Can benzos cause cancer?

[[Lo...]]

Let me also say that in contrast to benzos, alcohol has clearly been linked to cancer. This is for the buddies who consume or have consumed alcohol in large quantities. If anybody wants references, please let me know.

 

Finally, there is an ever growing link between obesity and cancer.

 

So if a buddy has cancer, these risk factors are more likely contributors than benzos.

 

Long term benzo use and withdrawal from them can cause HPA axis dysregulaltion as well as weakening of muscless/muscle loss (a well documented symptom). Benzodiazepines are also vestibular suppressants and can cause ongoing issues with dizziness, loss of balance, falls, etc.

 

Withdrawal can also cause or worsen agoraphobia in many people who have been on benzos long term. All these issues can lead to inactivity, which can lead to obesity and so on. I have personally communicated with quite a few people on these boards who were athletes or were heavily involved in various sports and outdoor activities before a harsh withdrawal hit them hard and they became housebound and bed-bound for very long stretches of time, and they didn't report much in terms of improvements until they were close to being off these drugs or being off of them completely.

 

When you see a significant minority of people reporting similar troubling problems when discontinuing the same class of drugs, it is not so far-fetched to conclude that such class of drugs has been a significant contributor to what ails them.  Sure, there are many factors, but a person doesn't just go from being active and full of energy and very involved in life to being housebound, bed-bound and unwell. There are many people out there in this world that are obese and have a ton of health problems, yet they don't end up nearly as badly disabled as many of the people I'd met on these boards. If benzos and especially withdrawal from them are capable of doing that to people, it's not so far-fetched that they can cause all sorts of other problems that can directly or indirectly lead to horrible diseases such as cancer.

 

It's not about what is far-fetched or not. It's about whether it's supported by scientific evidence or not. The benzo-cancer connection is not.

 

Is Long-term Use of Benzodiazepine a Risk for Cancer?

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

 

You can believe whatever you want to believe and that is certainly your right to do so, but I am more inclined to trust the published and verified NCBI sources rather than an anonymous member who claims to have credentials that cannot be verified here.

[[Wi...]]

 

And in spite of all this toxicity, we have doubled our life expectancy  over the last century  Seems like a pretty good trade-off to me!

 

 

Yeah, love a good trade-off. Let's pat ourselves on the back, why don't we.

 

Cases of pediatric cancers (and others) in the US have increased by almost 50% from 1975 to 2015 (National Cancer Institute). The WHO itself states that a primary trigger is 'external agents that damage DNA and the body's ability to deal with that damage' - i.e. environmental toxicity.

 

The studies are starting to pile up, if you care to do some intelligent digging...which you don't. Obviously. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) offers some interesting starting points, as does the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University. There are many, many others....

 

And in case you think modern 'medicine' (and benzos) does not fall under the 'toxicity' category, see the fully-referenced research report titled 'Death by Medicine' (2006). For a tabled summary (followed by a more in-depth analysis): https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2006/8/report_death/Page-01

 

Allopathic medical care was found to be the leading cause of death in the US. Every 'count' in the report was validated by published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. The total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is nearly 800,000 per year (2006). (The number of deaths attributable to cancer is 553,251.) In-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs comes to 2.2 million annually.

 

But yeah, we're doing beautifully. 'Course we are. What with all the vibrant, non-medicated, healthy elders we see bouncing all over the place. Oh, and I'm sure the chemo kiddies would agree.

 

I'm bowing off this thread now. As I said earlier, not conducive to healing. Nor useful in any forward-looking, constructive way.

 

[[Ma...]]

 

And in spite of all this toxicity, we have doubled our life expectancy  over the last century  Seems like a pretty good trade-off to me!

 

 

Yeah, love a good trade-off. Let's pat ourselves on the back, why don't we.

 

Cases of pediatric cancers (and others) in the US have increased by almost 50% from 1975 to 2015 (National Cancer Institute). The WHO itself states that a primary trigger is 'external agents that damage DNA and the body's ability to deal with that damage' - i.e. environmental toxicity.

 

The studies are starting to pile up, if you care to do some intelligent digging...which you don't. Obviously. The Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry (ATSDR) offers some interesting starting points, as does the Department of Environmental Health at Boston University. There are many, many others....

 

And in case you think modern 'medicine' (and benzos) does not fall under the 'toxicity' category, see the fully-referenced research report titled 'Death by Medicine' (2006). For a tabled summary (followed by a more in-depth analysis): https://www.lifeextension.com/magazine/2006/8/report_death/Page-01

 

Allopathic medical care was found to be the leading cause of death in the US. Every 'count' in the report was validated by published, peer-reviewed scientific studies. The total number of deaths caused by conventional medicine is nearly 800,000 per year (2006). (The number of deaths attributable to cancer is 553,251.) In-hospital, adverse reactions to prescribed drugs comes to 2.2 million annually.

