Feedback: FAQs

[[bu...]]

 

 

Since you have failed to provide any credible evidence to back up your absolute claims for efficacy, and have also failed to take on board any criticisms, questions or feedback, and instead continue to make the very same claims for efficacy in the very same unequivocal terms, I am now going to insist that you either change the language you use to describe the method you employ, or stop posting about titration.

 

 

 

 

To be clear, this is NOT "my method" It's simply an extension of facts anyone could discern with a few minutes of googling.

 

1)  Smaller reductions, more often, will probably make a more tolerable taper protocol.

 

2)  The common benzos are soluble in alcohol (40% beverage alcohol), and propylene glycol, in the same ratios.  Overwhelming published researched studies confirm.

 

3)  Dissolution and dilution do NOT alter the chemical/pharmaceutical  characteristics of the drug.  1mg dry = 1mg liquid.

 

This is a simple concept that allows folks to make dose reductions in smaller decrements.  And as I have asked you several times, if it doesn't work, so what? A few days of increased sxs, and a return to the previous dose??

 

You are obviously committed to Ashton, and the whole cut and suffer ideology.  There are better options, and as long as I  have the privilege of sharing my views on BB, I will continue to suggest them.

 

I'm not sure if this is actually a threat  "... or stop posting about titration."  but as long as I have am a part of this board, I will share my views.

 

But it's your board.  If you choose to shut off reasonable alternatives, that's you're option

[[Co...]]

 

 

Since you have failed to provide any credible evidence to back up your absolute claims for efficacy, and have also failed to take on board any criticisms, questions or feedback, and instead continue to make the very same claims for efficacy in the very same unequivocal terms, I am now going to insist that you either change the language you use to describe the method you employ, or stop posting about titration.

 

To be clear, this is NOT "my method" It's simply an extension of facts anyone could discern with a few minutes of googling.

 

It is the method you employ, and the method you promote. Does that work better for you? But really, if it is the set of protocols you use, and the set you push, it is completely reasonable to describe them as 'your protocols'.

 

1)  Smaller reductions, more often, will probably make a more tolerable taper protocol.

 

I've lost count the number of times over the years I have written, smaller, more frequent cuts are generally better tolerated than larger, less frequent cuts. The problem is we have not established that the protocols you employ actually result in a more reliable method of controlling dose. There is no good underlying, tested theory, and the anecdotal evidence is mixed.

 

2)  The common benzos are soluble in alcohol (40% beverage alcohol), and propylene glycol, in the same ratios.  Overwhelming published researched studies confirm.

 

If are you are again referring to Jouyban et al, they used just three ingredients: pure alcohol, pure benzodiazeine, and (presumably) distilled water. You use vodka (how many chemicals does this contain (could be hundreds), and will vary between between brands), ground-down pills (with fillers, colors, preservatives, etc,), and (presumably) non-distilled water. Jouyban experiments were under controlled laboratory conditions (temperature, automated stirring equipment, precise measurements, etc.); you do this in the kitchen. The model created by Jouyban et al involved just three ingredients, and their model still failed to match the experimental results. Your preparation includes, perhaps, hundreds of chemicals, and does not employ laboratory conditions. And, the anecdotal evidence for efficacy are mixed.

 

3)  Dissolution and dilution do NOT alter the chemical/pharmaceutical  characteristics of the drug.  1mg dry = 1mg liquid.

 

Leaving aside your unproven assertion that the chemical composition does not alter (I think it was HopeToDoThis who posted earlier about benzos degrading in liquid forum), you again fail to take any account of pharmacokinetics. In particular, bioavailability. We certainly should expect changes to these when we grind-down pills and place them into a liquid. Assuming full absorption of benzodiazepine in both the pill and liquid form, and the AUC (Area Under the Curve) is unchanged, this will result in the same delivered dose. However, we probably should expect faster absorption from a liquid, with corresponding higher spike in blood levels and a lower trough (increasing the likelihood for interdose withdrawal effects). But it is worse than this. There is no reason to suppose the absorption (and thus AUC) will be the same with the pill and liquid. Part of the dose within the pill might not absorbed from the stomach (so, lower bioavailability). The manufacturer of the specific formulation will take account of this and will offset the shortfall by increasing the actual amount of benzodiazepine within the pill (to more than stated dose). In this scenario, it is normally expected for a proportion of benzodiazepine to not be absorbed. But by turning the pill into a liquid, we potentially make all of the benzodaizepine available for absorption (thus increasing the AUC - you know, the dose!).

