally assaulted, mauled, insulted and disparaged. the above google search took me 430 seconds. i could have billed big pharma $450 for it.

 

Yes, perhaps suggest an AD, but ONLY if it can be tolerated at all in a smallest amount possible, and even then, it should be monitored by a competent physician. Just blindly handing out an AD to someone dealing with severe benzodiazepine dependence/withdrawal, post-withdrawal or protracted-withdrawal could end up being quite dangerous. AD's can raise anxiety as their side effect and can also cause severe adverse reactions, especially in those who have been severely affected by benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromes.

 

I'd go as far to suggest that if a benzo is needed in a patient with agitated depression who is starting on an AD or is taking an AD, the mental health treatment has essentially failed. There is a problem with the dose, type of AD, access to non-medication therapy, lifestyle/situational stressors not being addressed, lack of help, etc. Having to resort to a benzo while being on AD's or just to tolerate an AD is a sign that something has gone seriously wrong. This is where the long disability outcomes have a potential of becoming a reality.

 

 

[[ra...]]

Loraz,

 

Thanks.  Your experience did not scare me.  There are plenty of people who do well with one SSRI and not another, and also that benzo wd/use changes things.  Also, a lot of the benefit of an SSRI comes from the neuroadaptive changes it causes.  So you really can't tell from one or two pills.  It needs to be at least 2 months.  I do not remember which SSRI and SNRI I have tried or when, because my reactions were the same: my gut instantly went crazy.  The extra serotonin made me nauseas until the drug was out of my system.  Because of my experiences, I was throwing the liquid Zoloft it out there just because IF you were considering an SSRI for whatever reason, it can be "titrated" up or down.  In my case if 4 mg makes my gut go nuts, I will go to 2.

 

Thus I TOTALLY agree with the as little as possible.  Enough to tweak the neurons back to the way they are "supposed" to be.  But that it is another topic for another day.

 

Kpin,

 

Whoa.  You went all Deepak Chopra on us.  Chopra, meet Hawking.  (I may be arrogant, but I am NOT trying to suggest I am in the same league as Stephen Hawking, just that as Kpin was "channeling" Chopra, I am gong to channel Hawking.) Here we go:

The universe is expanding and in no way resembles a human eye.  That is just an odd picture.  Math is "pure" science, and logic is an extension of it.  If A=B and B=C then A=C.  Euclid's self evident truths.  The limitations of other science is only our ability to observe and understand it.  But not math or logic.  They are pure and absolute.

 

Issac Newton discovered "Newtonian Mechanics."  Even though it is named for him, he knew it was a discovery, and that it was limited to objects on Earth.  Then Einstein comes along and discovers first special then general relativity.  Showing the movement of objects in the Universe, and he knew they were both discoveries, and not perfect either. 

 

The planet does not give a damn if we are here, much less the universe.  We are just another species with temporary dominance whose time has risen, and is likely soon to fall to something else.  I think Stephen Hawking's parting words were "Be careful with AI." 

 

I posted the link to the woman who has taken the step beyond mapping the genome to mapping the genome of every cell, so "why does a liver cell do this, and a retina cell do that."  Once we have that we will be able to cure any ailment, but also shape our offspring anyway we choose.  This may become important if the planet's climate changes significantly.  But if it changes before we can adapt to it, then we will just yield it to the AI, who should be able to survive anything.

 

And the planet will spin on for another 500 million years until the Sun consumes it in a red giant.  And the Universe will expand for no one knows how long, either wrapping around if you subscribe to the curved space theory, or contracting in a few billion years and repeating the big bang, if you subscribe to the big bang big crunch theory.  And even after all of that, 2+2=4, and if A=B and B=C then A=C.

 

And a few years ago, I desperately looked for a way to contact Stephen Hawking. I just wanted to say "You are going to die.  If ever there lived a man with the ability to reach back and tell us what he found, it is you."

 

Then I found this:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/nation-now/2018/03/14/heaven-fairy-story-what-stephen-hawking-says-happens-when-people-die/423344002/

 

And it is the main reason I am still alive.  This is the only shot we have.  Make it count.