 

But yeah, we're doing beautifully. 'Course we are. What with all the vibrant, non-medicated, healthy elders we see bouncing all over the place. Oh, and I'm sure the chemo kiddies would agree.

 

I'm bowing off this thread now. As I said earlier, not conducive to healing. Nor useful in any forward-looking, constructive way.

 

That's not enough digging. The major cause of death is the obesity epidemic.

[[Ma...]]

Let me also say that in contrast to benzos, alcohol has clearly been linked to cancer. This is for the buddies who consume or have consumed alcohol in large quantities. If anybody wants references, please let me know.

 

Finally, there is an ever growing link between obesity and cancer.

 

So if a buddy has cancer, these risk factors are more likely contributors than benzos.

 

Long term benzo use and withdrawal from them can cause HPA axis dysregulaltion as well as weakening of muscless/muscle loss (a well documented symptom). Benzodiazepines are also vestibular suppressants and can cause ongoing issues with dizziness, loss of balance, falls, etc.

 

Withdrawal can also cause or worsen agoraphobia in many people who have been on benzos long term. All these issues can lead to inactivity, which can lead to obesity and so on. I have personally communicated with quite a few people on these boards who were athletes or were heavily involved in various sports and outdoor activities before a harsh withdrawal hit them hard and they became housebound and bed-bound for very long stretches of time, and they didn't report much in terms of improvements until they were close to being off these drugs or being off of them completely.

 

When you see a significant minority of people reporting similar troubling problems when discontinuing the same class of drugs, it is not so far-fetched to conclude that such class of drugs has been a significant contributor to what ails them.  Sure, there are many factors, but a person doesn't just go from being active and full of energy and very involved in life to being housebound, bed-bound and unwell. There are many people out there in this world that are obese and have a ton of health problems, yet they don't end up nearly as badly disabled as many of the people I'd met on these boards. If benzos and especially withdrawal from them are capable of doing that to people, it's not so far-fetched that they can cause all sorts of other problems that can directly or indirectly lead to horrible diseases such as cancer.

 

It's not about what is far-fetched or not. It's about whether it's supported by scientific evidence or not. The benzo-cancer connection is not.

 

Is Long-term Use of Benzodiazepine a Risk for Cancer?

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

 

You can believe whatever you want to believe and that is certainly your right to do so, but I am more inclined to trust the published and verified NCBI sources rather than an anonymous member who claims to have credentials that cannot be verified here.

 

So the authors themselves mention several limitations of their study: However, this study also have some limitations regarding data information like alcoholism, smoking status and lifestyle which is not available in the BNHI database and could influence on the findings.

 

This study also is contradicted by another study showing no association of benzos with increased cancer risk:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3635606/

 

[[Da...]]

 

So the authors themselves mention several limitations of their study: However, this study also have some limitations regarding data information like alcoholism, smoking status and lifestyle which is not available in the BNHI database and could influence on the findings.

 

This study also is contradicted by another study showing no association of benzos with increased cancer risk:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3635606/

 

That study you posted is riddled with conflicts of interest. The other large observational study I saw which claimed to find no association was also sponsored by Hoffman Roche. Good thing this isn't prevalent or anything or there might be a pro-drug bias in the medical literature 

 

"All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare MA and JH have participated in research projects funded by Nycomed, the manufacturer of nitrazepam, and Pfizer, the manufacturer of Halcion (triazolam) and Tafil (alprazolam), with grants paid to institutions where they have been employed. JH has personally received fees for teaching from Nycomed. AP and SF declare no conflicts of interest."

 

Most of the literature leans towards the idea that benzos might cause cancer. That statement is certainly more well-supported than your earlier statement that they do not cause cancer, although neither is provable at this point. There are a number of large studies which suggest a hazard ratio in the range of 1.06-1.21. Yes, the evidence isn't great, but we're unlikely to get great evidence. They are not going to run large, randomized, placebo controlled trials to find out whether benzos cause cancer (although they should, given the number of people taking them and the prevalence of cancer). Medicine is much more concerned with finding new treatments than preventing harm from old treatments. More money in that. Doctors accept plenty of shaky science when it comes to new drugs and old treatments that haven't really been shown to work, which is why we get medical reversals (drugs or treatments phased out of practice because they are inferior to other treatments or do more harm than good). Although we definitely don't get enough of those either.

 

Interesting that most of the research leans towards a positive association, given the economic interests are aligned in the other direction. This meta-analysis I posted earlier includes both those pharma-sponsored studies and still finds a RR of 1.25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731963/

[[Ma...]]

 

So the authors themselves mention several limitations of their study: However, this study also have some limitations regarding data information like alcoholism, smoking status and lifestyle which is not available in the BNHI database and could influence on the findings.