 

There are probably other effects for which I have failed to take account. So, the situation might be even worse. But as far as I know, these are probably the largest potential factors affecting the AUC and absorption profile. I find it astonishing when these unknowns are waved under your nose, you continually refer back to largely unsuccessful experiments (results did not match the theory) which do not even directly apply to what you are attempting to do.

 

Again, I am not saying that there can be no utility in creating such liquids. All I wish to do is make readers aware of the limitations of the approach, so that they not only understand the knowns (which are limited), but the unknowns too. They also deserve to know that the anecdotal evidence for success are mixed. Some report that titration of their dose in such a manner has been a boon; while others report that it makes them feel worse.

 

This is a simple concept that allows folks to make dose reductions in smaller decrements.  And as I have asked you several times, if it doesn't work, so what? A few days of increased sxs, and a return to the previous dose??

 

The problem is that you have repeatedly stated that the protocols you employ are 'guaranteed' to work. If you make those kinds of statements, the implication is that in the face of worsening symptoms, the individual following your protocols must be doing something wrong. Do I sense a crack in the door - do you now accept that your system might not be 100% reliable? That it might even result in some people experiencing greater symptoms?

 

You are obviously committed to Ashton, and the whole cut and suffer ideology.  There are better options, and as long as I  have the privilege of sharing my views on BB, I will continue to suggest them.

 

Tsk, tsk. You have been told many times to not use that disparaging, unencouraging, loaded and plain wrong phrase. If you do it again, we will restrict your account so that your posts must be approved before publication.

 

As for Ashton: I am going to take what she had to say on the subject more seriously than you (or me for that matter). I will take more seriously what an actual chemist has to say about chemistry than I will of you.

 

I'm not sure if this is actually a threat  "... or stop posting about titration."  but as long as I have am a part of this board, I will share my views.

 

So long as you are a member of this board you will obey the rules, just like all other members. Stating absolutes about an unproven set of withdrawal protocols certainly falls under our rules about employing a non-prescriptive writing style.

 

But it's your board.  If you choose to shut off reasonable alternatives, that's you're option

 

You continually fail to understand the problem, and misinterpret what is going on here. You must stop stating speculation and opinion as certainty and fact. Titration (in all its forms) was supported here long, long before you arrived at BB, and continues to be supported. We just expect the withdrawal and taper boards - probably more so than any other parts of the forum - to live up to the community standards as set out in our rules and policy documents:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?board=52.0

 

I have been around the houses on this matter over many, many posts. Enough is enough. You do not have to take my word on any of the matters concerning chemistry or pharmacokinetics, but you really should take notice of HopeToDoThis, with a BA in chemistry and having worked for 15 years as a quality control chemist in the pharmaceutical industry:

 

http://www.benzobuddies.org/forum/index.php?topic=231364.msg2971316#msg2971316

[[Ho...]]

The manufacturer of the specific formulation will take account of this and will offset the shortfall by increasing the actual amount of benzodiazepine within the pill (to more than stated dose).

 

Ah no, this is not the case. Pills must be formulated to contain 100% of the label claim. No overages allowed to make up for lack of dissolution. If the pill is labeled to contain 1 mg, then, if the pill is tested, it must contain 1 mg (plus or minus about 10% to allow for manufacturing and testing variability). This does not mean manufacturers can use 10% less drug to be cheap and still meet the "plus or minus 10%" requirement.

 

The lab test "dissolution" - which is supposed to mimic taking a tablet and having it dissolve in your digestive system, or at least correlate to it - requires dropping a tablet into a volume of liquid, and then testing the liquid for drug after a certain length of time. There will be a requirement for how much drug is dissolved. The liquid, the length of time, and how much drug has to be dissolved is different for each drug. Usually it's something like >80% of drug should be dissolved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes. The volume of liquid can be between 500 mL and 900 mL. The liquid is water, or it can be phosphate buffer, or with diazepam it's 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid.

