Sunday, April 18, 2021

Comments by Bananas

Showing 58 of 58 comments.

  • I accessed the Minnesota Revised Statutes related to civil commitment. These listed conditions for commitment. These listed the requirement for “being a danger to self or others”. Being autistic or even mentally ill is not enough. However, we all know that this need not be proven. Only the desire of an RN or mental health worker is needed. One attorney said to me:” These are a tightly-knit group. They will support each other” meaning they will lie for one another. Does this rise to the level of conspiracy to deprive civil liberties. This means civil liberty and not civil rights. It is a constitutional issue. The Fourth Amendment underscores the right to our own bodies. Judges railroad these incarcerations when asked by some worker, and they do not consider evidence or defense.
    What can anyone do to prevent further harm by “treatment”?
    A 15 year old US supreme court decision made it clear: An person accused of mental illness will be released into the care of a relative or friend willing to do the care- taking. (https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/422/563.html)
    I’ve noticed that some people who calmly assert this defense are taken more seriously.
    In addition, a 72 hour Hold may be used without real cause, but incarceration and treatment are legal actions. A summons served is required, and this allows the accused to access representation and mount defense. Of course the accusers may claim “emergency hold” but “emergency ECT” is ridiculous.
    However, if there was no service of process, the decision to incarcerate or force treatment is not lawful. I would look into the process. Was it carried out lawfully? If not, throw the book at them and contact the media. There is an effort to make the public fearful of those so-accused, but the public can be equally fearful of the misuse of commitment. The “Hey it could happen to YOU” might gain support for the unjustly accused.
    If the harm is already done, get a transcript of the proceedings. Chances are that you will find serious irregularities. These, you can use.

    You have the right to call experts to testify to the medical conditions that were mistaken as mental illness. And never sign your rights away. They will try that. Everyone should have a well informed attorney because there is no way to repair physical brain damage after it is done.

  • Well something doesn’t look right. The emphasis is on involuntary treatment for some perceived difference in this man’s beliefs or behavior. Is this an offense punishable by law?
    So I accessed the Minnesota Revised Statutes ( https://www.mncourts.gov/Help-Topics/Civil-Commitments.aspx). Here, there is a list of “conditions” for which a citizen can lose lawful control of his own body. Almost every one of these requires “danger to self or others”. To use this law to deprive civil liberties, this danger must exist. Then what is the legal procedure? Is the person-object in the court’s cross-hairs served? Is his next of kin served? Who proves the offense? Absurdly, usually two medical doctors must testify to their opinions that the person in question is, indeed, a danger.

    Was this procedure followed according to the law? We’d need to see the court transcript to know this. However, absent that transcript, we’d have to use the words of the next of kin. However, it does appear that the law was far from correctly applied.

    The judge controls the forum. Was the judge accustomed to ignoring procedure? Who was served the summmons? If service was omitted, the notion of immediate need to prevent bodily harm might have been used, but correct and formal proceedings still are required soon after the arrest.

    Here is an idea: if no defense was allowed, the decision is not valid, but is it necessary to formally make these additional objections? If there was no service of summons, the case is moot. Of course the aggressors will try it again, but this time the accused will have had time to prepare.

    I remember the Shield from Mindfreedom.com. It isn’t airtight. In addition, by the time that the error is formally presented, the damage may already have occurred. Well at that point a diligent attorney might make the case for vacating the decision and then show assault and possibly intractable brain damage.
    My take-away: Guardians, instruct your charges with the facts so that the patient can present as normal and reasonable. Then find an attorney who can prepare before the damage is done. Prevention is far more effective than correcting flawed legal proceedings.
    A governor of any state should be embarrassed to have allowed this unsubstantiated accusation stand. Opinion is not evidence. Oh for shame!

    I understand that these horrific offenses occur every day. That doesn’t establish them as lawful. Having a medical condition is not equal to being a danger to self or others. Well that part is clearly missing from this case. Danger seems nit to have been proven. Something else remains unproven. That is the connection between a medical condition and correction by forcing voltage through a brain. Then there is the fourth Amendment.

  • Yes! Agreed, that brain damage one was quietly slipped in.
    Close to just slipping in are some unexamined assumptions. Forgetting these really makes the conclusion unsubstantiated.