 

This study also is contradicted by another study showing no association of benzos with increased cancer risk:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3635606/

 

That study you posted is riddled with conflicts of interest. The other large observational study I saw which claimed to find no association was also sponsored by Hoffman Roche. Good thing this isn't prevalent or anything or there might be a pro-drug bias in the medical literature 

 

"All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare MA and JH have participated in research projects funded by Nycomed, the manufacturer of nitrazepam, and Pfizer, the manufacturer of Halcion (triazolam) and Tafil (alprazolam), with grants paid to institutions where they have been employed. JH has personally received fees for teaching from Nycomed. AP and SF declare no conflicts of interest."

 

Most of the literature leans towards the idea that benzos might cause cancer. That statement is certainly more well-supported than your earlier statement that they do not cause cancer, although neither is provable at this point. There are a number of large studies which suggest a hazard ratio in the range of 1.06-1.21. Yes, the evidence isn't great, but we're unlikely to get great evidence. They are not going to run large, randomized, placebo controlled trials to find out whether benzos cause cancer (although they should, given the number of people taking them and the prevalence of cancer). Medicine is much more concerned with finding new treatments than preventing harm from old treatments. More money in that. Doctors accept plenty of shaky science when it comes to new drugs and old treatments that haven't really been shown to work, which is why we get medical reversals (drugs or treatments phased out of practice because they are inferior to other treatments or do more harm than good). Although we definitely don't get enough of those either.

 

Interesting that most of the research leans towards a positive association, given the economic interests are aligned in the other direction. This meta-analysis I posted earlier includes both those pharma-sponsored studies and still finds a RR of 1.25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731963/

 

I'm citing from the abstract of the Taiwanese study you like so much, dataguy: The use of diazepam (HR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92–1.00), chlorodizepoxide (HR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.92–1.04), medazepam (HR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.84–1.21), nitrazepam (HR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.98–1.14), oxazepam (HR, 1.05; 95%CI, 0.94–1.17) found safer among BZDs. However, clonazepam (HR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.09–1.22) were associated with a higher risk for cancers.

 

Thus other than clonazepam, the other benzos don't increase cancer risk. Plus, the authors didn't look at whether the people who took clonazepam smoked more, consumed more alcohol, or were obese. In summary, the results of the study are very questionable. In addition, an increase in cancer risk doesn't mean that benzos cause cancer.

 

One last thing. The study didn't say anything lymphoma, the type of cancer where this whole thread started.

 

I would also do some research on the effect of alcohol on cancer if I were you.

[[Da...]]

 

That study you posted is riddled with conflicts of interest. The other large observational study I saw which claimed to find no association was also sponsored by Hoffman Roche. Good thing this isn't prevalent or anything or there might be a pro-drug bias in the medical literature 

 

"All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare MA and JH have participated in research projects funded by Nycomed, the manufacturer of nitrazepam, and Pfizer, the manufacturer of Halcion (triazolam) and Tafil (alprazolam), with grants paid to institutions where they have been employed. JH has personally received fees for teaching from Nycomed. AP and SF declare no conflicts of interest."

 

Most of the literature leans towards the idea that benzos might cause cancer. That statement is certainly more well-supported than your earlier statement that they do not cause cancer, although neither is provable at this point. There are a number of large studies which suggest a hazard ratio in the range of 1.06-1.21. Yes, the evidence isn't great, but we're unlikely to get great evidence. They are not going to run large, randomized, placebo controlled trials to find out whether benzos cause cancer (although they should, given the number of people taking them and the prevalence of cancer). Medicine is much more concerned with finding new treatments than preventing harm from old treatments. More money in that. Doctors accept plenty of shaky science when it comes to new drugs and old treatments that haven't really been shown to work, which is why we get medical reversals (drugs or treatments phased out of practice because they are inferior to other treatments or do more harm than good). Although we definitely don't get enough of those either.

 

Interesting that most of the research leans towards a positive association, given the economic interests are aligned in the other direction. This meta-analysis I posted earlier includes both those pharma-sponsored studies and still finds a RR of 1.25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731963/

 

I'm citing from the abstract of the Taiwanese study you like so much, dataguy: The use of diazepam (HR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92–1.00), chlorodizepoxide (HR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.92–1.04), medazepam (HR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.84–1.21), nitrazepam (HR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.98–1.14), oxazepam (HR, 1.05; 95%CI, 0.94–1.17) found safer among BZDs. However, clonazepam (HR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.09–1.22) were associated with a higher risk for cancers.

 

Thus other than clonazepam, the other benzos don't increase cancer risk. Plus, the authors didn't look at whether the people who took clonazepam smoked more, consumed more alcohol, or were obese. In summary, the results of the study are very questionable. In addition, an increase in cancer risk doesn't mean that benzos cause cancer.

 

One last thing. The study didn't say anything lymphoma, the type of cancer where this whole thread started.

