Our Concerns: The Witt-Doerring Youtube Channel

[[Co...]]

1 minute ago, [[W...] said:

@[ap...] To correct a point which I hope helps you, go back and read Pianogirl's comment again. She wasn't calling you rude, she was calling Revolutionblue rude for his comment to you.

Thank you for clarifying that, @[WU...]. I had missed it.

[[Gi...]]

On 03/06/2024 at 17:49, [[L...] said:

Not all doctors who gave these meds were aware of the consequences. I agree. But if you weren’t aware then as a professional then you should have been and certainly not give them until you are aware! Not all doctors or medical professionals are bad apples. I’m NOT saying that at all. Doctors are very much needed all over the world. Most of them take the care of their patients very seriously and is cautious in general to do what’s best. 

I totally agree with you LadyDen.

 

[[Br...]]

5 hours ago, [[a...] said:

I take no notice of you Pianogirl, the best advice comes from Baylissa. I have spoken to her personally. She is the best 

@[ap...] As others pointed out, you have misunderstood @[pi...]'s comment - she was calling out @[re...]'s response to your post.  I hope you'll re-read @[pi...]'s comment so you can see there is no reason you should feel insulted.  

[[pi...]]

14 hours ago, [[a...] said:

I take no notice of you Pianogirl, the best advice comes from Baylissa. I have spoken to her personally. She is the best 

@[ap...], I’m very sorry you thought I was addressing your comment as rude. I actually felt that the reply posted by @[re...] was disrespectful and rude. Everyone here on the forum is entitled to be respected. Thank you for posting and I hope you understand.

[[Gi...]]

On 03/06/2024 at 14:24, [[C...] said:

One of my longstanding concerns has been the overzealous reaction against benzodiazepines - they should be banned, that kind of thing. Because, at least in part, I suggest this has resulted in an overreaction by many doctors, yanking away benzos from the benzodiazepine-dependent patients, against their will, and without enough time to taper off sensibly. Emotionally-driven reactions, although understandable, can lead to unintended negative consequences.

The balanced approach of course would be to support a smooth exit of people already on benzos through a slow taper but then banning further prescribing.

[[Co...]]

1 minute ago, [[G...] said:

The balanced approach of course would be to support a smooth exit of people already on benzos through a slow taper but then banning further prescribing.

Well, yes. But I think a large part of the problem is doctors forcing their patients to quit benzodiazepines. Usually, the patient is dependent through no fault of their own, and might not be ready to quit (even at a slow rate). But I do think a conversation/review (in most cases) between doctor and patient after extended use would be appropriate.

[[or...]]

28 minutes ago, [[G...] said:

The balanced approach of course would be to support a smooth exit of people already on benzos through a slow taper but then banning further prescribing.

Removed by oregonlady, misunderstood what was said here.

 

Edited June 7 by [or...]

[[Ca...]]

I don't agree that they should be banned. They have a purpose in some situations such as alcohol detox; it's the prolonged prescribing that should be with detailed informed consent. Many people seem to be able to take them long term with no problems.

[[Sn...]]

 

Those people rely on psychiatry because they have been drugged and now can't live without the drugs anymore. 

Studies have been done that 90% of the people going through psychological crisis all recover in time without drugs. The other 10% that don't take drugs don't have the right circumstances in life to get better. Those who take drugs rarely get better. 

Psychiatric drugs makes things worse, it causes illness and chemical imbalance. It changes the brain. This is not scaremongering, it's the truth. 

Psychiatry has been causing havoc since it was invented. It should have never existed. Mental problems are caused by life circumstances causing trauma, sadness and fear, and they should be treated with love, empathy, understanding, compassion and lots of exercise. Also trying to find out what makes the person happy, because happy people don't have mental problems. Help them find the right people around them in life, the right job, the right hobbies, and so on. Not slander them with illness and diagnosis. Psychiatric hospitals should be replaced with treatment centers in a nice quiet environment where people can exercise, swim, relax, have fun and talk about their problems with emphatic caring employees. Make them happy again, prepare them for a return to society, all WITHOUT DRUGS. 

Psychiatry needs to stop and there should come a new whole new system based on that. Psychiatry is not based on science at all, it's just full of assumptions. The main treatment is based on drugs, they don't know anything else. Also, there is a lot of money involved and not everybody in the pharmaceutical industry has the best intentions. Statistics show that society is getting sicker and sicker because of all of this, there is even written a book about it called 'Anatomy of an epedemic.' 