    A big effort was made to include a lot of data while leaving the big questions unaddressed. In anyone’s book, withdrawal rate is dosage-reduced over time. There a % substitutes for actual dosage. No amount of data can change a faulty study (invalid) structure. If the logical structure is faulty, the conclusion is unwarranted.

    This paper addressed the activity of the drug and not the activity of the drug in the individual. Is half life a characteristic of a drug, or is it a characteristic of the patient’s body processing the drug? The former is too often assumed and without any evidence.

    I’ll guess that this work will be respected and only because it contains a lot of data. The spurious structure of the study will remain unaddressed.

  • ” Gradual tapering appears to be an effective way to reduce relapse following cessation as the neurological changes made by antipsychotics have been shown to persist for years after ending antipsychotic use.” That sounds so reasonable, but what IS “gradual tapering” to the reader? These peer to peer help sites publish some truly illogical stuff. Yes, I admit that medicine is no better able to safely taper anything.
    No here is one example of a Kaiser Permanente doc’s plan: (paraphrased) Take the full dose on day one, wait for two days, then the full dose and wait for three days….. No matter how long this “taper” is enforced, the dosage obviously remains the same. This activity will never allow the nervous system to reset or correct itself!

    How much better are most peer to peer help sites?

    Both medicine and help sites can make the same error. They believe that something is true because someone who “should know” says so. This is ad hominem and not ad hoc. Plenty of experts are clueless-even the famous ones.

  • Yes! An advanced degree does not signal advanced thinking. It took me many years to realize that someone who contributed a major advancement in one field might be subnormal in all other areas of endeavor.
    How could that be? One answer is the lack of what educators call “critical thinking”. How does that differ from just thinking ? Thinking must be taught?
    Well maybe it does just a bit.
    Requiring study of symbolic logic could prevent the mass-mind disasters that seem to be increasing in both number and absurdity. Passing a logic exam was required for an advanced philosophy degree when I last checked. Why isn’t it required in every field?

  • Will Medicare pay for benzo prescriptions? I don’t think so. Okay they’re not out-of-sight expensive as antipsychotics.
    You have the right to know the possible consequences and take the risk.

    As I shook and violently quaked in front of him, my doctor said: “The only problem that you could have is difficulty in sleeping for three days.” This is not simple lack of informed consent; it is a lie.

  • Sometimes anxiety is assumed to be hereditary only because it may occur in several members of the same family. That’s a weak assumption. Haven’t we seen attitudes enforced in families. “We’re an XYZ sort of family” indicates that a characteristic is enforced.

    I remember way back when. In class we saw family members “catching schizophrenia ” from one member. Learned behavior is the fashionable cause today. Could anxiety be learned? Yep!

    Another question: Where are these studies that we hear about? An opinion is not a study. Review of hospital records is more hearsay than study. Where are the elements of a study either double blind or clinical trial? Dr. X made a study 30 years ago? Where is it? We see its shadow as in mentioning it, but where is the evidence that it ever existed? This is too common today especially when speaking of psychiatric drug problems.
    Show us the actual studies if they exist.

  • Three years ago, I contacted Roche, an office in the USA. I spoke to one of their pharmacists about Diazepam. She was unaware of any adverse outcomes in using Benzodiazepines. She had no discontinuation advice.

    A European Roche office had institutions for coming off of their Klonopin ( clonazepam). This was” reduce the dosage by 0.25mgs every three days”. When asked about the success of this plan, he said that they do not follow up or record results. ( Do NOT do this!) I am in contact with people who did!

    What led me to contact Roche was the claim, at BenzoBuddies, that Brand name Valium was no longer manufactured. I contacted the manufacturer, directly, The claim was false.

    My take away: always vet a statement with primary-sourced information. Both Medical providers as well as benzo-sites make incorrect statements. A non-primary source is a report about a report and a primary source is the original scientific work. Benzo-sites too often publish hearsay, non-primary-sourced material.
    The most important question: “And why should I believe that?” “Because someone important said it” is not an answer. We require substantiation and not reputation.
    Thanks for reading this, I feel better now.