 

I would also do some research on the effect of alcohol on cancer if I were you.

 

The study I "like so much" (which I said wasn't very good earlier in the thread) is actually included in the meta-analysis I posted. Despite the null result you claim it finds, the analysis in which it is included does find a positive association between benzodiazepines and cancer.

 

You know, people on this forum need to deal with plenty of doctor gaslighting and lying in real life, I kind of doubt they appreciate them coming onto this forum and doing the same thing here. Your claim to have read the literature is clearly BS, and that last argument was absurdly dishonest. That is kind of what I've come to expect from doctors when they realize they are losing an argument.

 

Regardless, your claim earlier in the thread that benzos don't cause cancer is - according to the balance of the medical literature - a less true statement than the claim that benzos cause cancer. Doctors honestly seem to live in an alternate reality, so maybe it isn't your fault, given you've been afflicted with that burden twice over.

 

I'll post the actual abstract of the study, since you seemed to have difficulty finding it:

 

"Benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk: a dose–response meta analysis of prospective cohort studies

 

Abstract

Conflicting results identifying the relationship between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to clarify and quantitative assessed the relationship between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk. Up to July 2017, 22 original publications were included in current meta-analysis. Our results showed statistically significant association between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk (RR:1.25; 95% CI, 1.15–1.36). Subgroup analysis showed benzodiazepine using was associated with significantly a higher risk of breast cancer (RR:1.15; 95% CI, 1.05–1.26), ovarian cancer (RR:1.17; 95% CI, 1.09–1.25), colon cancer (RR:1.07; 95% CI, 1.02–1.13), renal cancer (RR:1.31; 95% CI, 1.15–1.49), malignant melanoma (RR:1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17), brain cancer (RR:2.06; 95% CI, 1.76–2.43), esophagus cancer (RR:1.55; 95% CI, 1.30–1.85), prostate cancer (RR:1.26; 95% CI, 1.16–1.37), liver cancer (RR:1.22; 95% CI, 1.13–1.31), stomach cancer (RR:1.17; 95% CI, 1.03–1.32), pancreatic cancer (RR:1.39; 95% CI, 1.17–1.64) and lung cancer (RR:1.20; 95% CI, 1.12–1.28). Furthermore, a significant dose-response relationship was observed between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk (likelihood ratio test, P < 0.001). Our results showed per 500 mg/year, per 5 year of time since first using, per 3 prescriptions and per 3 year of duration incremental increase in benzodiazepine drug use was associated with a 17%, 4%, 16% and 5% in cancer risk increment. Considering these promising results, increasing benzodiazepine using might be harmful for health."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731963/

[[Co...]]

I'm citing from the abstract of the Taiwanese study you like so much, dataguy: The use of diazepam (HR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92–1.00), chlorodizepoxide (HR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.92–1.04), medazepam (HR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.84–1.21), nitrazepam (HR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.98–1.14), oxazepam (HR, 1.05; 95%CI, 0.94–1.17) found safer among BZDs. However, clonazepam (HR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.09–1.22) were associated with a higher risk for cancers.

 

Thus other than clonazepam, the other benzos don't increase cancer risk. Plus, the authors didn't look at whether the people who took clonazepam smoked more, consumed more alcohol, or were obese. In summary, the results of the study are very questionable. In addition, an increase in cancer risk doesn't mean that benzos cause cancer.

 

One last thing. The study didn't say anything lymphoma, the type of cancer where this whole thread started.

 

I would also do some research on the effect of alcohol on cancer if I were you.

 

And with very little effort we can imagine possible non-causal associations. For example, a smoker, on average, might* be more anxious than the median. And it goes without saying that anxious people take more benzodiazepines. I only skimmed that Taiwanese study - I did not realise that they took no account for smoking, etc.

 

* Just an example. I do not know if this is true - but it would not surprise me in the least. The point is that groups sometimes have more than one thing in common.

 

Further, just to add - a quick Google - some results:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460309003384

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460309000264

 

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=anxiety+rates+among+smokers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

[[Ma...]]

 

That study you posted is riddled with conflicts of interest. The other large observational study I saw which claimed to find no association was also sponsored by Hoffman Roche. Good thing this isn't prevalent or anything or there might be a pro-drug bias in the medical literature 

 

"All authors have completed the Unified Competing Interest form at http://www.icmje.org/coi_disclosure.pdf (available on request from the corresponding author) and declare MA and JH have participated in research projects funded by Nycomed, the manufacturer of nitrazepam, and Pfizer, the manufacturer of Halcion (triazolam) and Tafil (alprazolam), with grants paid to institutions where they have been employed. JH has personally received fees for teaching from Nycomed. AP and SF declare no conflicts of interest."