Sorry Benzobuddies and Colin, I'm not with you on this one. You can't change my mind, they took 22 years of my life, tortured me and accused me of all kinds of sickness and I never even said much, they just made it all up. Everywhere you hear similar stories to mine. Those who still believe in psychiatry are brainwashed and still in denial (just like I once was), but someday they will hopefully find out and free themselves. Nobody, and I mean nobody is mentally ill. It's all temporary. It becomes a permanent problem if you give someone drugs. 

Also, please realize, it's not just benzodiazepines. Benzos's are the worst, but all psychiatric drugs are trash. They're all mind altering drugs, just like for example XTC. 

Not going into any argument or discussion, I'm not going to aggrevate my brain pressure (thanks to psychiatry 🥳).

Edited June 18 by [Sn...]

[[Su...]]

Colin, I rarely post on here anymore, but I feel the need to come on and thank you for your level headed critique of JWD  I found myself over on his site when I was in a bad wave one day and was appalled at what I saw from the alarming thumbnails to his lack of “interviews” where he lets his guests regurgitate alarming content uninterrupted.  He is so disrespectful of his audience that he fails to monitor the replies where you will find people in the throes of benzo withdrawal scared out of their minds from what they just watched.  That’s inexcusable and indefensible; anyone promoting this man in the benzo community is enabling a harmful man who seems to care more about views ($$$) than the well being of those consuming his content.  I checked out his Twitter profile and was unsurprised to see him post about how he recently interviewed a Scientologist, as if his guest was involved in a legitimate religion and not a destructive cult.  
Social media companies are not doing enough to tackle the harmful content that is being pushed to users by people like him and his wife so I’m pleased to see you taking a stand for the users of this site and the greater good.  

[[Le...]]

3 hours ago, [[S...] said:

 I checked out his Twitter profile and was unsurprised to see him post about how he recently interviewed a Scientologist, as if his guest was involved in a legitimate religion and not a destructive cult.  
 

lol. 

[[Co...]]

On 14/06/2024 at 04:14, [[S...] said:

 

Those people rely on psychiatry because they have been drugged and now can't live without the drugs anymore.

Studies have been done that 90% of the people going through psychological crisis all recover in time without drugs. The other 10% that don't take drugs don't have the right circumstances in life to get better. Those who take drugs rarely get better.

Hello @[Sn...]

Without you pointing to a specific study, it is not possible for me to comment upon your claims above. But if you reference a specific study, I'll be happy to take a look.

On 14/06/2024 at 04:14, [[S...] said:

Psychiatric drugs makes things worse, it causes illness and chemical imbalance. It changes the brain. This is not scaremongering, it's the truth.

All medications can cause illness. All medications evoke changes in our bodies. If they did not, they would not be medicine. Please be more specific and I'll be happy to respond.

On 14/06/2024 at 04:14, [[S...] said:

Psychiatry has been causing havoc since it was invented. It should have never existed. Mental problems are caused by life circumstances causing trauma, sadness and fear, and they should be treated with love, empathy, understanding, compassion and lots of exercise.

Sometimes, maybe even often/mostly, this is true. But it is far from always the case. Irrespective, 'trauma, sadness and fear' are realities of life. And except for those with certain types of mental disorders (psychopaths, or the like), or the most exceptionally fortunate, everyone experiences those feelings during their lives. For the most part, these are overcome by the individual (they are part of life after all). Unfortunately, a significant proportion of the population experience overwhelming trauma, and these things cannot be waved away. Sometimes talk therapy helps these people, but far from always. The reality is that talk therapy is expensive (societally, we are unwilling to pay for it), so only those who can afford it, receive it. (This really needs to change.) However, there remains a significant percentage of people for whom talk therapy (alone) is not enough.

Then there are people who suffer from very serious mental health disorders with no discernible cause (organic in nature) and medication is the only viable option for them. Schizophrenia, for example, is not primarily treatable with talk therapy. Talk therapy might help (if the case is not extreme), but it will not treat the cause of the problem - only medication can do this.

For things like depression, I agree that there appears to be a problem with the medication model as generally practiced now. But this, again, the cause is societal in nature, where we are unwilling to put in the resources to prioritise (pay for) talk therapy where it might make real difference. And even in cases where talk therapy is the better long-term solution (and is available), this does not mean that medication should not be an option in the short-to-medium term, as talk therapy is not a quick-fix - it usually takes many months to years for its benefits to be fully realised.