 

And God exists because it is easier to convince someone that there is a creator watching you so be good than it is to convince him of enlightened self interest.  I do not believe in God.  I believe my fellow man is worthy of kindness, and I know the reason I believe that is because it is in everyone's best interest to believe that, or chaos and amorality will wipe up out quicker than global warming. 

 

Ramcon1

[Guest [Kp...]]

ramcon,

 

hawking was a logical positivist. he believed our physical theories were merely models of reality and were useful only to predict nature, not understand or interpret it. one could have several models predict the same thing and one could have a model that made reliable predictions only at a particular scale (relativity and QM). he did not believe that the models existed outside the "black box" (brain) in any independent or absolute manner. he was not a platonist. i do not think he would uphold the absolute existence of numbers or mathematics. if he did, then the mathematical models that physicists create would be cognate with the reality out there. no? am i misunderstanding you here?

 

i find the conviction of atheists as flummoxing as that of theists.

[[Lo...]]

Loraz,

 

Thanks.  Your experience did not scare me.  There are plenty of people who do well with one SSRI and not another, and also that benzo wd/use changes things.  Also, a lot of the benefit of an SSRI comes from the neuroadaptive changes it causes.  So you really can't tell from one or two pills.  It needs to be at least 2 months.  I do not remember which SSRI and SNRI I have tried or when, because my reactions were the same: my gut instantly went crazy.  The extra serotonin made me nauseas until the drug was out of my system.  Because of my experiences, I was throwing the liquid Zoloft it out there just because IF you were considering an SSRI for whatever reason, it can be "titrated" up or down.  In my case if 4 mg makes my gut go nuts, I will go to 2.

 

Thus I TOTALLY agree with the as little as possible.  Enough to tweak the neurons back to the way they are "supposed" to be.  But that it is another topic for another day.

 

Thanks. And also thanks for a Hawking reminder. I thoroughly remember enjoying Hawking's "Brief History of Time". I read it in my teens, actually. I was very big into Carl Sagan's "Cosmos" as a kid, and I remember saving up money for several months until I bought it. At the age 10, it was all a bit too complex, so I was mostly watching the beautiful photos in the book and was fascinated. And then, when the intimidation wore off, I started to read. But yes, after reading Sagan, Hawking was tough to digest, because I very much bought into Sagan's and Stephen Weinberg's models early on. It was really tough to accept some of the Hawking's ideas. That's for sure.

 

But yes, my own personal theory is that my own serotonin is running a bit low, but the dopamine and adrenaline are running so high that a slightest change in my serotonin levels sends everything into a stratosphere in my case. The only thing these days that helps me a bit with depression is 300mg of Ashwagandha extract I take daily. If that's what's helping my depression right now, even just a little bit, then, so be it. In order for me to tolerate an SSRI, I'd probably have to take some strong adrenaline dopamine reducer (say Seroquel at a higher dose, with its alpha, M and D2 receptor blockades) and then take an SSRI. And that's 2 more meds, and I don't want to go there if I can help it.

 

Another thing I got interested in was Tiagabine (Gabitril). And being an actual GABA reuptake inhibitor, it peaked my interest. It would almost make sense. There are even some people talking about it as possible way to aid bzd discontinuation. And it's gone generic in 2016 and.....

 

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1440-1819.2008.01890.x

 

But... A quck google search indicated measly 7 to 9 hours, which made me think along the lines of "Hey, here is yet another GABA drug similar to the one I already take", and the half life isn't at least 50+ hours, which means dosing around the clock, and I am so tired of living like that.

 

The mean systemic plasma clearance is 109 mL/min (CV = 23%) and the average elimination half-life for tiagabine in healthy subjects ranged from 7 to 9 hours. The elimination half-life decreased by 50 to 65% in hepatic enzyme-induced patients with epilepsy compared to uninduced patients with epilepsy.