  • How many people recover via use of Taper strips? Where do we find the data? From examining the reality of predetermined decrements, I expect that no one has recovered from psychoactive drug dependence through use of ANY taper strip. These strips are about as useful as pill-splitting. They lock the patient into an assumed rate. Humans are so biologically different from one another that those “standard” sized reductions are not relevant. Where is the science? What are the results? Who came up with this idea anyway?
    Does anyone know who the manufacturer is?

  • About “high level of education”: what we usually are talking about is many years studying a single subject. Overarching and broad education are easily missing from the resume’ of the PhD. So maybe we shouldn’t say that Peterson should have known better. Did his education include formal logic or the hard sciences? His degrees do not require either of these; do they?

  • I agree with you, LUH17. You Tube responders rarely comprehend the obvious difference between addiction and iatrogenic-caused physical dependence. The error is common, but by this time, three is no excuse for that ignorance. It plays right into the game of pop-docs on TV and sensationalist writing in the media. I, too, have stopped correcting people.

    As for hostility toward Peterson, well he is a hostile person who erred “big time”. Most responses will be seen as hostile in that context. Maybe it would help to differentiate between responses to Peterson as a person and Peterson’s clear ignorance of the subject of Benzo-Withdrawal Illness. He attributed some of his physiological reactions to “food sensitivities” and without offering evidence. The thinking is without scientific process.

    The last time I read anything about Peterson or his daughter, he was still taking an anti-seizure medication. Those of us who have gone through the Benzo-ringer, complete with medical mythology, remember that this class of drugs functions to mask Benzo-withdrawal syndrome. These drugs do not reverse benzo-dependence. Use of these drugs has masked many out of reason Benzo tapers. When the taper is “completed”, then the anti-seizure meds are also tapered. Symptoms of benzo withdrawal emerge quickly. The conclusion usually is a new dependence or Anti-seizure drug withdrawal. I strongly suspect that Peterson, too, will conflate the uncovering of a drug-masked Benzo- Syndrome as a withdrawal from the anti-seizure medication.

    We could be sympathetic to Peterson’s suffering while concurrently acknowledging his Benzo ignorance and lack of scientific thinking. Yes, many of us know how badly the Benzo-Victim suffers. We are sorry for his suffering. We don’t have to agree that he responded intelligently.

  • It does appear that Peterson, at each treatment failure, sought a cure through taking another drug. He is a psychologist, though. I don’t expect him to have had professional judgement concerning drugs or their discontinuation.

    On another point, someone mentioned a video about a man trying to help his wife through her Benz o-withdrawal. This might refer to the case of Cheryl Knight whose crucible-like journey is was interspersed through the Gary Null documentary, Death by Medicine. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mB7KjbpzVQ) The work is about 13 years old.

    The documentary has been called too political, and it may be outdated. However, the parts of the video taping Cheryl’s ordeal are real. I personally have witnessed her continued damage and loss of life.

    Over the time that I was present, she never did “continue to recover” as the documentary claimed. Cheryl is brain damaged by improper withdrawal instruction. She was denied the chance to discontinue the benzo when her doctor insisted that he was an expert. He was not. He “tapered” 10.0mgs Valium per month in large decrements, a feat that we know to be impossible. She was then forced into a facility because her withdrawal was taken as “Mental Illness”. Notice that her symptoms were physical and not mental.

    This is why the case is one of miscarriage of justice as well as medical malpractice. At 13 years post incident, legal remedy for medical malpractice is barred. Medicine remains unable to mitigate the damage. Benzo-use, as prescribed, may be dangerous, but improper withdrawal is far worse.

  • The often stated claim that a 10% reduction, in any psychoactive medication is established, is false. This has been repeated enough to be believed. I have searched for any valid scientific study that establishes this belief. Yes, both medical people as well as some possibly well-intentioned peer to peer website personalities do repeat the claim. So what? We require valid studies, and these are lacking.

    The fact that medicine is misinformed does not imply that a well-known website owner is knowledgeable.
    Be wary especially of spreadsheets based on any percents .

  • You wrote, “Sure, children got sad, became irritable, upset, and anxious, but these were thought of as generally understandably reactions to what was happening in their life.”. Thank you for that statement. It encapsulates the issue so well and completely.

    Not every child lives in nice, standard circumstances. When the circumstances should be treated, the child may be treated instead. Reassignment of the causation seems common.