 

Most of the literature leans towards the idea that benzos might cause cancer. That statement is certainly more well-supported than your earlier statement that they do not cause cancer, although neither is provable at this point. There are a number of large studies which suggest a hazard ratio in the range of 1.06-1.21. Yes, the evidence isn't great, but we're unlikely to get great evidence. They are not going to run large, randomized, placebo controlled trials to find out whether benzos cause cancer (although they should, given the number of people taking them and the prevalence of cancer). Medicine is much more concerned with finding new treatments than preventing harm from old treatments. More money in that. Doctors accept plenty of shaky science when it comes to new drugs and old treatments that haven't really been shown to work, which is why we get medical reversals (drugs or treatments phased out of practice because they are inferior to other treatments or do more harm than good). Although we definitely don't get enough of those either.

 

Interesting that most of the research leans towards a positive association, given the economic interests are aligned in the other direction. This meta-analysis I posted earlier includes both those pharma-sponsored studies and still finds a RR of 1.25. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731963/

 

I'm citing from the abstract of the Taiwanese study you like so much, dataguy: The use of diazepam (HR, 0.96; 95%CI, 0.92–1.00), chlorodizepoxide (HR, 0.98; 95%CI, 0.92–1.04), medazepam (HR, 1.01; 95%CI, 0.84–1.21), nitrazepam (HR, 1.06; 95%CI, 0.98–1.14), oxazepam (HR, 1.05; 95%CI, 0.94–1.17) found safer among BZDs. However, clonazepam (HR, 1.15; 95%CI, 1.09–1.22) were associated with a higher risk for cancers.

 

Thus other than clonazepam, the other benzos don't increase cancer risk. Plus, the authors didn't look at whether the people who took clonazepam smoked more, consumed more alcohol, or were obese. In summary, the results of the study are very questionable. In addition, an increase in cancer risk doesn't mean that benzos cause cancer.

 

One last thing. The study didn't say anything lymphoma, the type of cancer where this whole thread started.

 

I would also do some research on the effect of alcohol on cancer if I were you.

 

The study I "like so much" (which I said wasn't very good earlier in the thread) is actually included in the meta-analysis I posted. Despite the null result you claim it finds, the analysis in which it is included does find a positive association between benzodiazepines and cancer.

 

You know, people on this forum need to deal with plenty of doctor gaslighting and lying in real life, I kind of doubt they appreciate them coming onto this forum and doing the same thing here. Your claim to have read the literature is clearly BS, and that last argument was absurdly dishonest. That is kind of what I've come to expect from doctors when they realize they are losing an argument.

 

Regardless, your claim earlier in the thread that benzos don't cause cancer is - according to the balance of the medical literature - a less true statement than the claim that benzos cause cancer. Doctors honestly seem to live in an alternate reality, so maybe it isn't your fault, given you've been afflicted with that burden twice over.

 

I'll post the actual abstract of the study, since you seemed to have difficulty finding it:

 

"Benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk: a dose–response meta analysis of prospective cohort studies

 

Abstract

Conflicting results identifying the relationship between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk. Therefore, we conducted a dose-response meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies to clarify and quantitative assessed the relationship between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk. Up to July 2017, 22 original publications were included in current meta-analysis. Our results showed statistically significant association between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk (RR:1.25; 95% CI, 1.15–1.36). Subgroup analysis showed benzodiazepine using was associated with significantly a higher risk of breast cancer (RR:1.15; 95% CI, 1.05–1.26), ovarian cancer (RR:1.17; 95% CI, 1.09–1.25), colon cancer (RR:1.07; 95% CI, 1.02–1.13), renal cancer (RR:1.31; 95% CI, 1.15–1.49), malignant melanoma (RR:1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17), brain cancer (RR:2.06; 95% CI, 1.76–2.43), esophagus cancer (RR:1.55; 95% CI, 1.30–1.85), prostate cancer (RR:1.26; 95% CI, 1.16–1.37), liver cancer (RR:1.22; 95% CI, 1.13–1.31), stomach cancer (RR:1.17; 95% CI, 1.03–1.32), pancreatic cancer (RR:1.39; 95% CI, 1.17–1.64) and lung cancer (RR:1.20; 95% CI, 1.12–1.28). Furthermore, a significant dose-response relationship was observed between benzodiazepine drug use and cancer risk (likelihood ratio test, P < 0.001). Our results showed per 500 mg/year, per 5 year of time since first using, per 3 prescriptions and per 3 year of duration incremental increase in benzodiazepine drug use was associated with a 17%, 4%, 16% and 5% in cancer risk increment. Considering these promising results, increasing benzodiazepine using might be harmful for health."

 

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5731963/

 

Oncotarget is a predatory journal: https://predatoryjournals.com/journals/#O

 

 

[[Da...]]