GABITRIL (tiagabine hydrochloride) - FDA

https://www.accessdata.fda.gov/drugsatfda_docs/label/2009/020646s016lbl.pdf

 

And then I found this on BB and it cooled my enthusiasm even further:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=39453.msg548259#msg548259

[[...]]

great post loraz!

 

yes, it is the SSRI + benzo combination that compromises prognosis. *this* the medical fraternity still does not appreciate.  i think highlighting that benzos cause tolerance withdrawal was a remarkable discovery by ashton and this discovery is more important than exposing that benzo withdrawals can be protracted. the discovery is counterintuitive -- how can an anxiolytic cause anxiety? it must be that the patient requires a higher dose of the benzo! even though i cannot find it, i think ashton, in one place comments that benzos should never be prescribed without ADs (but not the reverse).

 

so it's like benzo is disaster, benzo+SSRI is less of a disaster, only AD is the least perilous.

 

 

 

 

Please find it and post it here.

 

https://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha01.htm#14

 

Depression, emotional blunting. Long-term benzodiazepine users, like alcoholics and barbiturate-dependent patients, are often depressed, and the depression may first appear during prolonged benzodiazepine use. Benzodiazepines may both cause and aggravate depression, possibly by reducing the brain's output of neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine (noradrenaline). However, anxiety and depression often co-exist and benzodiazepines are frequently prescribed for mixed anxiety and depression. Sometimes the drugs seem to precipitate suicidal tendencies in such patients. Of the first 50 of the patients attending my withdrawal clinic (reported in 1987), ten had taken drug overdoses requiring hospital admission while on chronic benzodiazepine medication; only two of these had a history of depressive illness before they were prescribed benzodiazepines. The depression lifted in these patients after benzodiazepine withdrawal and none took further overdoses during the 10 months to 3.5 years follow-up period after withdrawal. In 1988 the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the UK recommended that "benzodiazepines should not be used alone to treat depression or anxiety associated with depression. Suicide may be precipitated in such patients".

 

the above is a rare admission of what we call tolerance withdrawal by a govt. health body. the advisory is very unambiguous -- don't use benzos alone to treat depression or mixed depression and anxiety. add an AD.  i do not think the advisory is followed.

 

ps. abcd, even eli lilly does not "use" me like you do. not only have i received no remuneration from you, i have been verbally assaulted, mauled, insulted and disparaged. the above google search took me 430 seconds. i could have billed big pharma $450 for it.

 

 

When paraphrasing, it's standard practice that the original source be cited, especially when making a statement as outlandish as the above.

 

There's nothing ambiguous about that sentence.  In plain, simple English, if one reads the paragraph in context, what it says is that benzodiazepines are not recommended as a treatment for depression.  Plain and simple.  Period.  Nice try, Dude.  If anyone's interested in the *truth* of what Professor Ashton thinks of antidepressant use, here it is in her own words:

 

 

An Update on Dr. Heather Ashton’s View on Antidepressants:

I’m including a section on this because  members frequently refer to the Ashton Manual for information on antidepressants.

 

The Ashton Manual is reflective of the time it was written – in the 1980’s before the SSRIs first came to market in December 1987. This was before much was known about the “discontinuation syndrome” of the antidepressants.

 

Since then, she has spoken out not only about the withdrawal problems with these drugs, but also about the aggressive marketing by the pharmaceutical companies, as well as the reckless and callous actions of the American Psychiatric Association.

 

Both benzos and AD’s have a discontinuation syndrome that is eerily similar. However, benzos were placed on the controlled substance list before the American Psychiatric Association changed the definition of addiction in 1994 to exclude dependence-only addiction.

 

Dr. Aston spoke about this in her lecture at the Bridge Project: 

 

After a while it became apparent that SSRIs, like benzodiazepines, produced a similar withdrawal syndrome, when they were stopped.   The doctors were surprised by this discovery and this was another example of their ignorance and lack of thought. It was already known that the older antidepressants produced a withdrawal reaction. Of course, the drug companies did not test SSRIs for withdrawal  reactions.