  • NAMI literature somewhat proudly says that it is infiltrating schools churches, and every social institution. The message is that every human problem is a problem of the sick brain, and the only remedy is “adjusting medication”. This sits very well with many parents of unruly children.
    My only contact with them was incidental. A supposedly church sponsored discussion of the human problems in living today was really a NAMI pitch fraught with scientific errors. It ended with NAMI,and attendees and clergy sharing addresses of “community” help services. The tone was frightening. Family members were given a way to eliminate another member not only with impunity but with a way to feel superior to their target. When this target was a child, well the assumed love and devotion was supplanted with real harm and banishment from the home. The NAMI approach is brutal. The child who is rejected under the guise of concern has a lot to overcome in order to become an adult. All of this was promoted by the three clergy-folk in attendance. The infiltration and corruption was complete.

    While I should have mentioned the clear fallacies and dishonesty, I did not. I was truly frightened that I would be a target. I did point out that some of the “government resources” to call were, in fact, corporations that benefited from forced treatment services. The response? Silence.
    Disagree with the NAMI leaders? That is not allowed. Honest discussion is not allowed. Does this identify NAMI as a cult as you said? Yes, it does. You are correct, I am certain.

    This misrepresentation (NAMI) must be exposed. While I have little idea of how to do that, I do suggest alerting any children in your care. They can alert you to infiltration of and improper use of school time by these spurious organizations that misuse public institutions to further their base.

  • Physicians listen to other physicians. There is no evidence that they read at these peer to peer sites. Another reason is the absence of citation together with strident presentation of hearsay.
    It is wholly acceptable to share personal experience and discuss possibilities. It is another to believe not because the issue is scientifically studied but because you like the speaker. The difference is ad hominem versus ad hoc.
    Personal experience with antidepressants does not qualify as experience with any other psychoactive compound.

  • “I would like to say, very humbly, the only reason that I’m an expert is because there’s virtually no competition”
    Oh so well put! The irony: those licensed to guide drug tapers are least capable of guiding tapers. This creates a market opportunity for uneducated and self appointed leaders.

    Now many promoted taper schemes are based on fake science. It isn’t so difficult to look up a word and avoid saying something stupid. Yes, owners of large websites do this.

    Is there an occult need to put someone on a pedestal? Why else would people believe persons and not facts.

  • Well valid complaints of psyche-victims are not getting attention because these are from “mentally ill” people. The diagnosis eliminates people as people. However, with the expansion of psychiatric services to treat non-psychiatric labeled people may change things. Psychiatry is advertised to ordinary people living in extraordinary times. If these people speak up in the right places, the lucrative pseudo profession just might be required to stop its abuses.

    I am working under no illusions. The abusers will not just stop abusing. The status and power and financial reward are not going to be taken from them without a dirty fight. They eliminate criticism by destroying reputations.
    Every state has laws that limit psyche activity. These include sexual exploitation and :making false statements in a client’s record. Yet the body responsible for enforcement is silent.

  • I must agree with you, Oldhead.
    We can work to correct abuse, and we will fail to correct a profession whose basis is no more valid than mythology. Is the basis of psychiatry based on empirical investigation or scientific method? The fact that the psychiatric mythology is treated with drugs does not certify it as science.

    Prescribing drugs for unsubstantiated disease would be malpractice in medical practice. How does psychiatry get away with this?

    Anyway, reforming a practice that is based only on its members’ self-serving stance is not going to happen. Rot cannot be reformed; it must be excised.

  • That is good and specific advice, and the herd always will reinforce the diagnosis. Freedom requires careful and independent thinking and acting.

    I had finally realized that addressing my specific legal problem by drugging me had made me fodder for a spurious system. When physical illness followed medication, medication was discounted as possible cause. When I just suggested discontinuing one drug, I could see the alarm in the prescribers’ expressions. Accessing actual scientific data and avoiding the internet blabber was the first step. Then valuing valid logical thinking was next. The crude prescribing had, indeed, damaged my health, but declaring that to the prescribers would have risked my life as a free and thinking person. I would have been medicated to oblivion.
    Now I must admit that I did not discontinue in the right order in a fully informed manner, and what I read at help sites is still not usually based on science.