Psychiatry it still a relatively new discipline. It is also a very difficult area of medicine. (And, of course, its reputation is not helped by some terrible past practices.) The brain remains little understood, and there are generally no objective tests for diagnosing and treating conditions. But - leaving aside classification problems - these conditions objectively exist and deserve to be treated as best we can. I would also add that just because we do not properly understand the conditions and how available medications work, this does not mean that they are ineffective and/or should not be used. In all areas of medicine (and treatments) there are unknowns (even with something as everyday as across-the-counter pain medications).

To be very clear, I am not claiming that there are no problems with psychiatric practice. But I would suggest that we all are responsible for this, as it requires large changes in prioritisation and this comes down to government policy (who we elect). So long as we - as a society - choose to not fund talk therapy (so that it is accessible to all), medication will become the primary treatment where it should be second, or where it should instead be used short-term. I would also add that at the individual level, costs are not even the primary problem, as people very often reach for the 'quick and easy' solution of medication. Psychiatrists (and GPs) need to better explain the advantages (where appropriate) of talk therapy, and potential disadvantages of medication to their patients. But if talk therapy is cost-prohibitive, I don't know what the solution is to this.

I will also add that I find it problematic that so many psychiatrists make little to no use of talk therapy (even for patients who can afford it). Many prescribe medication and this is the limit of what they offer. This needs to change (and requires funding). And on a similar note, we need to get away from GPs prescribing psychoactive medications. It is a specialised and difficult area of medicine, and beyond offering a sympathetic ear (limited to 10 minutes or so), the GP cannot offer talk therapy.

On 14/06/2024 at 04:14, [[S...] said:

Also trying to find out what makes the person happy, because happy people don't have mental problems. Help them find the right people around them in life, the right job, the right hobbies, and so on. Not slander them with illness and diagnosis. Psychiatric hospitals should be replaced with treatment centers in a nice quiet environment where people can exercise, swim, relax, have fun and talk about their problems with emphatic caring employees. Make them happy again, prepare them for a return to society, all WITHOUT DRUGS.

It is not 'slander'. It is real. But I agree that there is lot which could be done through societal changes. However, the reality is those kinds of changes are unlikely to come in the foreseeable future. And, there are other changes society can make which would help people to not feel as stressed and distressed in the first place - things around how we share wealth and make people feel secure and included. Some societies are much better at this than others. But societal changes are very difficult to to make happen. They are slow, and incremental. And sometimes, they go backwards. Largely, what you wish for is wishful thinking.

On 14/06/2024 at 04:14, [[S...] said:

Psychiatry needs to stop and there should come a new whole new system based on that. Psychiatry is not based on science at all, it's just full of assumptions. The main treatment is based on drugs, they don't know anything else. Also, there is a lot of money involved and not everybody in the pharmaceutical industry has the best intentions. Statistics show that society is getting sicker and sicker because of all of this, there is even written a book about it called 'Anatomy of an epedemic.'

And all of the above applies to all areas of medicine. Do you propose that we cease all medicine? (Rhetorical question.) I assume not. You are looking at the problem from a black and white perspective - this is unhelpful, because it means there can be no meaningful discussion.

On 14/06/2024 at 04:14, [[S...] said:

Sorry Benzobuddies and Colin, I'm not with you on this one. You can't change my mind, they took 22 years of my life, tortured me and accused me of all kinds of sickness and I never even said much, they just made it all up. Everywhere you hear similar stories to mine. Those who still believe in psychiatry are brainwashed and still in denial (just like I once was), but someday they will hopefully find out and free themselves. Nobody, and I mean nobody is mentally ill. It's all temporary. It becomes a permanent problem if you give someone drugs.

I cannot and will not argue with experiences at the individual level. Of course we all know that things go wrong in medicine, and there are certainly obvious improvements which should be made in how psychiatry is generally practiced.

And I will add that you will generally only hear from those negatively affected. It is human nature to shout about failures and injustices. But for the most part, we not hear from those who experience successful outcomes.

On 14/06/2024 at 04:14, [[S...] said:

Also, please realize, it's not just benzodiazepines. Benzos's are the worst, but all psychiatric drugs are trash. They're all mind altering drugs, just like for example XTC. 

Not going into any argument or discussion, I'm not going to aggrevate my brain pressure (thanks to psychiatry 🥳).