 

As I mentioned, the benzodiazepines had been accepted as being addictive on the basis of their withdrawal effects. Now the all‐powerful physicians of the American Psychiatric Association were faced with SSRI withdrawal. So once again they shifted their position. They adroitly changed their definition of drug dependence in the DSM IV. Withdrawal effects were no longer enough to qualify. The criteria for dependence were extended to include tolerance, dosage escalation and other characteristics. And the withdrawal syndrome was replaced by the patronising euphemism “discontinuation reaction”. As if a patient would think there was some subtle distinction between ‘discontinuation’ and ‘withdrawal’. - Dr. Heather Ashton (author of The Ashton Manual)

 

Dr. Ashton's complete speech is found here: THE  BRIDGE  PROJECT, BRADFORD Professor C Heather Ashton, DM, FRCP

 

 

Lists of Books, Websites, and Videos about Psychiatric Drugs, Withdrawal, & Recovery:

 

Books:

 

Robert Whitaker - Anatomy of an Epidemic: Magic Bullets, Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America

 

Robert Whitaker - Psychiatry Under the Influence: Institutional Corruption, Social Injury, and Prescriptions for Reform

 

Joseph Glenmullen, MD - The Antidepressant Solution: A Step-by-Step Guide to Safely Overcoming Antidepressant Withdrawal, Dependence, and "Addiction"

 

Bessel van der Kolk, MD - The Body Keeps the Score: Brain, Mind, and Body in the Healing of Trauma

 

David Healy, MD - Pharmageddon

 

Joanna Moncrieff, MD - The Myth of the Chemical Cure: A Critique of Psychiatric Drug Treatment

 

Irving Kirsch, MD - The Emperor's New Drugs – Exploding the Antidepressant Myth

 

Allen Frances, MD - Saving Normal: An Insider's Revolt against Out-of-Control Psychiatric Diagnosis, DSM-5, Big Pharma, and the Medicalization of Ordinary Life

 

 

Websites:

 

Surviving Antidepressants

 

 

Mad in America

 

 

The Icarus Project

 

 

Dr. David Healy

 

 

Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry

 

 

Madness Radio

 

 

Videos:

 

 

Will Hall (The Icarus Project) - 

 

Robert Whitaker -

 

Joanna Moncrieff -

 

David Healy -

 

Peter Gøtzsche 

 

 

Antidepressant Withdrawal Guide

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=142057.0

[[Lo...]]

I think this is where Ashton gets close to a phenomenon that gets referred to as tolerance withdrawal:

 

https://www.benzo.org.uk/manual/bzcha01.htm#14

 

Tolerance to the anxiolytic effects develops more slowly but there is little evidence that benzodiazepines retain their effectiveness after a few months. In fact long-term benzodiazepine use may even aggravate anxiety disorders. Many patients find that anxiety symptoms gradually increase over the years despite continuous benzodiazepine use, and panic attacks and agoraphobia may appear for the first time after years of chronic use. Such worsening of symptoms during long-term benzodiazepine use is probably due to the development of tolerance to the anxiolytic effects, so that "withdrawal" symptoms emerge even in the continued presence of the drugs . However, tolerance may not be complete and chronic users sometimes report continued efficacy, which may be partly due to suppression of withdrawal effects. Nevertheless, in most cases such symptoms gradually disappear after successful tapering and withdrawal of benzodiazepines. Among the first 50 patients attending my clinic, 10 patients became agoraphobic for the first time while taking benzodiazepines. Agoraphobic symptoms abated dramatically within a year of withdrawal, even in patients who had been housebound, and none were incapacitated by agoraphobia at the time of follow-up (10 months to 3.5 years after withdrawal).

[[Lo...]]

Both benzos and AD’s have a discontinuation syndrome that is eerily similar. However, benzos were placed on the controlled substance list before the American Psychiatric Association changed the definition of addiction in 1994 to exclude dependence-only addiction.

