Can benzos cause cancer?

[[lo...]]

BenzoCalamity,

 

This is a lousy thread you started.  It’s been started before.  Knock it off.  You’ve been around a long time.  You know better than to ask this question. 

 

By the way, the answer to your question is NO.  This thread should be pulled down by the admins.

 

 

edit: profanity

 

Sofa, it is not helpful to say the answer is "NO" unless you can post research evidence that this is the case. 

[[Ch...]]

Sincere apologies for any angst I contributed to this thread. The last thing I’d do is purposefully upset anyone.

 

In hindsight it would’ve been better to say the research was out there and leave it at that.

 

Withdrawal and recovery are far behind me (with my benzodiazepine history this should be of some comfort to those still in the thick of it).

 

I will be more mindful in the future. 

 

[[eo...]]

ABCD and ICan are quite right. This research is a correlational study and ICan pointed out some obvious flaws with such studies. I'll add a bit more: look at the effect sizes for the Hazard Ratios and Odds Ratios. They are VERY small!! The reason they find significant effects is because their sample size was huge.......You can find an effect of anything if your sample size is large enough; and even so, these effects are incredibly small. And, they are unreliable. They state in the discussion that some of their effects are consistent with other findings; some are not. That's highly suggestive that these results are not reliable,

 

Why no discussion of why effects for some benzos and not others? Because they don't have a clue. They've just found some correlations -- and likely spurious.....

 

If you want to really know, then you need to find animals studies where the use of benzos sas actually manipulated. Good luck finding such studies that say benzos cause cancer........you won't find them.

 

Please, anyone who was freaked out by this should delete the thread. This is not a study to attend to. I was on Xanax for 28 years; I won't be spending any time thinking about this "study." You shouldn't either!

 

 

[[Be...]]

Sincere apologies for any angst I contributed to this thread. The last thing I’d do is purposefully upset anyone.

 

In hindsight it would’ve been better to say the research was out there and leave it at that.

 

Withdrawal and recovery are far behind me (with my benzodiazepine history this should be of some comfort to those still in the thick of it).

 

I will be more mindful in the future. 

 

 

I'm glad withdrawal and recovery are far behind you!

How long did it take you to actually get fully healed from this benzo nightmare?

[[Ch...]]

Sincere apologies for any angst I contributed to this thread. The last thing I’d do is purposefully upset anyone.

 

In hindsight it would’ve been better to say the research was out there and leave it at that.

 

Withdrawal and recovery are far behind me (with my benzodiazepine history this should be of some comfort to those still in the thick of it).

 

I will be more mindful in the future. 

 

 

I'm glad withdrawal and recovery are far behind you!

How long did it take you to actually get fully healed from this benzo nightmare?

 

Hard to say exactly, BC. It’s been 7 years and a few months since my taper ended. The last time I had any sign of symptoms was over a year ago. As a result of an extremely stressful event I had an episode of uncontrollable trembling/shaking for a couple of hours.  That hadn’t happened for a very long time, nor had other symptoms for a couple of years.

 

Take care...this does end. 

[[bu...]]

Don’t shoot the messenger, folks, and don’t read these if you’re not up to it. For those seeking research results:

 

ncbi 2015: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4602739/

 

Mad in America 2016: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/is-long-term-use-of-benzodiazepine-a-risk-for-cancer/

 

Those 2 links are the same "study".  And it is a correlation analysis, and cites zero research regarding causality.

 

And it states: "The carcinogenicity of benzodiazepines (BZDs) is still unclear"

[[bu...]]

I read some studies that say they can!  :'(

 

Please share!

 

[[Do...]]

Bless the analytical voices of reason.  Thanks to abcd, Ican, Eoghan and builder. 

This is a perilous journey and your calm, methodical responses are much appreciated.

 

My response in my earlier post was sarcastic, emotional and condescending.  It was a knee jerk response.  I think we are all aware of the raw intensity of w/d.  Thanks for keeping us grounded!!!

[[bu...]]

Oh ya?  You read that somewhere?  Well I read somewhere that people who post, ridiculous, fear mongering, health anxiety provoking posts often causes others a racing heart, head pressure and a belly ache. 

Be careful where you breathe today.  I read that this too can cause cancer.

 

...and don't forget about windmills!