 

Probably too much information. I can post the requirements for specific drugs if people want.

[[bu...]]

Quote

    This is a simple concept that allows folks to make dose reductions in smaller decrements.  And as I have asked you several times, if it doesn't work, so what? A few days of increased sxs, and a return to the previous dose??

 

The problem is that you have repeatedly stated that the protocols you employ are 'guaranteed' to work. If you make those kinds of statements, the implication is that in the face of worsening symptoms, the individual following your protocols must be doing something wrong. Do I sense a crack in the door - do you now accept that your system might not be 100% reliable? That it might even result in some people experiencing greater symptoms?

 

 

I have never said "guaranteed to work":  Simple logic says the the more gradual one's reduction, the more tolerable the process will be.  Is there another way to make smaller decrements than  using a diluted liquid?

 

And if someone tries  (any) DLMT procedure, and "fails", what's the real risK...a few days if increased sxs???

[[bu...]]

it must contain 1 mg (plus or minus about 10% to allow for manufacturing and testing variability). This does not mean manufacturers can use 10% less drug to be cheap and still meet the "plus or minus 10%" requirement.

 

Actually, the FDA/US Pharmocopia standard is +/- 15% (30% variability). 

 

And no, I won't look it up again.  I have shared that link many times here on BB before.\

 

 

Edit: fixed quote box.

~Colin.

[[Co...]]

The manufacturer of the specific formulation will take account of this and will offset the shortfall by increasing the actual amount of benzodiazepine within the pill (to more than stated dose).

 

Ah no, this is not the case. Pills must be formulated to contain 100% of the label claim. No overages allowed to make up for lack of dissolution. If the pill is labeled to contain 1 mg, then, if the pill is tested, it must contain 1 mg (plus or minus about 10% to allow for manufacturing and testing variability). This does not mean manufacturers can use 10% less drug to be cheap and still meet the "plus or minus 10%" requirement.

 

The lab test "dissolution" - which is supposed to mimic taking a tablet and having it dissolve in your digestive system, or at least correlate to it - requires dropping a tablet into a volume of liquid, and then testing the liquid for drug after a certain length of time. There will be a requirement for how much drug is dissolved. The liquid, the length of time, and how much drug has to be dissolved is different for each drug. Usually it's something like >80% of drug should be dissolved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes. The volume of liquid can be between 500 mL and 900 mL. The liquid is water, or it can be phosphate buffer, or with diazepam it's 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid.

 

Probably too much information. I can post the requirements for specific drugs if people want.

 

Ah. I stand corrected.* I likely misread or misunderstood something along the way. No need for any more information; that's more than enough. Useful to know that the allowed is 10% of dose - I had been searching for that. Do you happen to have a reference for that? It is certainly better than the 20% figure I often see bandied about.

 

* See how easy that was, builder!

[[Ho...]]

The manufacturer of the specific formulation will take account of this and will offset the shortfall by increasing the actual amount of benzodiazepine within the pill (to more than stated dose).

 

Ah no, this is not the case. Pills must be formulated to contain 100% of the label claim. No overages allowed to make up for lack of dissolution. If the pill is labeled to contain 1 mg, then, if the pill is tested, it must contain 1 mg (plus or minus about 10% to allow for manufacturing and testing variability). This does not mean manufacturers can use 10% less drug to be cheap and still meet the "plus or minus 10%" requirement.

 

The lab test "dissolution" - which is supposed to mimic taking a tablet and having it dissolve in your digestive system, or at least correlate to it - requires dropping a tablet into a volume of liquid, and then testing the liquid for drug after a certain length of time. There will be a requirement for how much drug is dissolved. The liquid, the length of time, and how much drug has to be dissolved is different for each drug. Usually it's something like >80% of drug should be dissolved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes. The volume of liquid can be between 500 mL and 900 mL. The liquid is water, or it can be phosphate buffer, or with diazepam it's 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid.

 

Probably too much information. I can post the requirements for specific drugs if people want.