 

I don't know about this. I don't believe it to be true. The 'leveling of the field' where the field should not be leveled. I am not even questioning the fact about AD's producing withdrawal syndromes. They absolutely do. The syndrome can be complex and very protracted in nature and very awful for some. But nothing touches benzodiazepine withdrawal in its sheer brutality and force, as well as the duration.

 

Withdrawal from an AD may be prolonged and awful , and a slow taper may be required, but there won't be anything close to the level of stigma one has to deal with while withdrawing from long term benzo use, as the symptoms can be far more distrubing, debilitating, protracted and distressing than with any other psychiatric drug.

[[ra...]]

Abcd.  Even the anti-med Bridge project did not put "Anatomy of an Epidemic" on its reading list, did they?  I could not find that.  Link if you can, please.

 

But your post really opened my eyes. Now I get it.  In all of my research, I never really looked at back Dr. Ashton much beyond the withdrawal manual that got me off in 2012.  Wow.  I did not understand how benzobuddy members got the anti-med mentality.  It makes sense now.  It is from Ashton herself.  She actually used the term big pharma.  I understand she is of frail health, and I wish her no ill (I'd be dead already without her for sure) so will so I will stop right here.

 

(Loraz, I agree with everything you said)

 

And Kpin:

I believe Hawking believed math existed and the universe existed outside our ability to describe it, not because of it.  That is just an orthodoxy I have.  I cannot prove it, (cannot ask him) but I will die believing it).  It is so true as to be self evident.  He had to believe it.

 

I gave a a very well received engineering presentation just before I became too sick to work.  In it, I state that all laws can be boiled down to 2:  Do not hurt anyone.  Do not touch his stuff.  This is the purpose of both theism and enlightened self interest (aka atheism) nice use of the word "flummoxed" though.

 

ramcon1

[[...]]

Abcd.  Even the anti-med Bridge project did not put "Anatomy of an Epidemic" on its reading list, did they?  I could not find that.  Link if you can, please.

 

But your post really opened my eyes. Now I get it.  In all of my research, I never really looked at back Dr. Ashton much beyond the withdrawal manual that got me off in 2012.  Wow.  I did not understand how benzobuddy members got the anti-med mentality.  It makes sense now.  It is from Ashton herself.  She actually used the term big pharma.  I understand she is of frail health, and I wish her no ill (I'd be dead already without her for sure) so will so I will stop right here.

 

 

I just took a quick look, I don't know anything about them except they appear to be a substance abuse treatment center in the UK.  No idea what their policy is regarding meds in general and they don't seem to have any listed resources or recommended reading on their website.  Perhaps Prof. Ashton gave speeches on benzo withdrawal to several of these treatment centers which would've been fabulous, a much needed service globally.

 

"About Us

Our mission is to empower people experiencing multiple barriers to achieve positive change."

"Providing services that address all aspects of a Service User’s life, including substance misuse, housing, work, education, training, healthcare, offending, spirituality, family life, relationships, community participation and support networks mission is to help individuals and families to achieve Recovery from addictions."

http://thebridgeproject.org.uk

 

 

Wondering, Ram, are you by chance, familiar with the work of  Prof. John Ioannidis (Stanford)?  Would be interested to know your thoughts.  His resume reads like a novel but, amongst other titles, he's also Professor of Statistics at Stanford University School of Humanities and Sciences.  Here ...

 

"Why Most Published Research Findings Are False"

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=203424.0

[[ra...]]

I am exhausted, but I think he was the guy that pointed out that trendy nutritional studies were bunk.  Like (and I am not remembering this clearly)  when they took 2000 2-pack a day smokers, and gave 1000 beta carotene while they smoked for 10 years and then reported that 25% more cancers occurred in the beta carotene group.  True. 5 got cancer in the non beta carotene group, and 4 got cancer in the beta carotene group.

 

My conclusion from that study is that smoking is not that bad for you 

 

I will look at your link in the morning.

 

[[Lo...]]

I am exhausted, but I think he was the guy that pointed out that trendy nutritional studies were bunk.  Like (and I am not remembering this clearly)  when they took 2000 2-pack a day smokers, and gave 1000 beta carotene while they smoked for 10 years and then reported that 25% more cancers occurred in the beta carotene group.  True. 5 got cancer in the non beta carotene group, and 4 got cancer in the beta carotene group.