[[...]]

Don’t shoot the messenger, folks, and don’t read these if you’re not up to it. For those seeking research results:

 

ncbi 2015: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4602739/

 

Mad in America 2016: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/is-long-term-use-of-benzodiazepine-a-risk-for-cancer/

 

Those 2 links are the same "study".  And it is a correlation analysis, and cites zero research regarding causality.

 

And it states: "The carcinogenicity of benzodiazepines (BZDs) is still unclear"

 

Yes, and I think if people just want to skip to the end of the study and read the "Limitations", that should say it all.  Very often, many of these studies are hardly worth the paper they're printed on. 

 

Seriously ... open, honest discussion is, I believe, all around the best way to go because much of the time we discover that, in reality, the "truth" turns out to be not that scary after all.

 

Regarding correlational studies.  I think the following thread is really a worthwhile read.  Not scary, don't worry, lol, it's actually quite humorous and entertaining, and I think very effectively illustrates why it makes sense for everyone to adopt a healthy level of skepticism.  And poses the question, how "scientific" exactly is much of the published "science"?

 

Lean beef linked to atheism?

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=149076.msg2003185#msg2003185

 

The audio link in the above post appears to be no longer valid, so here, this one works:

 

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2682054298

 

And read further down on that thread to see whether left-handedness is higher among those suffering from psychosis. 

[[Cr...]]

Don’t shoot the messenger, folks, and don’t read these if you’re not up to it. For those seeking research results:

 

ncbi 2015: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4602739/

 

Mad in America 2016: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/is-long-term-use-of-benzodiazepine-a-risk-for-cancer/

 

Those 2 links are the same "study".  And it is a correlation analysis, and cites zero research regarding causality.

 

And it states: "The carcinogenicity of benzodiazepines (BZDs) is still unclear"

Yes, and the study also says only Clonazepam (Klonopin) is found to be slightly more toxic to the body than Diazepam, Lorazepam, etc. So in my opinion, the chances of actually developing cancer from, say Diazepam alone, are extremely low.

Dave. 

[[Ma...]]

No, they can't.

[[bu...]]

No, they can't.

 

[[Co...]]

This is a classic case of correlation,  not causation. I am trained and experienced with interpreting this kind of information, it is more often than not misleading. Stressed and ill people are more likely to take benzodiazepines. They are also more likely to get cancer. Alcoholics are more likely to use benzos, and more likely to have cancer. People WITH CANCER are more likely to use benzos. Etc etc ad infinitum . Does not mean benzos = cancer. Not to say there’s no way it’s possible, just that this data doesn’t mean anything.

 

I don’t get the point of this thread but wanted to stem the fear this will obviously incite.

 

They also could be suffering vague, diffuse symptoms as a result of the early stages of (non-diagnosed) cancer, for which they are prescribed - what do ya know - benzodiazepines. There could be other benign explanations for the correlation too. Of course, the research could be faulty (poorly conducted) - let's not forget that. I would not take too much notice of the research at this stage.

 

The diazepam result is very odd. It actually appears to be 'protective' against cancer. It could be a statistical anomaly (chance result), I guess. But what is strange is that diazepam is metabolized into many other benzodiazepines before it is finally excreated. So, a diazepam user is - effectively - taking many different types of benzodiazepine. So, why is diazepam the 'safest' benzodiazepine?

[[be...]]

Millions of people get cancer each year.  Many people never took a benzo.  To post “research” such as this, which poses a possible connection between benzos and cancer, is not what I believe is in the best interests of the members of this forum (or anyone else for that matter).  I cannot think of one positive thing that can emerge from this.

 

Sofa

 

It may help people considering whether or not to take a benzodiazepine. I certainly agree it doesn’t add anything positive. 

 

There is more research that backs up the OP’s post, unfortunately.

 

I read it and my Benzo is amongst the dangerous ones.....no way will I start worrying about cancer now or stress myself ....life in general is too short for that.

 

 

'' The connection between your emotional (psychological) health and physical health is very complex. Psychological stress can affect your body. Some studies suggest a link between various psychological factors and an increased risk of developing cancer.

 

cancer risk factors linked to stress

Stress can weaken your immune system. Your immune system defends your body against infections and diseases, such as cancer. A weakened immune system plays a role in the development of some types of cancer.