 

Ah. I stand corrected.* I likely misread or misunderstood something along the way. No need for any more information; that's more than enough. Useful to know that the allowed is 10% of dose - I had been searching for that. Do you happen to have a reference for that? It is certainly better than the 20% figure I often see bandied about.

 

* See how easy that was, builder!

 

It's actually more complicated than plus or minus 15% as builder claims. It's another whole chapter in the USP, "content uniformity."

 

The requirement is, test 10 tablets individually. Determine the average and the standard deviation as a percentage of label claim. The average must be 90-110% (the assay requirement). The standard deviation must be less than 6.25. I don't know how that translates to plus or minus percentages.

 

There is an out. If the standard deviation is greater than 6.25, you can test 20 more tablets. Calculate the average and standard deviation. The average must be 90-110%. The standard deviation must be less than 7.5, and no individual value can be outside the range 75-125%.

 

The idea is that the "out" should be a rare occurrence. But given that FDA's enforcement budget is pretty low, I'm sure generic manufacturer's have no problem using it.

 

Note that the average must always be 90-110%. If it's not that's a failed lot. And the average must always be 90-110% no matter when the lot is tested if you still want to sell it. The 90% lower limit takes into account the aging of the pills.

 

I've never worked for a generics manufacturer. So I don't know how loosey goosey they get with the rules. In the past I used to read FDA inspection reports and warning letters, and some of those generic manufacturers, especially in India, seemed to get REAL loose with the rules. I don't know how reflective that was of most manufacturers. And I don't know the current situation. Although if the impurity thing in ranitidine and the losartan/valsartan/-sartan drugs is any indication (an impurity which should not be in the drugs, mind you), it sounds like quality control in India is not all that tight.

 

Working for a brand name manufacturer, and interacting with employees of other brand name manufacturers, most try to keep the tolerances of their pills pretty tight. Like 97-103% tight for individuals.

 

But I suppose if generic manufacturers are not all that tight, your pills could be 75% to 125% of what they say they are.

[[bu...]]

The manufacturer of the specific formulation will take account of this and will offset the shortfall by increasing the actual amount of benzodiazepine within the pill (to more than stated dose).

 

Ah no, this is not the case. Pills must be formulated to contain 100% of the label claim. No overages allowed to make up for lack of dissolution. If the pill is labeled to contain 1 mg, then, if the pill is tested, it must contain 1 mg (plus or minus about 10% to allow for manufacturing and testing variability). This does not mean manufacturers can use 10% less drug to be cheap and still meet the "plus or minus 10%" requirement.

 

The lab test "dissolution" - which is supposed to mimic taking a tablet and having it dissolve in your digestive system, or at least correlate to it - requires dropping a tablet into a volume of liquid, and then testing the liquid for drug after a certain length of time. There will be a requirement for how much drug is dissolved. The liquid, the length of time, and how much drug has to be dissolved is different for each drug. Usually it's something like >80% of drug should be dissolved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes. The volume of liquid can be between 500 mL and 900 mL. The liquid is water, or it can be phosphate buffer, or with diazepam it's 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid.

 

Probably too much information. I can post the requirements for specific drugs if people want.

 

Ah. I stand corrected.* I likely misread or misunderstood something along the way. No need for any more information; that's more than enough. Useful to know that the allowed is 10% of dose - I had been searching for that. Do you happen to have a reference for that? It is certainly better than the 20% figure I often see bandied about.

 

* See how easy that was, builder!

 

Yeah, it really is that easy! 

 

And if you really need a citation from a more "professional" source, I could also provide that.

 

"...the limits of 85 to 115% of the average content "

 

(and there are even exceptions allowed to that very broad standard!)

 

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

[[Ho...]]

The manufacturer of the specific formulation will take account of this and will offset the shortfall by increasing the actual amount of benzodiazepine within the pill (to more than stated dose).

 

Ah no, this is not the case. Pills must be formulated to contain 100% of the label claim. No overages allowed to make up for lack of dissolution. If the pill is labeled to contain 1 mg, then, if the pill is tested, it must contain 1 mg (plus or minus about 10% to allow for manufacturing and testing variability). This does not mean manufacturers can use 10% less drug to be cheap and still meet the "plus or minus 10%" requirement.