I am not disputing any of your personal experiences. I am talking in generalities, whereas you, about specific cases (and you, in particular). Of course you will react strongly against something which has caused you great personal distress - this is very understandable and normal. But as you will see from this thread and other posts at BB, your experiences are not shared by all (far from it). And this at a community where members have been disproportionately negatively affected by a psychoactive medication (benzodiazepines).

PS Apologies - I note that you have subsequently deleted your post, but I had already mostly finished my response, and many members will have already read your comments, so I chose to finish my reply. Again, I hope you understand that my views are general in nature - I dispute nothing from your personal experiences. This is about BB protecting members who make (effective) use of psychiatric services.

[[Co...]]

On 15/06/2024 at 08:03, [[S...] said:

Colin, I rarely post on here anymore, but I feel the need to come on and thank you for your level headed critique of JWD  I found myself over on his site when I was in a bad wave one day and was appalled at what I saw from the alarming thumbnails to his lack of “interviews” where he lets his guests regurgitate alarming content uninterrupted.

"Lack of interviews" - I don't quite follow. I assume there is a missing word there.

But I get the gist - and I agree. (And not just about me being 'level-headed'.  ) I really do not like the heavy use of shock tactic clickbait.

I have watched some of the interviews. Though, except for the one with the pharmacist I listed in my opening post, I do not think I watched any of them right through. They were uncomfortable viewing, and I (and the admins) did not have time to watch more than a small sample anyway.

There can be therapeutic/cathartic benefits for a patient/client to let it all out of course. But I question the benefit of publishing this interviews at Youtube. As you say, it is often alarmist. And it also might be unhelpful to the interviewee who is in distress.

If there is particular video you think I should watch, please let me know - it difficult to comment further without referencing a specific interview.

On 15/06/2024 at 08:03, [[S...] said:

He is so disrespectful of his audience that he fails to monitor the replies where you will find people in the throes of benzo withdrawal scared out of their minds from what they just watched.  That’s inexcusable and indefensible; anyone promoting this man in the benzo community is enabling a harmful man who seems to care more about views ($$$) than the well being of those consuming his content.  I checked out his Twitter profile and was unsurprised to see him post about how he recently interviewed a Scientologist, as if his guest was involved in a legitimate religion and not a destructive cult.  
Social media companies are not doing enough to tackle the harmful content that is being pushed to users by people like him and his wife so I’m pleased to see you taking a stand for the users of this site and the greater good.  

It is disappointing to observe the lack of monitoring of feedback from distressed viewers to his video content. It is not even that they are simply distressed (and ignored), it is that they are distressed by the content Witt-Doerring chose to publish. As a psychiatrist, he surely has a greater responsibility to the content he choses to upload to his Youtube channel and the impact it has on his generally already distressed viewership.

I recall the scientologist video. Alas, another one I did not have time to watch. I'll take a look now.

Unfortunately, there is quite a lot of acceptance of 'information' emanating from scientology within certain parts of the wider benzodiazepine, antidepressant and psychoactive medication ecosphere. For example, although its policies appear to disallow it, and Robert Whitaker attempts to distance Mad in America (MiA) from any association with Scientology, a seemingly large proportion of its community members (and even some of its bloggers) openly promote materials originating from CCHR (Scientology front group for pushing antipsychiatry propaganda). This seems to be allowed by MiA. Not only is it wrong, it is detrimental to being taken seriously and in the promotion of positive change. Anyone who pushes Scientology or materials originating from CCHR surely will be dismissed (and very understandably so) by competent medical professionals as wrong at best, or more probably, dismissed as 'a crank'.

Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR):

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

This is an old blog entry from MiA. But it and (in particular) the comments are informative:

https://www.madinamerica.com/2014/07/response-end-rethinking-psychiatry/

Because of content like the above, I cannot take MiA seriously. Nor anyone who pushes Scientology/CCHR (materials).

[[Co...]]

2 hours ago, [[L...] said:

lol. 

?

[[Le...]]

sorry. just a religious person using two synonyms one of which is considered rude to mock another religion. you would think people who believe in space monsters would be more open minded.  

 

 

 

51 minutes ago, [[C...] said:

?

 

Edited June 15 by [Le...]
add quote

[[Co...]]

9 hours ago, [[L...] said:

sorry. just a religious person using two synonyms one of which is considered rude to mock another religion. you would think people who believe in space monsters would be more open minded.  

Scientology is a dangerous and coercive cult. It operates as a business. It is not only unrecognised as a religion in most countries, it is even designated as a cult and banned in some.