 

My conclusion from that study is that smoking is not that bad for you 

 

I will look at your link in the morning.

 

Yup, if you eat low-fat potato chips, you can eat twice as many 

[[Lo...]]

But your post really opened my eyes. Now I get it.  In all of my research, I never really looked at back Dr. Ashton much beyond the withdrawal manual that got me off in 2012.  Wow.  I did not understand how benzobuddy members got the anti-med mentality.  It makes sense now.  It is from Ashton herself.  She actually used the term big pharma.  I understand she is of frail health, and I wish her no ill (I'd be dead already without her for sure) so will so I will stop right here.

 

I kept wondering about this whole mentality about meds, and I wonder if it is really anti-med or is it really "I have been burned pretty bad by benzos and/or other meds, and I am extremely cautious right now in terms of what I take or don't take from now on."?

[Guest [Kp...]]

There's nothing ambiguous about that sentence.  In plain, simple English, if one reads the paragraph in context, what it says is that benzodiazepines are not recommended as a treatment for depression.  Plain and simple.  Period.  Nice try, Dude.

 

In 1988 the Committee on Safety of Medicines in the UK recommended that "benzodiazepines should not be used alone to treat depression or anxiety associated with depression. Suicide may be precipitated in such patients".

 

benzos should not be used to treat depression

 

and

 

benzos alone should not be used to treat depression.

 

if you feel there is no difference between the two, then you are, of course, right.

 

i have already stated that i consider her discovery of benzo tolerance withdrawal more significant than withdrawal. she has nowhere suggested that ADs induce tolerance withdrawal. all psychotropic substances induce withdrawals. This is not such a profound discovery anyway.

 

if she thinks ssri withdrawals are as bad as benzo, that is just her opinion and your effexor experience. My opinion might be different and neither opinion is more true. what is true is that all psychotropic substances have withdrawal issues.

 

the other point is that ashton's experiences from her benzo camp will always be taken more seriously than her views on stuff like ADs and cannabis. ashton was a bit of a shrill -- grant me that too. like you. her good work notwithstanding.

 

When paraphrasing, it's standard practice that the original source be cited, especially when making a statement as outlandish as the above.

 

alright, what punishment do you have in mind for me?

 

And Kpin:

I believe Hawking believed math existed and the universe existed outside our ability to describe it, not because of it.  That is just an orthodoxy I have.  I cannot prove it, (cannot ask him) but I will die believing it).  It is so true as to be self evident.  He had to believe it.

 

like i said, these are amorphous territories. i'm now sorry i waded into them. 

 

well this is what hawking said: (take from it what you believe is the correct interpretation)

 

https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt7szq2

These lectures have shown very clearly the difference between Roger and me. He’s a Platonist and I’m a positivist. He’s worried that Schrodinger’s cat is in a quantum state, where it is half alive and half dead. He feels that can’t correspond to reality. But that doesn’t bother me. I don’t demand that a theory correspond to reality because I don’t know what it is. Reality is not a quality you can test with litmus paper. All I’m concerned with is that the theory should predict the results of measurements. Quantum theory does this very successfully.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism

Positivism also holds that society, like the physical world, operates according to general laws. Introspective and intuitive knowledge is rejected, as are metaphysics and theology because metaphysical and theological claims cannot be verified by sense experience. Although the positivist approach has been a recurrent theme in the history of western thought,[2] the modern sense of the approach was formulated by the philosopher Auguste Comte in the early 19th century.[3] Comte argued that, much as the physical world operates according to gravity and other absolute laws, so does society,[4] and further developed positivism into a Religion of Humanity.

 

platonism (numbers have an absolute existence) and pythagoreanism (numbers underly reality) are metaphysical beliefs. i have found atheistic platonists a bit hard to understand. that is like rejecting theism but accepting metaphysical objects like platonic forms. are forms a surrogate for god in a godless world?