 

The lab test "dissolution" - which is supposed to mimic taking a tablet and having it dissolve in your digestive system, or at least correlate to it - requires dropping a tablet into a volume of liquid, and then testing the liquid for drug after a certain length of time. There will be a requirement for how much drug is dissolved. The liquid, the length of time, and how much drug has to be dissolved is different for each drug. Usually it's something like >80% of drug should be dissolved in 30 minutes or 60 minutes. The volume of liquid can be between 500 mL and 900 mL. The liquid is water, or it can be phosphate buffer, or with diazepam it's 0.1 normal hydrochloric acid.

 

Probably too much information. I can post the requirements for specific drugs if people want.

 

Ah. I stand corrected.* I likely misread or misunderstood something along the way. No need for any more information; that's more than enough. Useful to know that the allowed is 10% of dose - I had been searching for that. Do you happen to have a reference for that? It is certainly better than the 20% figure I often see bandied about.

 

* See how easy that was, builder!

 

Yeah, it really is that easy! 

 

And if you really need a citation from a more "professional" source, I could also provide that.

 

"...the limits of 85 to 115% of the average content "

 

(and there are even exceptions allowed to that very broad standard!)

 

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

 

That's the WHO requirements. They were formerly the requirements in the US too. But now the requirements in the US, EU, and Japan are as I stated in the post right before yours.

[[bu...]]

I share help and suggestions here on BB in the hope that I can make someones benzo discontinuation a little more tolerable, a little less uncomfortable.

 

I did a C&H from 15 mgs down to 9mgs.  (and I know Colin gets upset with the descriptor "cut and suffer", but for many folks who have done it, the term is appropriate).  Each cut was difficult, and at 9mg, even a .5mg cut was intolerable. It was pretty apparent that the limitation was what's the smallest reduction I could make? And through research, and advice from my doc, my pharmacist(s) and Jana Hill, I learned that using a liquid benzo would allow me to make much smaller decrements.

 

I have no interest in debating Colin or anyone about the effiicacy of the various liquid options.  (I really did get a passing grade in high school chemistry!)  As long as I'm allowed to participate here, I will share ideas and suggestions, but I will no longer engage in google wars, or try to prove the validity of the simple concept of dissolution and dilution.

 

To pharaphrase our recent President, "If you like your current taper plan, you can keep your current taper plan"  But if your current taper plan isn't working, what's the big deal about trying something different?

 

 

I'm not a doc, a pharmacist, or a chemist.  I'm a graduate engineer (ME) with a post-grad degree (MBA)  I have reasonable math skills, and I learned how to do research in college (the hard way, libraries and card catalogs)  I can certainly show someone how to make a taper plan and a taper schedule.  And I can certainly explain why a ratio/concentration of .1mg=1ml, or .01mg=1ml makes the plan very simple.

 

So as long as I'm here, and folks want to learn about a  more gentle, tolerable way to taper, or just need help with the calculations to make a taper schedule, I'll help.

 

But if you want to question/debate the logic, chemistry, pharmakinetics, inducers, metabolizers, etc, then just move along.  I'm not your guy.

[[no...]]

when people have bad experiences doing a liquid taper following your directions, and then you say no that's impossible, that small amount of alcohol can't possibly be causing you to experience the sxs you describe, then you are telling those people it's all in their head, gaslighting them.

 

when i followed your liquid taper instructions using alcohol as a solvent, diluting as you instructed with h2o, i experienced very pronounced bad sxs the very next morning, just 12 hours post dose. i had what felt strikingly like a bad hangover from drinking too much alcohol and the sxs persisted until several days later. the alcohol solvent didn't agree with me, as MANY others had reported, which i had also "poo-poo'd" as it being "all in their heads" because, like you said, that tiny amount of alcohol as a solvent with the benzo pills couldn't possibly cause a bad reaction. i was humbled by the experience and publicly apologized on BB to anyone who i'd made feel like i didn't believe them when they reported that reaction.

 

but see, that's the difference between being able to admit when you're at fault, that you made a mistake, or that you were simply wrong...and being arrogant and refusing to admit to yourself or others the error in your ways.