Stress can alter the levels of certain hormones in your body. This may also put you at greater risk of developing cancer. ''

 

Exactly Claudia. 

[[Co...]]

Don’t shoot the messenger, folks, and don’t read these if you’re not up to it. For those seeking research results:

 

ncbi 2015: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4602739/

 

Mad in America 2016: https://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/is-long-term-use-of-benzodiazepine-a-risk-for-cancer/

 

Those 2 links are the same "study".  And it is a correlation analysis, and cites zero research regarding causality.

 

And it states: "The carcinogenicity of benzodiazepines (BZDs) is still unclear"

 

Yes, and I think if people just want to skip to the end of the study and read the "Limitations", that should say it all.  Very often, many of these studies are hardly worth the paper they're printed on. 

 

Seriously ... open, honest discussion is, I believe, all around the best way to go because much of the time we discover that, in reality, the "truth" turns out to be not that scary after all.

 

Regarding correlational studies.  I think the following thread is really a worthwhile read.  Not scary, don't worry, lol, it's actually quite humorous and entertaining, and I think very effectively illustrates why it makes sense for everyone to adopt a healthy level of skepticism.  And poses the question, how "scientific" exactly is much of the published "science"?

 

Lean beef linked to atheism?

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=149076.msg2003185#msg2003185

 

The audio link in the above post appears to be no longer valid, so here, this one works:

 

https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/2682054298

 

And read further down on that thread to see whether left-handedness is higher among those suffering from psychosis. 

 

Please update your original post with a working link.

[[Da...]]

This is a classic case of correlation,  not causation. I am trained and experienced with interpreting this kind of information, it is more often than not misleading. Stressed and ill people are more likely to take benzodiazepines. They are also more likely to get cancer. Alcoholics are more likely to use benzos, and more likely to have cancer. People WITH CANCER are more likely to use benzos. Etc etc ad infinitum . Does not mean benzos = cancer. Not to say there’s no way it’s possible, just that this data doesn’t mean anything.

 

I don’t get the point of this thread but wanted to stem the fear this will obviously incite.

 

They also could be suffering vague, diffuse symptoms as a result of the early stages of (non-diagnosed) cancer, for which they are prescribed - what do ya know - benzodiazepines. There could be other benign explanations for the correlation too. Of course, the research could be faulty (poorly conducted) - let's not forget that. I would not take too much notice of the research at this stage.

 

The diazepam result is very odd. It actually appears to be 'protective' against cancer. It could be a statistical anomaly (chance result), I guess. But what is strange is that diazepam is metabolized into many other benzodiazepines before it is finally excreated. So, a diazepam user is - effectively - taking many different types of benzodiazepine. So, why is diazepam the 'safest' benzodiazepine?

 

I have no idea why it would be safer, but it could be related to the longer half-life (more stable blood levels of the drug and less fluctuations for the body to deal with). I think diazepam is also regarded as a less potent benzo than others like Alprazolam, Clonazepam and Lorazepam. I'm sure there are a large number of variables.

 

I don't think we should be denigrating research like this. The fact that the relationship between benzos and cancer is not obvious is exactly the reason it needs to be researched. Research on adverse drug events and drug related conditions is already poorly funded (you can guess why) and mercilessly vetted by medical journals to guard against lawsuits and funding cuts by pharmaceutical companies, so I think we of all people should be a bit less dismissive of it. If there was adequate research about benzo harms that was effectively disseminated, most of us probably wouldn't be in this mess.

 

Complaints about the fact that the research is correlational ring pretty hollow. Almost all research is correlational. You are not going to prove causation in one study unless you are studying whether dropping a bowling ball on your foot is liable to break it. Even randomized, placebo controlled trials do not prove causation. You cannot prove the drug caused the effect, just as you cannot prove placebos caused a remission in depression, cancer, psychosis etc. There are too many variables (different environmental conditions, genetic variation resulting in different reactions to the drugs, different metabolic rates, different behavior). The studies do try to control for as many factors as their finances allow, so assuming it is not agenda-driven research, it should be at least somewhat informative. But no one is going to fund a large placebo-controlled trial to find out more about drug harms. There is no profit in it and everyone is strapped for cash. Unless you are happy to dismiss Heather Ashton's research, which is even more ad hoc, you should probably not claim this research to be "worthless". (I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but at the entire tone of the thread).