    I first abruptly halted Effexor, the maximum dosage “recommended”. I immediately felt better, but I told no one. I was fortunate in this way: my physiology had not yet acclimated to the drug’s effects. I was clearly not physiologically dependent. What I experienced was or were “side effects”. I now know that I simply halted the drug before acquiring dependence. My C/T would not be safe for actually dependent people.
    However, my point is that the decisions of why and how belong to the patient and not to those who benefit from “treating” people. So no help will come from that sector. This is DIY project, and a lot of care must go into the plan.
    I can remember quietly coming off antidepressants and an antipsychotic supposedly for sleep. Then I was ready to leave with no comment. I did. Being forthcoming likely would have detonated retaliation.

    Now suggesting discontinuation as I did these three drugs would be irresponsible. My point is that in my case, leaving without comment was hard because these people were causing severe harm, and I needed to say so. Common sense overcame my anger, and I simply said that I had joined an HMO that would manage my meds. Making waves or breaking a professional’s rice bowl was a clearly dangerous act. I chose not to speak up but to remove myself without rocking any boats. In medicine, turf matters. One doc isn’t going to challenge another’s arena. I counted on that.
    I was fortunate in that C/T, for my case was, quick and successful.

    However, the HMO, itself, caused severe harm via one remaining medication. This is a story, in itself. I mention this because I learned that success in halting antidepressants and one atypical antipsychotic does not mean safety in discontinuing every psycho-active drug. We must access actual scientific sources and plan carefully. And a physician is not a scientific source. Valid studies are sources. Following unsupported talk from a physician is believing in a person instead of tested facts or committing the ad hominem thing as opposed to ad hoc. What allowed your illness anyway? Was it a verified fact or reliance on a person?

    I learned that most of us are capable of deciding the best paths to drug freedom. The physician will look up the drug and say that the drug does not have the effect that you claim. The fact that a problem is not acknowledged is not proof that the problem is not a problem. Just don’t repeat that, okay?

  • Hi Streetphotobeing:
    You are so correct. Responsibility for the eugenics movement is not so obscure today. It’s more than embarrassing to find those roots in early 1900’s America.
    Not going with the crowd always was full of risk. I first heard the phrase, “Go along to get along” from a retired school psychologist.
    While we will admire the lone reformer and whistle blower, it’s a fact that movements or large groups of people are the real means of correction. However, when the group is composed of those accused of being mentally deformed, who will take the message seriously? The assumption is that emotionally suffering people are incapable thinkers.
    When members of the offending profession actually speak with the harmed population, well this is taken more seriously. Still there is obvious risk in speaking the truth. We really owe those who do.

  • Well said, ThyDavid.
    My take-away is that some medical providers are not cruel; they are indifferent. When I read that the acute stage lasts for two weeks and the chronic stage lasts for two months, I irritably ask: “Where does that stuff originate?” It seems that there are medical benzo-laws and that they are published with no citation.

    The chilling outcome is that medicine has failed, and this has led the casualties of that failure to seek help from ignorant but ambitious web-site owners Rather than condemning these people, simply requiring the source of information seems more useful.

    Well “source” means different things to different people. I asked one poster what the source was. This person said, “Facebook”. Oh, I didn’t realize that Facebook conducted double-blind benzo studies. So now I ask for a link to the study.

    Even published studies must be read critically. One paper claimed that when the 11 people in the test group were treated with a drug, all recovered from the benzo-illness and in 12 days. Those of us who know the territory know that this does not happen. So what did happen there?. A look at the “test-sample” revealed that those 11 people in the study were not benzo-patients. They were ordinary people who were put on a benzo for six weeks and then declared to be benzo-dependent patients. Things like this really happen so reading any claim to a study must be evaluated by the reader. This is true, also, when evaluating advice at benzo-help-sites. Too often the real science is corrupted. Taper methods too often suffer from a game of telephone. One person is helped with a valid protocol and shares it. The sharing continues down the line until it is mangled. Then it is harmful. It is as harmful as an uninformed physician’s guessed taper.

    Now please let me add this about the research above: Given the unspeakable torture of most benzo withdrawals, what kind of researcher would do that to an animal?