And with very little effort we can imagine possible non-causal associations. For example, a smoker, on average, might* be more anxious than the median. And it goes without saying that anxious people take more benzodiazepines. I only skimmed that Taiwanese study - I did not realise that they took no account for smoking, etc.

 

* Just an example. I do not know if this is true - but it would not surprise me in the least. The point is that groups sometimes have more than one thing in common.

 

Further, just to add - a quick Google - some results:

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460309003384

 

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306460309000264

 

https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?q=anxiety+rates+among+smokers&hl=en&as_sdt=0&as_vis=1&oi=scholart

 

Colin, those are valid claims, but they are also the type of claim that LF2015 made regarding possible mechanisms for benzos to increase cancer. It's possible we could find enough confounds like smoking, physical activity, alcohol consumption etc to account for the increase in cancer rates found in benzodiazepine users, but that also assumes that benzodiazepine use does not affect those behaviors.

 

We know benzodiazepine use can affect cognition pretty substantially, even long after ceasing the drug. One of the arguments doctors made against the results of the neuropsychological exam I took was that anxiety can result in cognitive impairment. That is true, but if you look at the regression equations for studies which demonstrate cognitive impairment in people with anxiety, the most important factor is whether the anxious patient has been treated with a benzodiazepine. The problem is that people assume that benzodiazepines improve anxiety, but really they just result in overall sedation and tend to worsen anxiety and insomnia long term (along with other things). So anxiety related behaviors like smoking, drinking etc will likely be exacerbated by benzodiazepine treatment long term.

 

To even begin to find a causal link between cancer and benzos, we would need randomized controlled trials. Given that probably 100 million people take them and cancer occurs in something like 1 of 2 people (as Maugham pointed out), even a small increase in cancer as a consequence of benzo use would result in a pretty substantial increase in healthcare spending, premature death and be a huge economic burden. Seems it would be worthwhile for some government with a public healthcare system to fund.

[[Ma...]]

To even begin to find a causal link between cancer and benzos, we would need randomized controlled trials. Given that probably 100 million people take them and cancer occurs in something like 1 of 2 people (as Maugham pointed out), even a small increase in cancer as a consequence of benzo use would result in a pretty substantial increase in healthcare spending, premature death and be a huge economic burden. Seems it would be worthwhile for some government with a public healthcare system to fund.

 

By saying this you agree that there is no clear evidence that benzos cause cancer. I don't have any stake in this; I'm suffering from withdrawal too. I'm super mad at the healthcare industry that they push these drugs on people and fail to inform patients of their strong dependence-causing potential. But that doesn't mean that they also cause cancer.

 

 

Edit: fixed quote boxes.

~Colin.

[[be...]]

Watch out! This thread is spreading like cancer!

[[Da...]]

 

By saying this you agree that there is no clear evidence that benzos cause cancer. I don't have any stake in this; I'm suffering from withdrawal too. I'm super mad at the healthcare industry that they push these drugs on people and fail to inform patients of their strong dependence-causing potential. But that doesn't mean that they also cause cancer.

 

Right, but I wasn't the one who said that. You said, unambiguously, that they don't cause cancer and then invoked your PhD and MD to back it up. You haven't actually backed up that statement with evidence. And apparently you do have a stake in this, because after people said they believed their cancer was caused by benzos, you continued to argue your point. I think if there is clear evidence for your statement that they do not cause cancer, you should post it. I'm willing to be convinced. All I have said is that the evidence, weak as it may be, actually supports claims that it causes cancer MORE than your claim that it doesn't.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight either, but I find it an odd endeavor to claim that people that think their cancer was caused by the drug are wrong in spite of a lack of actual proof that they are, and in spite of the fact that this is a support forum where most people's claims that they were harmed by the drugs is rejected by medical professionals they see. There is also the fact that, as I said, what little evidence there is supports their claim more than yours.

[[Ma...]]

 

By saying this you agree that there is no clear evidence that benzos contribute to cancer development. I don't have any stake in this; I'm suffering from withdrawal too. I'm super mad at the healthcare industry that they push these drugs on people and fail to inform patients of their strong dependence-causing potential. But that doesn't mean that they also cause cancer.

 

Right, but I wasn't the one who said that. You said, unambiguously, that they don't cause cancer and then invoked your PhD and MD to back it up. You haven't actually backed up that statement with evidence. And apparently you do have a stake in this, because after people said they believed their cancer was caused by benzos, you continued to argue your point. I think if there is clear evidence for your statement that they do not cause cancer, you should post it. I'm willing to be convinced. All I have said is that the evidence, weak as it may be, actually supports claims that it causes cancer MORE than your claim that it doesn't.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight either, but I find it an odd endeavor to claim that people that think their cancer was caused by the drug are wrong in spite of a lack of actual proof that they are, and in spite of the fact that this is a support forum where most people's claims that they were harmed by the drugs is rejected by medical professionals they see. There is also the fact that, as I said, what little evidence there is supports their claim more than yours.