 

it sux when so many people look to your "expertise" only to be told by the "expert" that their bad sxs are all in their head.

 

(happy ending: i found another way to do my liquid taper with my pills.)

[[bu...]]

when people have bad experiences doing a liquid taper following your directions, and then you say no that's impossible, that small amount of alcohol can't possibly be causing you to experience the sxs you describe, then you are telling those people it's all in their head, gaslighting them.

 

when i followed your liquid taper instructions using alcohol as a solvent, diluting as you instructed with h2o, i experienced very pronounced bad sxs the very next morning, just 12 hours post dose. i had what felt strikingly like a bad hangover from drinking too much alcohol and the sxs persisted until several days later. the alcohol solvent didn't agree with me, as MANY others had reported, which i had also "poo-poo'd" as it being "all in their heads" because, like you said, that tiny amount of alcohol as a solvent with the benzo pills couldn't possibly cause a bad reaction. i was humbled by the experience and publicly apologized on BB to anyone who i'd made feel like i didn't believe them when they reported that reaction.

 

but see, that's the difference between being able to admit when you're at fault, that you made a mistake, or that you were simply wrong...and being arrogant and refusing to admit to yourself or others the error in your ways.

 

it sux when so many people look to your "expertise" only to be told by the "expert" that their bad sxs are all in their head.

 

(happy ending: i found another way to do my liquid taper with my pills.)

 

... if you want to question/debate the logic, chemistry, pharmakinetics, inducers, metabolizers, etc, then just move along.  I'm not your guy.

[[Gu...]]

when people have bad experiences doing a liquid taper following your directions, and then you say no that's impossible, that small amount of alcohol can't possibly be causing you to experience the sxs you describe, then  you are telling those people it's all in their head,  gaslighting them.

 

when i followed your liquid taper instructions using alcohol as a solvent, diluting as you instructed with h2o, i experienced very pronounced bad sxs the very next morning, just 12 hours post dose. i had what felt strikingly like a bad hangover from drinking too much alcohol and the sxs persisted until several days later. the alcohol solvent didn't agree with me, as MANY others had reported, which i had also "poo-poo'd" as it being "all in their heads" because, like you said, that tiny amount of alcohol as a solvent with the benzo pills couldn't possibly cause a bad reaction. i was humbled by the experience and publicly apologized on BB to anyone who i'd made feel like i didn't believe them when they reported that reaction.

 

but see, that's the difference between being able to admit when you're at fault, that you made a mistake, or that you were simply wrong...and being arrogant and refusing to admit to yourself or others the error in your ways.

 

it sux when so many people look to your "expertise" only to be  told by the "expert" that their bad sxs are all in their head

 

(happy ending: i found another way to do my liquid taper with my pills.)

 

:thumbsup:

[[bu...]]

 

 

(happy ending: i found another way to do my liquid taper with my pills.)

 

Good for you!! :thumbsup:

[[bu...]]

[

 

That's the WHO requirements. They were formerly the requirements in the US too. But now the requirements in the US, EU, and Japan are as I stated in the post right before yours.

 

So are we really going to argue about whether the purity standards are within a 20% range, vs a 30% range?

[[Ho...]]

My question really is, what does an average of 100 and a standard deviation of around 7 look like? Statistics was never my strong point.

[[Co...]]

it must contain 1 mg (plus or minus about 10% to allow for manufacturing and testing variability). This does not mean manufacturers can use 10% less drug to be cheap and still meet the "plus or minus 10%" requirement.

 

Actually, the FDA/US Pharmocopia standard is +/- 15% (30% variability). 

 

And no, I won't look it up again.  I have shared that link many times here on BB before.\

 

And if you really need a citation from a more "professional" source, I could also provide that.

 

"...the limits of 85 to 115% of the average content "

 

(and there are even exceptions allowed to that very broad standard!)

 

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

 

That's the WHO requirements. They were formerly the requirements in the US too. But now the requirements in the US, EU, and Japan are as I stated in the post right before yours.

 

when people have bad experiences doing a liquid taper following your directions, and then you say no that's impossible, that small amount of alcohol can't possibly be causing you to experience the sxs you describe, then you are telling those people it's all in their head, gaslighting them.