  • One important thing about the CYP 450 enzymes it the fact that everyone has them. Individuals have differing CYP 450 activity though. The intermediate metabolizes are somewhat slow to clear a drug or other toxin from he body. The extensive metabolizers are quick to clear drugs. This partly accounts for the degree of difficulty in tapering CYP 450 mediated drugs.
    Although we inherit the activity, we can induce and inhibit the action. Foods and drugs can do this. Some antibiotics will induce the cYP 3A4 enzyme causing lower than expected drug levels. This can cause an extreme drug withdrawal state. I’ve been there. I didn’t catch on for three weeks. No it wasn’t Cipro or Levoquin.
    Then there are the inhibitors. Grapefruit juice gets a lot of attention to the exclusion of the inducers.

    My concern is unnecessary drug exposure. It seems that people who become dependent on a Benzo often had had a previous exposure. Might that be true of other drugs?
    Okay back to the subject, I don’t need genetic testing to know my CYP 450 status because my benzo-experience let me know really quickly. One supposedly long half-life benzo was effective for four hours. and the short one lasted for two hours.

    So when we hear that a benzo has a long half life we assume that half-life is a function of the drug and not of the “host”.
    Okay half-life and duration of action are different things, but the question is the same.

  • That’s a really good last point. The term, “side effect” is used incorrectly to indicate different conditions and so it can be quite misleading.
    We see side effects, withdrawal symptoms, and persistent damage to biological systems. Too many medical providers fail to see the differences. This allows the error of calling a withdrawal symptom evidence of a relapse to a mental illness or even an emerging mental illness.
    Why can’t medical providers observe this? I suggest that medical education is training as opposed to education. Training being “see this and respond with that”. Education implies learning to think and to solve problems. We’re getting the result of training.
    The Latin words reveal interesting differences.
    “Craft (1984) noted that there are two different Latin roots of the English word “education.” They are “educare,” which means to train or to mold, and “educere,” meaning to lead out. … The opposing sides often use the same word to denote two very different concepts.”
    Okay, I admit that the difference has no impact on practice, I just feel a bit better knowing that there is a reason for inadequate medical-thinking.
    The cry:”Why Don’t They Know” remains. Maybe they didn’t ask. Maybe they were trained not to ask.

  • That sense of “forced drugging” may be the rule, but truly forced drugging does happen. When a doctor of any sort poses as an expert in ‘Tapering” a psychoactive drug and all goes dangerously badly, that doc may decide to cover his/her tracks by committing that patient to a real mental hospital where the patient is drugged into oblivion. That patient has close to no chance of seeing daylight again.
    Specific case: a woman was placed on benzodiazepines. She became dependent. The consulted doc called for discontinuing by 10.0mg Valium per month. The consequent harm became a crisis. The doc had her committed to a sate hospital where the woman was massively drugged, it seems, to keep her quiet. Today this woman is brain-damaged and incapacitated. She requires total care.
    Withdrawal syndrome from Benzodiazepines to civil commitment to forever crippled, it happens. It happens under the guise of giving her the “help that she needs”.
    She didn’t willingly take that long list of concurrently administered drugs while in custody.
    Law, in practice, assumes that the psychiatrist’s desires overcome patient rights because the psychiatrist, clearly, is a being superior to his mark.

  • Thanks so much for this work. I am writing a section of a report that requires ” the evidence of need”. You just added invaluable points. I will credit your text in citation unless you object. Question: Should I just link to MIA or do you have this in written elsewhere? This is a good and forthcoming piece of writing that cuts a clear but jagged window into The Benzo-Nightmare.

    It is oddly comforting to see this actually written.

  • I urge caution when looking for help from website owners who either never were in benzo-withdrawal or who are clearly lacking basic education. The internet help can be as harmful as the uninformed and egocentric doc-effects that we complain about. Look for real and primary-sourced links to validate what is said. Well sort of……. one such site owner makes strident comments and then adds a link. The link may have no bearing on the issue, but gee it does look good proudly posing there and not at all supporting the attendant statement.

  • Quite right, Sam. Government-paid employees are in charge of medicating “undesirables” in order to eliminate contact with the general population. Is this really a needed service, or is it a billing opportunity?