 

I invoked my MD and PhD to say that you were wrong about what potency meant, which you said was the same thing as affinity, which it is NOT. I did not invoke my MD and PhD to say that benzos do not cause cancer.

 

I can't prove that benzos don't cause cancer. Based on studying the literature of benzos, having done many decades of research in pharmacology, I do not think benzos cause cancer.

 

I also stand by my contention that benzos have been around for 60 years and if it is true they cause cancer, we would know by now. An opposite example would be alcohol or smoking (or asbestos, radiation, etc.). These agents were suspected to have carcinogenic effects based on accrual of anecdotal evidence over many years. Studies then clearly showed that that was the case. The studies were partly very detailed clinical studies, partly mechanistic studies. No such accrual of anecdotal evidence exists regarding benzos. No detailed clinical studies or mechanistic studies. Not even a hint other than a couple of people here stating that their cancer was caused by benzos. Ironically, some of them have been alcoholics or smokers for a long time, yet they still blame the benzos.

 

Finally, even alcohol and smoking do not cause cancer. They increase the risk. Carcinogenesis is multifactorial.

 

 

[[Wi...]]

Watch out! This thread is spreading like cancer!

 

Unfortunately, yes! The disease, I believe, might be called Self-Important Pseudo-Intellectual Verbosity (aka plain old verbal diarrhea). Oops, unable to back that up, I'm afraid - no MD or PhD here to invoke at the drop of a hat.... 

[[Te...]]

 

By saying this you agree that there is no clear evidence that benzos contribute to cancer development. I don't have any stake in this; I'm suffering from withdrawal too. I'm super mad at the healthcare industry that they push these drugs on people and fail to inform patients of their strong dependence-causing potential. But that doesn't mean that they also cause cancer.

 

Right, but I wasn't the one who said that. You said, unambiguously, that they don't cause cancer and then invoked your PhD and MD to back it up. You haven't actually backed up that statement with evidence. And apparently you do have a stake in this, because after people said they believed their cancer was caused by benzos, you continued to argue your point. I think if there is clear evidence for your statement that they do not cause cancer, you should post it. I'm willing to be convinced. All I have said is that the evidence, weak as it may be, actually supports claims that it causes cancer MORE than your claim that it doesn't.

 

I don't have a dog in this fight either, but I find it an odd endeavor to claim that people that think their cancer was caused by the drug are wrong in spite of a lack of actual proof that they are, and in spite of the fact that this is a support forum where most people's claims that they were harmed by the drugs is rejected by medical professionals they see. There is also the fact that, as I said, what little evidence there is supports their claim more than yours.

 

I invoked my MD and PhD to say that you were wrong about what potency meant, which you said was the same thing as affinity, which it is NOT. I did not invoke my MD and PhD to say that benzos do not cause cancer.

 

I can't prove that benzos don't cause cancer. Based on studying the literature of benzos, having done many decades of research in pharmacology, I do not think benzos cause cancer.

 

I also stand by my contention that benzos have been around for 60 years and if it is true they cause cancer, we would know by now. An opposite example would be alcohol or smoking (or asbestos, radiation, etc.). These agents were suspected to have carcinogenic effects based on accrual of anecdotal evidence over many years. Studies then clearly showed that that was the case. The studies were partly very detailed clinical studies, partly mechanistic studies. No such accrual of anecdotal evidence exists regarding benzos. No detailed clinical studies or mechanistic studies. Not even a hint other than a couple of people here stating that their cancer was caused by benzos. Ironically, some of them have been alcoholics or smokers for a long time, yet they still blame the benzos.

 

Finally, even alcohol and smoking do not cause cancer. They increase the risk. Carcinogenesis is multifactorial.

 

But the literature could have been hidden. We aren't privy to the whole story. Even researchers now who have bad outcomes don't publish them.

 

And, no, we wouldn't find out if people way back when got cancer from benzos. There was no Internet, and doctors probably polydrugged their patients who were on benzos. If cancer did turn up, the doctors could have blamed it on something else, which they're still doing to this day.

 

 

[[Ma...]]

Watch out! This thread is spreading like cancer!

 

Unfortunately, yes! The disease, I believe, might be called Self-Important Pseudo-Intellectual Verbosity (aka plain old verbal diarrhea). Oops, unable to back that up, I'm afraid - no MD or PhD here to invoke at the drop of a hat.... 

 

Maybe not pseudo, but other than that you're right.

[[bu...]]

 

But the literature could have been hidden. We aren't privy to the whole story

 

...and the moon landing could have be filmed in a Hollywood stage studio!

[[Wi...]]

Watch out! This thread is spreading like cancer!

 

Unfortunately, yes! The disease, I believe, might be called Self-Important Pseudo-Intellectual Verbosity (aka plain old verbal diarrhea). Oops, unable to back that up, I'm afraid - no MD or PhD here to invoke at the drop of a hat.... 