I find it astonishing that anyone would seek the abolition of psychiatry, and yet, at the same time, support Scientology. Scientology seeks to ban psychiatry and to have it replaced with 'Dianetics'. And what is that you may well ask. Dianetics is L. Ron Hubbard's mental health system, created out of whole cloth, and rejected by the American Psychiatric Association (APA). Hubbard later decided to blame the APA for lack of traction in his baseless mental health ideas. And this lead to his (and Scientology's) campaign against psychiatry.

It is also worth noting that Scientology existed before it became a religion. Hubbard wrote to Helen O'Brien (the manager of Hubbard Association of Scientologists International) in 1953 asking her to investigate the 'religion angle'.

https://books.google.com/books?id=yUwwAAAAYAAJ&focus=searchwithinvolume&q=religion+angle

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

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

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

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

If anyone wishes to discuss this further, please start a new thread. But by all means reference my or other posts from this thread.

[[WU...]]

22 minutes ago, [[C...] said:

It operates as a business

Not wishing to make a big thing out of this by starting a new thread but just to say ALL organised religions operate as a business. See this list of the world's wealthiest. Scientology listed towards the end with a paltry 2 billion!   

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

But all this pales into insignificance compared to the Pharmaceutical industry. Everyone wants a piece of the pie, everyone is competing for our attention and ultimately for our money. 

From Statista.com

The global pharmaceutical market has experienced significant growth in recent years. For 2023, the total global pharmaceutical market was estimated at around 1.6 trillion U.S. dollars. This is an increase of over 100 billion dollars compared to 2022.

Its all a bit depressing really as I don't think the world is any healthier

[[Co...]]

7 minutes ago, [[W...] said:

Not wishing to make a big thing out of this by starting a new thread but just to say ALL organised religions operate as a business. See this list of the world's wealthiest. Scientology listed towards the end with a paltry 2 billion!   

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

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

[[WU...]]

I agree with you @[Co...] It is a poor show but not letting the other "religions" off the hook so lightly! And then we have the eternal debate of science vs. religion. I'm cynical about it all now. 

[[Co...]]

16 minutes ago, [[W...] said:

I agree with you @[Co...] It is a poor show but not letting the other "religions" off the hook so lightly! And then we have the eternal debate of science vs. religion. I'm cynical about it all now. 

I am not religious. But there are particular problems around Scientology, and not just about their desire to replace psychiatry with Dianetics^(TM). I do not see Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., etc., attempting to take over areas of healthcare. (Well, at the edges, in the US - but we are getting into politics now.)

[[WU...]]

31 minutes ago, [[C...] said:

I do not see Christianity, Judaism, Islam, etc., etc., attempting to take over areas of healthcare.

Not directly, but I wouldn't mind having a peek at their portfolio investments! 

Anyway Witt Doering hasn't done himself any favours by interviewing Scientology people. 

I am not organised religious either, more disorganised, and I certainly don't want any religions practising medicine on me be it pills or talk therapy, both can do a lot of harm.

[[Le...]]

i dont support scientology or think psychiatry should be abolished. @[Co...]

[[Sn...]]

11 hours ago, [[C...] said:

Hello @[Sn...]

Without you pointing to a specific study, it is not possible for me to comment upon your claims above. But if you reference a specific study, I'll be happy to take a look.

All medications can cause illness. All medications evoke changes in our bodies. If they did not, they would not be medicine. Please be more specific and I'll be happy to respond.

Sometimes, maybe even often/mostly, this is true. But it is far from always the case. Irrespective, 'trauma, sadness and fear' are realities of life. And except for those with certain types of mental disorders (psychopaths, or the like), or the most exceptionally fortunate, everyone experiences those feelings during their lives. For the most part, these are overcome by the individual (they are part of life after all). Unfortunately, a significant proportion of the population experience overwhelming trauma, and these things cannot be waved away. Sometimes talk therapy helps these people, but far from always. The reality is that talk therapy is expensive (societally, we are unwilling to pay for it), so only those who can afford it, receive it. (This really needs to change.) However, there remains a significant percentage of people for whom talk therapy (alone) is not enough.

Then there are people who suffer from very serious mental health disorders with no discernible cause (organic in nature) and medication is the only viable option for them. Schizophrenia, for example, is not primarily treatable with talk therapy. Talk therapy might help (if the case is not extreme), but it will not treat the cause of the problem - only medication can do this.

