Outing this Issue

[[ju...]]

I just want to know why--why--why hasn't some journalist or other media-savvy person has not successfully brought the problem of benzo withdrawal to national, maybe global, attention. (I'd try, but my brain is too fractured at the moment.)

 

Has outing the addictiveness of benzos been blocked by some concerned agency or other?

 

Granted, it's easy to get paranoid these days, but the question remains, unasked and unanswered, as far as I can tell.

 

I'm paying a lot more attention these days. What factors would have to be present to see that our binding issue is brought before the rest of the world? Unimaginable numbers of ppl might be spared the agony of the detox/taper process--or is that the point? Pharma, psychiatry and money.....

 

jd

[[Sc...]]

I can't answer this...but I DO know there is way too much evidence out there and nothing seems to be done about it.  It boggles my mind to say the least. 

 

Take care,

Schatje

[[Be...]]

There has been wide debate about them in the U.K; it even reached the Houses of Parliament.  Sadly, that is not the case in U.S 

[[Ju...]]

I wondered this myself.  I was prescribed Klonopin by an idiotic primary care doctor, who knew nothing about the drug. I was then referred to an addiction specialist/psychiatrist, who, when I asked him why this drug was still legal, just shrugged. I then said, "well, I guess it keeps you in business..."

 

Anyone care to take on big pharma?  Maybe if all of us got together and showed up for a rally?

[[Pe...]]

Chapter 8 of Jack Hobson-Dupont's book "The Benzo Book" gives the history of various actions tried in the government (including Senator Kennedy's attempt in the mid 1970's), the FDA, and the media (including an expose' on 60 Minutes) to try to limit the prescribing of Benzos.  I was surprised to see all that had been done through the years.

 

When Valium was just starting to get a bad reputation from all this negative publicity it says "other variations of the benzodiazepine compound were unceremoniously introduced into the medical market place...[some] were touted as sleeping pills and others were offered as anti-seizure treatments or muscle relaxants, all this in addition to new preparations targeting anxiety..."

 

Big Pharma has a set pattern of reinventing benzos after the public becomes aware of the dangers.  After Milltown and Valium got a lot of negative press they evolved them into Xanax, Ativan, and Klonopin.  After people started getting wise to those, they morphed benzos yet again into 'Z' drugs.  They add to the confusion by marketing reformulations of the same drug geered toward specific disorders labeling them as: Muscle Relaxants, Seizure Medication, Insomnia Medication, Anxiety Medication....

 

This reformulating and relabeling seems to be their game plan to keep profits going.  IMO they have already moved on past the Xanax/Ativan/Klonopin to the new generation of 'Z' drugs and will now just mop up any lawsuits from the former and sweep the bad publicity under the rug again.

 

I came into modify this post to add this- a good documentary that explains how drug companies do this is "The Marketing of the Madness."  You can view it or order a free copy of it at the following link:

 

 

http://www.cchr.org/videos/marketing_of_madness.html

 

 

[[Pe...]]

I also wanted to add that there are two schools of thought in the medical academic world on benzo addiction and w/d, as reflected in this recent abstract in PubMed:

 

 

"Almost from their introduction the BZDs have been controversial with polarised opinions, advocates pointing out their efficacy, tolerability and patient acceptability, opponents deprecating their adverse effects, dependence and abuse liability. More recently, the advent of alternative and usually safer medications has opened up the debate. The review noted a series of adverse effects that continued to cause concern, such as cognitive and psychomotor impairment. In addition, dependence and abuse remain as serious problems. Despite warnings and guidelines, usage of these drugs remains at a high level. The limitations in their use both as choice of therapy and with respect to conservative dosage and duration of use are highlighted. The distinction between low dose "iatrogenic" dependence and high-dose abuse/misuse is emphasised. Conclusions  The practical problems with the benzodiazepines (BZDs) have persisted for 50 years, but have been ignored by many practitioners and almost all official bodies. The risk/benefit ratio of the BZDs remains positive in most patients in the short-term (2-4 weeks) but is unestablished beyond that time, mainly due to the difficulty in preventing short-term use from extending indefinitely with the risk of dependence."

 

 

http://ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21714826

 

 

THAT is why doctors are clueless!!