 

Maybe not pseudo, but other that that you're right.

 

Ahh. I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed. 

[[...]]

Lol.  I'm actually very much enjoying this debate.  I agree (and disagree) with so many points raised by so many members and I'm also very jealous of all those with such mad writing sills.

 

Now, I'm certainly a layperson and lacking in talented writing abilities, plus am far too physically impaired to articulate the way I'd like, so please bear with me.

 

My very brief take on this is that I believe, bottom line, that none of the studies I've seen, to date, come anywhere close to "proving" benzos cause cancer.  Nowhere even itty-bitty close ... My brain's lighting up like fireworks with all the confounding factors that spring to mind - including such details as "which" benzo (as raised here, they're not all created equally), and the broad term "cancer", not all cancers obviously are the same animal either.  However, with that said, I agree 100% that this being the case, it does *NOT* automatically default to benzos do *NOT* cause - or at least contribute to - any of the cancers.  We simply do not know.

 

Same deal for all the "Benzos Cause Alzheimers" studies.  For starters, all those I've seen are based on a population of ~65+ years of age.  Well, 'nuff said I would imagine.

 

Lastly, from Maugham, "Finally, even alcohol and smoking do not cause cancer. They increase the risk. Carcinogenesis is multifactorial."  I don't know how one can make such a definitive claim.  However, and it's another topic entirely I know, but from the studies I've read here and there, that's the conclusion I personally came to as well.

 

As an aside.  I happen to know three people personally (off the top of my head) with same/similar qualifications as Maugham ... well, one of them actually also has another two degrees under their belt .  All three of them happen to be "experts" working in the pharmaceutical industry.  I know that doesn't apply to Maugham, but just sayin' ...

[[Ma...]]

 

But the literature could have been hidden. We aren't privy to the whole story

 

...and the moon landing could have be filmed in a Hollywood stage studio!

 

[[Co...]]

Watch out! This thread is spreading like cancer!

 

Unfortunately, yes! The disease, I believe, might be called Self-Important Pseudo-Intellectual Verbosity (aka plain old verbal diarrhea). Oops, unable to back that up, I'm afraid - no MD or PhD here to invoke at the drop of a hat.... 

 

Come on. Knock it off now.

[[Co...]]

Watch out! This thread is spreading like cancer!

 

Unfortunately, yes! The disease, I believe, might be called Self-Important Pseudo-Intellectual Verbosity (aka plain old verbal diarrhea). Oops, unable to back that up, I'm afraid - no MD or PhD here to invoke at the drop of a hat.... 

 

Maybe not pseudo, but other that that you're right.

 

Ahh. I would challenge you to a battle of wits, but I see you are unarmed. 

 

Twice, I see.

[[Bl...]]

 

But the literature could have been hidden. We aren't privy to the whole story

 

...and the moon landing could have be filmed in a Hollywood stage studio!

 

So builder, is this to say I should believe the experts are all ethical and above board and have my best interests at heart? If this is true I'll sleep real sound tonight.

 

Personally, putting sarcasm aside, I tend toward not believing everything I'm told(moon landing or not ).

 

The subject of whether these drugs cause cancer or not is one that clearly has yet to be cleared up. Until then, I implore the public at large to do some serious homework on their own...then make their own decision on how dangerous these popular drugs are.

 

I certainly wish I had done more homework and I also wish I had not been so naive to think a tiny LEGAL pill could never be so poisonous.

 

And, yes, benzos can quite possibly cause cancer...and for the record I did smoke for 7 years, and then at age 23 I quit them for good never to smoke another one thereafter(that includes marijuana too, for the record).

 

I was diagnosed with cancer when I was 57(diagnosis was given around the same month when I finished tapering Ambien). I'm currently 62.

 

I rarely drank alcohol. And I have always been a bit on the chunky side...accept when benzos caused me to rapidly lose almost 50 pounds(got down to 112lbs and I looked emaciated/loss of muscle mass). My doctor must feel my current weight today is fine, because he has encouraged me not to lose weight.

 

I did not take benzos due to an anxiety condition. I struggled with insomnia. Something I now realize I could have lived with without taking a pill to solve. Lesson learned.

 

 

[[bu...]]

 

So builder, is this to say I should believe the experts are all ethical and above board and have my best interests at heart? If this is true I'll sleep real sound tonight.

 

 

 

Reasonable intellectual skepticism is healthy, paranoia is not.

 

When there is an overwhelming preponderance of evidence on one side of an issue, and/or an almost complete absence of evidence to the contrary, it should not be difficult for a rational person to choose.

 

And sorry, "... the literature could have been hidden. We aren't privy to the whole story "  smacks of paranoia, NOT intellectual skepticism.