[[Co...]]

This is a classic case of correlation,  not causation. I am trained and experienced with interpreting this kind of information, it is more often than not misleading. Stressed and ill people are more likely to take benzodiazepines. They are also more likely to get cancer. Alcoholics are more likely to use benzos, and more likely to have cancer. People WITH CANCER are more likely to use benzos. Etc etc ad infinitum . Does not mean benzos = cancer. Not to say there’s no way it’s possible, just that this data doesn’t mean anything.

 

I don’t get the point of this thread but wanted to stem the fear this will obviously incite.

 

They also could be suffering vague, diffuse symptoms as a result of the early stages of (non-diagnosed) cancer, for which they are prescribed - what do ya know - benzodiazepines. There could be other benign explanations for the correlation too. Of course, the research could be faulty (poorly conducted) - let's not forget that. I would not take too much notice of the research at this stage.

 

The diazepam result is very odd. It actually appears to be 'protective' against cancer. It could be a statistical anomaly (chance result), I guess. But what is strange is that diazepam is metabolized into many other benzodiazepines before it is finally excreated. So, a diazepam user is - effectively - taking many different types of benzodiazepine. So, why is diazepam the 'safest' benzodiazepine?

 

I have no idea why it would be safer, but it could be related to the longer half-life (more stable blood levels of the drug and less fluctuations for the body to deal with). I think diazepam is also regarded as a less potent benzo than others like Alprazolam, Clonazepam and Lorazepam. I'm sure there are a large number of variables.

 

I don't think we should be denigrating research like this. The fact that the relationship between benzos and cancer is not obvious is exactly the reason it needs to be researched. Research on adverse drug events and drug related conditions is already poorly funded (you can guess why) and mercilessly vetted by medical journals to guard against lawsuits and funding cuts by pharmaceutical companies, so I think we of all people should be a bit less dismissive of it. If there was adequate research about benzo harms that was effectively disseminated, most of us probably wouldn't be in this mess.

 

Complaints about the fact that the research is correlational ring pretty hollow. Almost all research is correlational. You are not going to prove causation in one study unless you are studying whether dropping a bowling ball on your foot is liable to break it. Even randomized, placebo controlled trials do not prove causation. You cannot prove the drug caused the effect, just as you cannot prove placebos caused a remission in depression, cancer, psychosis etc. There are too many variables (different environmental conditions, genetic variation resulting in different reactions to the drugs, different metabolic rates, different behavior). The studies do try to control for as many factors as their finances allow, so assuming it is not agenda-driven research, it should be at least somewhat informative. But no one is going to fund a large placebo-controlled trial to find out more about drug harms. There is no profit in it and everyone is strapped for cash. Unless you are happy to dismiss Heather Ashton's research, which is even more ad hoc, you should probably not claim this research to be "worthless". (I'm not directing this at anyone in particular, but at the entire tone of the thread).

 

Without knowing a proposed mechanism, it is not possible to be certain, but lower potency is only another reason to doubt the veracity of the research. You see, lower potency means you have to take more benzodiazepine compared to other higher potency benzos to achieve a similar therapeutic effect. So, you might take 1mg clonazepam or 10-20mg Valium. Potency only tells you about how the particular benzodiazepine how it binds and affects the GABA receptor, not its other possible effects upon the body.

 

Again, to be clear to everyone, I have serious doubts about the research.

[[Ma...]]

People have been taking benzos for 50-60 years. If they were carcinogen, we would know it by now.

[[Da...]]

People have been taking benzos for 50-60 years. If they were carcinogen, we would know it by now.

 

Right, but you would also think a much simpler and more easily demonstrated problem - that anything beyond short-term usage can be extremely problematic - would also be more widely known. But it isn't.

[[Ma...]]

People have been taking benzos for 50-60 years. If they were carcinogen, we would know it by now.

 

Right, but you would also think a much simpler and more easily demonstrated problem - that anything beyond short-term usage can be extremely problematic - would also be more widely known. But it isn't.

 

It is widely known that benzos cause dependence.

[[Da...]]