 

when i followed your liquid taper instructions using alcohol as a solvent, diluting as you instructed with h2o, i experienced very pronounced bad sxs the very next morning, just 12 hours post dose. i had what felt strikingly like a bad hangover from drinking too much alcohol and the sxs persisted until several days later. the alcohol solvent didn't agree with me, as MANY others had reported, which i had also "poo-poo'd" as it being "all in their heads" because, like you said, that tiny amount of alcohol as a solvent with the benzo pills couldn't possibly cause a bad reaction. i was humbled by the experience and publicly apologized on BB to anyone who i'd made feel like i didn't believe them when they reported that reaction.

 

but see, that's the difference between being able to admit when you're at fault, that you made a mistake, or that you were simply wrong...and being arrogant and refusing to admit to yourself or others the error in your ways.

 

it sux when so many people look to your "expertise" only to be told by the "expert" that their bad sxs are all in their head.

 

(happy ending: i found another way to do my liquid taper with my pills.)

 

... if you want to question/debate the logic, chemistry, pharmakinetics, inducers, metabolizers, etc, then just move along.  I'm not your guy.

 

That's the WHO requirements. They were formerly the requirements in the US too. But now the requirements in the US, EU, and Japan are as I stated in the post right before yours.

 

So are we really going to argue about whether the purity standards are within a 20% range, vs a 30% range?

[[Co...]]

My question really is, what does an average of 100 and a standard deviation of around 7 look like? Statistics was never my strong point.

 

Enormous odds against falling outside of 7 sigma range. Equates to 1 in 390,682,215,445.

[[Co...]]

Quote

    This is a simple concept that allows folks to make dose reductions in smaller decrements.  And as I have asked you several times, if it doesn't work, so what? A few days of increased sxs, and a return to the previous dose??

 

The problem is that you have repeatedly stated that the protocols you employ are 'guaranteed' to work. If you make those kinds of statements, the implication is that in the face of worsening symptoms, the individual following your protocols must be doing something wrong. Do I sense a crack in the door - do you now accept that your system might not be 100% reliable? That it might even result in some people experiencing greater symptoms?

 

 

I have never said "guaranteed to work":  Simple logic says the the more gradual one's reduction, the more tolerable the process will be.  Is there another way to make smaller decrements than  using a diluted liquid?

 

And if someone tries  (any) DLMT procedure, and "fails", what's the real risK...a few days if increased sxs???

 

But you have, many times, including in this thread only hours before you posted the above:

 

or more simply, which is the best way to do the liquid benzo, as a solution or as a suspension?

A solution will guarantee that the the benzo in your solution will be uniformly distributed, and that every ml of liquid will contain exactly the same amount of benzo.

 

OTOH, a suspension will be a randomly distributed liquid, no guarantee of uniformity.

 

When folks put together a microtaper plan, they see all these numbers in .1, .01. even .001mg, and think that accuracy and precision are required to do a microtaper.  But a microtaper is really about a gradual reduction, NOT a precise reduction

 

Obviously, a uniformly-distributed solution will be the most reliable choice, but  for most folks, a suspension made with a quality pharma grade suspension agent will work just fine

 

is it guaranteed to dissolve all my Lorazepam pill?? 

 

No, it's guaranteed to dissolve all of the lorazepam!  And that's all that matters.  What happens to the inactive components (that are probably 99% or the "pill"), doesn't matter!  It will dissolve all to the lorazepam, and it will be uniformly distributed throughout the liquid.

 

Intensol?  IIRC, you tried to use the Intensol undiluted?  If that's correct, I can understand why the protocol failed.  And if that is NOT correct, I would certainly try to use the Rx lorazepam again.

 

Mandatory disclosure:  JMHO

 

Why do I then feel so awful after even the smallest cut?

 

I don't know, but I absolutely guarantee you that is it is NOT because of liquid, and it is NOT due to the "smallest cut" !

 

You could have skipped the whole day's dose, but you wouldn't feel it yet.  (I sometimes forget to take my whole dose, but as long as I remembered by the next day, it never made any difference.)

 

How long does the 5mg/5ml liquid valium stay stable once it is mixed with water?