 

my position is probably this -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Possibilianism

 

I gave a a very well received engineering presentation just before I became too sick to work.  In it, I state that all laws can be boiled down to 2:  Do not hurt anyone.  Do not touch his stuff.  This is the purpose of both theism and enlightened self interest (aka atheism) nice use of the word "flummoxed" though.

 

ramcon1

 

sounds good. but how do you derive fairness, justice and equality from these laws? how do you avoid the conflict with darwinian evolution? what about physical laws?

 

here is hawking on the attempt to formulate a grand unified theory for physics in which everything can be predicted from a few simple rules: http://www.hawking.org.uk/godel-and-the-end-of-physics.html

 

simply put, hawking's view is that all information that arrives to us, does so via our senses and is "understood" using mathematical jugglery. therefore all restrictions that beset mathematics, will beset the sciences too. since mathematics is provably incomplete, so is physics and thus there can be no unified theory.

 

i must add that not many agree with hawking.

 

so hawking places math closest to our sense perception. it is the coloured lens through which we see. because of the lens, we can never know the true colour of reality. to assume that because our vision is coloured, reality too must indeed be coloured is bad faith according to him. he believes our coloured lens is useful only for predicting nature and not understanding the true nature of reality and he is happy with that.

 

at the other extreme are physicists like max tegmark (whose views are very popular today). i think your views are more in consonance with tegmark's. tegmark is a neo pythagorean. he believes mathematics is the underlying, core fabric of our universe. our lens too is mathematical. everything in between is a distraction. the universe is fundamentally a mathematical object. science is the pursuit of uncovering the bottomest layer, the fundamental mathematical laws that create and govern the universe. (needless to say, consciousness too is an emergent property of any mathematical object that is complex enough as per him.) tegmark avoids the limitations of math (that hawking highlights) by saying that the universe admits only decidable propositions (we do not see the zeno paradoxes hindering activity in nature -- so the universe must not be allowing any undecidable or uncomputable propositions). tegmark makes sense.

 

i don't have any firm conviction. on mondays and wednesdays i am a platonist. on weekends i am a positivist. i'm really too confused to be anything. deepak chopra has greater conviction than me in this matter!

 

"anatomy of an epidemic" pdf -- http://freedom-center.org/pdf/anatomy_of_epidemic_whitaker_psych_drugs.pdf

[Guest [Kp...]]

ramcon, all of hawking's philosophical views can be found here -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Model-dependent_realism

 

(interestingly, you will find the name of leonoard mlodinow in that link too. mlodinow co authored a book with hawking. and he co authored a book with deepak chopra too! i have to say that i find chopra the most intelligent and sensible of all the quacks and gurus out there.)

 

no matter how much i read, i do not get any answers to the question -- is math a discovery of what is already out there?

 

take this chain of reasoning:

 

A) perfect triangle exists in the underlying reality --> B) information of the perfect triangle gets polluted by sensory perception and shimmers as an approximation --> C) the brain has an intuitive grasp of the underlying reality and reconstructs the perfect triangle by looking at the approximation.

 

these are the positions:

 

hawking -- we cannot have any idea about A. let us concern ourselves only with B and C and avoid comments about A

tegmark -- A, B and C are the correct chain of reasoning

 

you -- (please fill in the blanks here)

[[Lo...]]

if she thinks ssri withdrawals are as bad as benzo, that is just her opinion and your effexor experience. My opinion might be different and neither opinion is more true. what is true is that all psychotropic substances have withdrawal issues.

 

There is actually plenty of things not to like about Effexor. The first is the dismal half-life:

 

"Effexor half life" google search:

15 ±6 hours

Therefore, the apparent elimination half-life of venlafaxine following administration of EFFEXOR XR (15 ±6 hours) is actually the absorption half-life instead of the true disposition half-life (5 ±2) hours observed following administration of a venlafaxine hydrochloride immediate release tablet.