 

Without knowing a proposed mechanism, it is not possible to be certain, but lower potency is only another reason to doubt the veracity of the research. You see, lower potency means you have to take more benzodiazepine compared to other higher potency benzos to achieve a similar therapeutic effect. So, you might take 1mg clonazepam or 10-20mg Valium. Potency only tells you about how the particular benzodiazepine how it binds and affects the GABA receptor, not its other possible effects upon the body.

 

Again, to be clear to everyone, I have serious doubts about the research.

 

Why would lower potency make you doubt the veracity of the research? If you read review articles from mainstream psychiatrists, they acknowledge that stronger potency is positively correlated with adverse events and more severe withdrawal syndromes, as well as tolerance that is quicker to develop and amnesic effects.  See this article, for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15078112

I think potency refers mainly to the strength of affinity for benzodiazepine receptors, if you are able to view the chart in that review. Dosage levels in terms of mg do not really correlate with their definition of potency (ie some benzos that have a higher diazepam equivalency dosages are classed as a similar potency (Flurazepam), whereas some that have the same dosage equivalency (10mg) are classed as low potency.) I'm not sure if that's what you meant in your explanation, though.

 

The mode of action in common with benzodiazepines is also the mode by which it creates neurotoxicity, which is the same way alcohol creates neurotoxicity. I don't think too many people dispute that heavy alcohol use is associated with a slight increase in cancer (about the same as benzos, if this article is correct).

 

Also, I believe you said yourself that a hypothesis by which benzos create their protracted withdrawal syndrome was alterations in gene function. Cancer has a genetic basis. If benzos can damage cells (they can), but those cells do not properly initiate programmed cell death and begin to reproduce, then that is a basis for tumor formation.

[[Ma...]]

Potency is not the same as affinity to the receptor, although close. Potency indicates the concentration/dose at which the drug has a certain effect. For example, K at 0.5 mg has the same effect as V at 10 mg. Therefore, K is more potent.

[[Da...]]

People have been taking benzos for 50-60 years. If they were carcinogen, we would know it by now.

 

Right, but you would also think a much simpler and more easily demonstrated problem - that anything beyond short-term usage can be extremely problematic - would also be more widely known. But it isn't.

 

It is widely known that benzos cause dependence.

 

I said problematic, not dependence. Most physicians do not seem to be able to recognize that health problems in patients taking benzodiazepines long term are caused by the drug. Unless you think they do recognize it but choose not to tell the patient. That is possible. The main driver of increasing benzo usage has been long term prescriptions.

[[Co...]]

Why would lower potency make you doubt the veracity of the research? If you read review articles from mainstream psychiatrists, they acknowledge that stronger potency is positively correlated with adverse events and more severe withdrawal syndromes, as well as tolerance that is quicker to develop and amnesic effects.  See this article, for example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15078112

I think potency refers mainly to the strength of affinity for benzodiazepine receptors, if you are able to view the chart in that review. Dosage levels in terms of mg do not really correlate with their definition of potency (ie some benzos that have a higher diazepam equivalency dosages are classed as a similar potency (Flurazepam), whereas some that have the same dosage equivalency (10mg) are classed as low potency.) I'm not sure if that's what you meant in your explanation, though.

 

Assuming that the rates of higher cancer are not caused by specific, direct effects upon GABA receptors, we'd probably expect less potent benzodiazepines (which would be taken in higher doses) to have greater cancer-causing effects. It also should remembered that diazepam metabolizes into several other benzodiazepines before being excreted, so each of those compounds will have their own negative 'cancer-causing' effects too. This is why the relatively low rates of cancer observed in those taking diazepam makes little sense to me. In fact, they had lower rates of cancer than those who took no benzodiazepines.

 

One person taking clonazepam; another taking diazepam: all other things being equal, you'd expect the person taking diazeapm to be on 10-20 times the dose of the person taking clonazepam to achieve a similar clinical effect. So, why do those taking diazepam experience lower rates of cancer? Again, diazepam is actually akin to taking (the metabolites) nordiazepam, temazepam, and oxazepam too. Now, oxazepam is the only metabolite which features in the study. I expect that is because the other two are not prescribed in Taiwan.

 

The above does not prove the study wrong. It is, though, an anomaly I'd expect to be mentioned at least.