    Who are these poor undesirables anyway? Are these products of society, the fruit of medicating circumstances and not a real and personal condition? Who would not feel depressed and desperate and suspicious in poverty and persecution? Medicating society: is it the old social engineering but with a more PC name?

  • The belief that counseling cures benzo-dependence remains baffling.

    Ashton claimed that when a “cut” was too ambitious , just place more time between cuts. Well if the cut is a problem today, will it be just fine later? Oh and the cut and hold method is not intended to reverse benzo-dependence, and “healing begins after the taper is competed”? What is the function of the taper then? Some of these beliefs live on with no validation and no questioning.

    Oh just jump? Look at the people who did. If you are tapering with a number and are doing well, why would you suddenly make one big cut to end it? Yet people did just that.

    Mostly the BenzoMicroTaper has been so corrupted through the years that the current versions ignore basic chemistry. The current and mangled versions place any benzo in water! Clonazepam and Diazepam and more are poorly soluble to insoluble in water. That means that the benzo is in suspension at best and not in solution. You never know how much you are cutting. It’s a return to the invalid water titration thing. These benzos do not mix well with water. The taper becomes a crap-shoot.
    Why don’t people look up these things? Solution. suspension are not identical. Suspensions precipitate! even with suspension agents they precipitate.

    Does it make sense to determine any cut by deciding how many days you will be tapering and then divide your benzo dose by that number of days? Really? Is that not backwards?

    I was one of the first people to recover using the authentic BenzoMicroTaper of 2005. The corrupted versions of today are missing the two essential elements that changed the benzo world. Why does it not “work for everyone?”. Not “everyone” is really using it.
    Now for the 10% commandment, there is no evidence that the correct or acceptable cut will be identified by a percentage of anything. The 10% was suggested only as a ball park limit for any psychoactive medication discontinuation step. It was not a suggested cut limit.
    People, especially heavily damaged people, are harmed by not reading carefully and by accepting hearsay.
    The level of verified benzo information has fallen dramatically in the last few years. It may not be intentional; it may be carelessness; it may stem from limited education.

    The ad hominem argument has replaced the ad hoc, and the result is bad science and more suffering.

  • To top the medical abuse of toddlers and babies, parents who refuse medical practitioners’ decisions to administer these psychoactive drugs to their children have been threatened with the charge of child abuse. I have no idea how prevalent this threat is; I rely on personal messages. However, one case is one case too many.

    This is a new take on: “As the twig is bent, the tree’s inclined”. Do not bend the little twig in my care!

  • I don’t disagree. I should have written “Yes”: “Hey I read it in a book that I found” falls short of reason to believe the content. Then, yes, something did change in the western world. You pointed out that this required 300 years.
    I went off track when I realized that the same “I read it in a book, thing was used to induce the treatment of toddlers As bi-polar. Bieiderman wrote the belief as fact, and readers believed the proposition and prescribed drugs for two year old children. IS this medicated mythology?

    (https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/your-child-does-not-have-bipolar-disorder/201107/child-bipolar-disorder-imperiled-conflict)

  • In spring of 2011, I attended a lecture series covering the authority thing. The speaker claimed that it was the Great Plagues’ effect that so markedly reduced the influence of the Roman Church. It seems that Galileo was born about three hundred years before the Third Wave of Bubonic Plague. This is consistent with what you said of the time that passed before the coast was cleared for rational thought.

    I can be corrected though. However, I never understood how “I read it in a book” was a better basis for belief than scientific method.. There is a lurking resemblance, here, to the works of “key psychiatric opinion leaders” and the question: “WTF, where is the evidence?”

    Must we wait for three hundred more years?

  • The psychiatric industry has its counterpart on Mount Olympus. Each god has a character issue, and each mental thing has a name just as the gods do. These gods have temples devoted to them. There financial sacrifice is made. We may choose from the god of depression, the god of oppositional defiant disorder, the god of psychosis, hey how about the god of suicidal ideation? Each god of a mental illness has a preferred offering. Prozac, Depakote , Seroquel can be bought at the temples and the financial tender goes to the god or really the god’s representative, the mental health worker.
    Okay I said: “financial sacrifice”, but now human sacrifice seems even more fitting. The mind is taken while the vacant body roams the Earth.