 

Well, its actually a "dilute solution" when it comes from the mfgr.  It has a 3 year shelf life from the mfgr.  And diluting it further has absolutely no effect on stability, efficacy, potency, etc.  It just change the concentration ratio.

 

But I always suggest a 10-14 day batch (for other reasons)  I absolutely guarantee there will be no degradation over a 14 day period.

 

In the original of the following, you 'in-lined' your responses. To improve readability, Ive pulled out your responses from confuseduser's comments:

 

Benzo Detox Recovery.  That's the forum I repeatedly refer to where 1) everyone was doing DLMT, and 2) no one ever mentioned any difficulty changing to or using liquid.

 

Why do you think this is?

 

Do you think that the members here are not following the procedure as wall as those on the other board?  Or maybe there are more people here so it stands to reason there would be more of a chances of having problems surface.

 

Since all members on BDR were doing liquid, there were probably MORE folks doing liquid tapers on BDR.

 

Do you think the other board had a different environment where people spoke less about their issues and problems?

 

 

That's absolutely correct.  Most of the discussions were on HOW to taper, and on PROGRESS. There was very little discussion of difficulties or problems.

 

Also do you think the environment and posts here has an effect on certain people that makes them more nervous and scared and thus amps their anxiety and makes them have a harder time tapering?

 

Absolutely!  I believe the reason no one on BDR talked about problems with liquid is because no one ever posted problems with liquid.  Let's face it.  Folks trying to taper are already, depressed, nervous, anxious, suggestible, etc.  If you tell them they might also experience some additional complication, I guarantee you some of them will conclude that yeah,  they have that problem too.

 

There was a strong "leader) (Jana Hill) at BDR, who told people how to taper, how much to  taper, and that it would work.  So guess what,  members believed her, and it worked.

 

What is moderately interesting about the above exchange is that it does not take into account that members were banned from Jana Hill's forum for expressing failure using her system. So, of course it would have appeared that titration was universally successful at that forum.

 

There are many more posts like those above. On the other hand, I do appreciate that you acknowledge the limitations of titration, that there are larger variations outside of our control, such as in the following:

 

Today is my first day of microtaper. I cut .03 ml liquid diazepam last night. I was on 3.2 ml and want to get off in 100 days. Last night I had a nightmare... this morning I had anxiety and irritability but it is noon and I am feeling better now. Is this what a microtaper is like? mild symptoms in the morning that resolve themselves by the middle of the day? With the direct 10% every two weeks taper, I would feel like that for the first 4 days to the extreme and then gradually get better until it was time to cut again. I am trying to get a feel for when I need to slow down or hold my microtaper. Thanks!!!

 

Your "symptoms" are not the result of your "cut".

 

There is no way you would feel the effects of a .03mg dose reduction within less than 24 hours.  I'll guarantee your daily dose with tablets varied by more than .03mgs from day to day.

 

Hang in there, your anxiety will fade, and your microtaper will be a walk in the park.  That being said. .03/day at your current dose of 3.2 is pretty agressive (but I think I told you that before  )

 

  Since a solution is not created when clonazepam is mixed with water it is important to always stir and draw up from the middle of the container.

 

And that is no guarantee you will get a representative dose each time.  It's a crapshoot.

 

Everyone should use a procedure they feel comfortable with, and if it works for you that's great.  But as long as one  has the option, I will always suggest trying a procedure that is scientifically logical.

 

Builder, you seem to be under the impression that I am out to get you, or withdraw support for titration at BB, or some other petty objective. No. All I wish for is for you (and others) to adhere to the language we expect across the forum. That is to say, adopt a non-prescriptive writing style. And to fully acknowledge the limitations of titration. It is the absolute claims for efficacy which are causing problems, both from a moderation perspective (for you), and for those members where titration does not live up to the hype. I feel that you can understand this.

 

---

 

I am going to lock this thread. It has been seriously derailed by more than one poster. I will start afresh with a new FAQ feedback thread. There, any nonconstructive feedback will be deleted. And repeat offenders will have their posts placed on pre-moderation (each individual post will require approval by a moderator before it is actually published). Constructive feedback has been buried, and far too much time has been wasted.