For things like depression, I agree that there appears to be a problem with the medication model as generally practiced now. But this, again, the cause is societal in nature, where we are unwilling to put in the resources to prioritise (pay for) talk therapy where it might make real difference. And even in cases where talk therapy is the better long-term solution (and is available), this does not mean that medication should not be an option in the short-to-medium term, as talk therapy is not a quick-fix - it usually takes many months to years for its benefits to be fully realised.

Psychiatry it still a relatively new discipline. It is also a very difficult area of medicine. (And, of course, its reputation is not helped by some terrible past practices.) The brain remains little understood, and there are generally no objective tests for diagnosing and treating conditions. But - leaving aside classification problems - these conditions objectively exist and deserve to be treated as best we can. I would also add that just because we do not properly understand the conditions and how available medications work, this does not mean that they are ineffective and/or should not be used. In all areas of medicine (and treatments) there are unknowns (even with something as everyday as across-the-counter pain medications).

To be very clear, I am not claiming that there are no problems with psychiatric practice. But I would suggest that we all are responsible for this, as it requires large changes in prioritisation and this comes down to government policy (who we elect). So long as we - as a society - choose to not fund talk therapy (so that it is accessible to all), medication will become the primary treatment where it should be second, or where it should instead be used short-term. I would also add that at the individual level, costs are not even the primary problem, as people very often reach for the 'quick and easy' solution of medication. Psychiatrists (and GPs) need to better explain the advantages (where appropriate) of talk therapy, and potential disadvantages of medication to their patients. But if talk therapy is cost-prohibitive, I don't know what the solution is to this.

I will also add that I find it problematic that so many psychiatrists make little to no use of talk therapy (even for patients who can afford it). Many prescribe medication and this is the limit of what they offer. This needs to change (and requires funding). And on a similar note, we need to get away from GPs prescribing psychoactive medications. It is a specialised and difficult area of medicine, and beyond offering a sympathetic ear (limited to 10 minutes or so), the GP cannot offer talk therapy.

It is not 'slander'. It is real. But I agree that there is lot which could be done through societal changes. However, the reality is those kinds of changes are unlikely to come in the foreseeable future. And, there are other changes society can make which would help people to not feel as stressed and distressed in the first place - things around how we share wealth and make people feel secure and included. Some societies are much better at this than others. But societal changes are very difficult to to make happen. They are slow, and incremental. And sometimes, they go backwards. Largely, what you wish for is wishful thinking.

And all of the above applies to all areas of medicine. Do you propose that we cease all medicine? (Rhetorical question.) I assume not. You are looking at the problem from a black and perspective - this is unhelpful, because it means there can be no meaningful discussion.

I cannot and will not argue with experiences at the individual level. Of course we all know that things go wrong in medicine, and there are certainly obvious improvements which should be made in how psychiatry is generally practiced.

And I will add that you will generally only hear from those negatively affected. It is human nature to shout about failures and injustices. But for the most part, we not hear from those who experience successful outcomes.

I am not disputing any of your personal experiences. I am talking in generalities, whereas you, about specific cases (and you, in particular). Of course you will react strongly against something which has caused you great personal distress - this is very understandable and normal. But as you will see from this thread and other posts at BB, your experiences are not shared by all (far from it). And this at a community where members have been disproportionately negatively affected by a psychoactive medication (benzodiazepines).

PS Apologies - I note that you have subsequently deleted your post, but I had already mostly finished my response, and many members will have already read your comments, so I chose to finish my reply. Again, I hope you understand that my views are general in nature - I dispute nothing from your personal experiences. This is about BB protecting members who make (effective) use of psychiatric services.

Thanks for the response, Colin. It gave me some new insights. 

[[Su...]]

10 hours ago, [[C...] said:

"Lack of interviews" - I don't quite follow. I assume there is a missing word there.

 

I can see why you can’t understand this, I apologize for the confusion, yes, you are correct,  I wrote this sleep deprived and  I should have deleted “lack of” and it would read more coherently.  I want to add that my sleep deprivation is not this not from benzo recovery, I was fortunate that insomnia was one of the first symptoms to drop.  I helped out my son with airport transport in the middle of the night which is something I could not do when I was unwell from benzo tolerance and recovery.  My sons have forgotten those years but I have not so I try to make up for lost time by always being present for them when they ask for my support, guidance or help.  I will link to send you links to interviews that I found problematic.  

[[Su...]]

13 hours ago, [[L...] said:

lol. 

This is all you have?  I call this a deflection and a sign that I’ve won the debate because all you’ve got is a childish emoji.  Please see Colin’s thorough response to your “lol.”