  • Agreed!
    I’d emphasize a detail. This is a constitutional liberties or civil liberties issue. “Civil Rights” are essential but not identical to civil liberties. Civil liberties are addressed and assured in our Constitution. Specific rights are derived from rights listed in The Bill of Rights. The fourth and fourteenth amendments protect all citizens. All citizens have the right to their own bodies. Where is the exception for those accused of “suffering from mental illness”?
    There is no exception in the Constitution, but there is in actual practice.
    The accusation of being mentally ill is, in practice, equal to being found guilty without having been found guilty by a jury of peers?

  • Yes, Sam. Telltale phrases like: “The experts say” and “Get the help you need” have no real meaning, and they function as hashtags indicating thoughts that can be medicated for profit. Mind-control for financial gain and perverse pleasure and false imprisonment are accepted as “for your own good”. This replaces personal rights and civil liberties with the self-identified Psyche industry’s will.

    The issue is not mental-health rights, it is Constitutional rights guaranteed every citizen. The belief that tights can be ignored on the basis of “We know what’s good for you” is outrageous yet the idea lives and lives in modern medical practice.
    Physicians have been mining for mental illness for decades.. Now the accusation is equal to conviction. Now where, in history, did the accusation,alone, mean guilt? It’s the ultimate thought crime.

  • Thanks so much for reporting the relationship between pharma and groups like NAMI.
    In 2011, I witnessed this. A local church had discussions between services. The subject matter was applying Christian principles in real life. I visited and witnessed the following.
    The waiting parishioners were seated in a semi circle. Then a line of people filed in and took places behind each chair. The people from the line began hushedly speaking to the backs of the seated people saying;: “Get out while you can, they are here to hurt you….”.
    Then the speakers left and a person said that this is what every psychotic person hears all of the time. According to the speaker, most families have these “hearing voices” people in their midst and NAMI is there to see that these poor people are medicated correctly.
    The clergy enthusiastically agreed that anyone who does not fit in “deserves” medication and that remaining at home is not to be tolerated. The clergy were so very uninformed and enthusiastic about labeling and about ” medication”.
    So I looked up NAMI. They actually said that they were available to write sermons! Their expressed goal was to infiltrate every institution including public schools. This seemed to be a point of pride.
    I witnessed this, and this still scares me these many years later. The attitude of force was overwhelming.

  • Benzobuddies are Ashton Fundamentalists. Since this has failed, BB’s has taken the position that the most used and corrupted method is theirs. They also say that it is “nonsense”. Read if you like, but do not take their advice without vetting the facts. I left there years ago because they stridently promoted false medical and scientific fact.
    Now some people may argue, but this is important. The success listed for “Ashton” are success only in the sense that the patient is no longer taking the drug. Success does not mean that the withdrawal syndrome was reversed. As illustration, the Ashton Manual claims that “recovery does not begin until after the taper.” So recovery claimed is not actual recovery.
    Ashton claimed a 90% success. This is not true if success is the reversal of the benzo illness.

    Well I just discovered this different meaning of success as used on forums. It’s very disappointing.
    Isn’t “success” being well again? If you have tapered correctly, you should be well at taper completion. This is success.
    It was years before I discovered this contradiction.

  • Here’s an idea. I can’t say that it’s correct. We do find cognitive impairment after years of benzo-use. Does this happen with use or after withdrawal? Can we say that the impairment is caused by benzo-use ? Does it ocur after withdrawal or concurrently with withdrawal?
    Might cognitive impairment be caused by the mode of withdrawal? A major HMO discontinues benzos by calling for a 50% reduction weekly. Does this cause or exacerbate mental decline?

  • Yes, John! I’d suggest taking the incomes of those practitioners. How about taxing incompetent prescribing? People have suggested placing these irresponsible docs on an island where they are forced to take benzos and then to C/T benzos. Really these perpetrators might prefer benzo poisoning to loss of income. I am not being facetious.

  • I thank you, elocin. It has been difficult, at the least, to correct the assumption that a drug problem is an addiction problem. You just did it and so eloquently.

    Many drugs must be tapered to avoid harm. We don’t send beta blockers to rehab; the benzo-sick should not be sent to rehab either. The incapacitated benzo victim is further victimized by this careless labeling. You explained well, and I thank you.
    Bananas