 

It is also chemically similar to Tramadol, so Effexor (Venlafaxine) is often given for chronic pain

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18364623

 

Apparently, there is a trend there:

Some SNRIs, such as venlafaxine (Effexor XR), duloxetine (Cymbalta) and milnacipran (Savella), may help relieve chronic pain. People with chronic pain often develop depression along with their chronic pain. ... Milnacipran is used to relieve fibromyalgia pain and can cause side effects, such as nausea and drowsiness.

Antidepressants: Another weapon against chronic pain - Mayo Clinic

https://www.mayoclinic.org/pain-medications/art-20045647

 

Cymbalta (duloxetine) also has a very short half-life.

Elimination: Duloxetine has an elimination half-life of about 12 hours (range 8 to 17 hours) and its pharmacokinetics are dose proportional over the therapeutic range. Steady-state is usually achieved after 3 days.

 

Ashton did comment in the benzodiazepine medical disaster video about some short-acting SSRI drugs causing types of withdrawals similar to benzodiazepines. The documentary is long, but she mentions it somewhere in it. I do remember.

 

 

Technically, both Cymbalta and Effexor are SNRI's and having a dual neurotransmitter effect (serotonin, norepineprhine) and God knows what else, and I really doubt that they are all that fantastic for people with persistent anxiety issues. They may be useful for chronic pain, so I won't comment on that. I am strictly looking at these as potentially dangerous for people with pre-existing anxiety disorders.

 

 

 

 

[[Lo...]]

It's right here. She talks about short-acting Prozac like drugs.

[Guest [Kp...]]

It's right here. She talks about short-acting Prozac like drugs.

 

:laugh: she is talking of brain zaps. since she hasn't experienced a brain zap, she thinks it is some kind of a horror show, lmao.

 

i had brain zaps when i stopped escitalopram in 2013. they are a minor nuisance. they are nothing compared to what i experienced in benzo withdrawal -- irrational fear, complete terror, toxic mornings, dread, black depression. hell on earth!

[[Fl...]]

I kept wondering about this whole mentality about meds, and I wonder if it is really anti-med or is it really "I have been burned pretty bad by benzos and/or other meds, and I am extremely cautious right now in terms of what I take or don't take from now on."?

 

The fact is that despite having their lives ruined by drugs, most people here aren't truly "anti-med". That's just a term that is used by people who are trying to justify their decision to take drugs to slander anyone who looks at their drugs with a critical eye .

[Guest [Kp...]]

I kept wondering about this whole mentality about meds, and I wonder if it is really anti-med or is it really "I have been burned pretty bad by benzos and/or other meds, and I am extremely cautious right now in terms of what I take or don't take from now on."?

 

The fact is that despite having their lives ruined by drugs, most people here aren't truly "anti-med". That's just a term that is used by people who are trying to justify their decision to take drugs to slander anyone who looks at their drugs with a critical eye .

 

FG, when i was in acute benzo withdrawal, i had no love for meat or steaks or youtube.

 

if you do not mind my asking -- exactly what are your lingering symptoms of "protracted benzo withdrawal?"

[Guest [Kp...]]

FG, please don't mind but i think you should be subject to the same scrutiny you put us through.

[[Lo...]]

I kept wondering about this whole mentality about meds, and I wonder if it is really anti-med or is it really "I have been burned pretty bad by benzos and/or other meds, and I am extremely cautious right now in terms of what I take or don't take from now on."?

 

The fact is that despite having their lives ruined by drugs, most people here aren't truly "anti-med". That's just a term that is used by people who are trying to justify their decision to take drugs to slander anyone who looks at their drugs with a critical eye .

 

Or it could also be a term to describe others who do not take prescription drugs (psychiatric and otherwise) and who want to make themselves feel good about the fact without really having a whole lot of concerns for the others that do. My former therapist was exactly like that. However, she also relied on a lot of OTC anti-histamines for anxiety, sleep, etc. I suppose that if you are a therapist, you can avoid the stigma of mental health drugs by not going to the doctor and taking an over-the -counter something and badger you clients for their "dumb" benzo and psychiatric drug "decisions", etc. etc.