Monday, October 25, 2021

Comments by Bananas

Showing 100 of 102 comments. Show all.

  • Yes, Thank you for your efforts and taking the risks of speaking the truth.

    Two things are noticeable here. First, we hear of “tapering” and “tapering slowly” while no definition of these terms is attempted. Taken literally, “slow” may mean taking years to taper while making only a few dosage reductions of huge size during that time.

    Yes, when the right curve is found, the curve is hyperbolic. However this curve cannot be prescribed because each person’s correct hyperbolic curve is different.

    The historic and current tapers actually name an arbitrary cut supposedly suitable for every patient. The fact that a post withdrawal syndrome remains illustrates this point.
    There is no curve here; a straight line, instead, is prescribed

    ” And one should not keep on halving the dose. You need to reduce the dose much less when you come down to low doses, because the binding curve for the pills is not linear, but hyperbolic.” . Well yes, this is true but historically denied. , Kaiser Permanente’s taper for a benzo is a 50% cut weekly for six weeks and then a total cessation of the remaining dosage. The result is not a surprise. I have no information concerning the number of people who survive this barbarous protocol. Then, the Lisa Ling “expose” of the benzo-damage horror actually concluded with an interview of a Kaiser Permanente doctor! He was both condescending and ignorant of the issues. Are the foxes guarding the Hen House or what!

    In addition, the Kaiser discontinuation program is dispensed by nurses. Only one consultation with the “supervising” doctor is allowed each year. The only supervision is a list of psychological questions to be answered in writing at each visit. Actual medical symptoms are not of interest to KP.. During the mandatory “medical checks”, by nurses, absolutely no medical tests or values are done. Not even BP is taken. High diastolic pressure that does not periodically come down, is far from safe. It causes damage to the lower left area of the heart.
    Clearly being a licensed facility does not imply either competence or safety.

    Yes, when the right curve is found, the curve is hyperbolic. However this curve cannot be prescribed as one size because each person’s hyperbolic curve is different from the others’.

    The historic and current tapers, medical or online, actually name an arbitrary cut supposedly suitable for every patient. The fact that a post-withdrawal syndrome remains illustrates this point. I do hope that this will save someone.
    I admire your courage in speaking so openly.

  • We must use caution. Extremely educated and kind people can be wrong.
    Every taper method, medical or peer to peer, is application of some external standard as in “reduce by this number”. “If that causes harm, just do it less often as in putting more time between “cuts”. Does this make sense to anyone? If the order is harmful, it will be harmful again weeks later.
    One of the doctors mentioned, in his book, wrote: find your cut by naming the number of days that you will taper and divide your current dosage by that number”. The body will not adjust to these arbitrary dosages, and haven’t we learned this by actual experience? Naming the number is days is not empirical in any sense. The out of fashion “water-titration” failed partly because it was arbitrary and now one of these doctors just made that same error. Should we follow a doctor’s fame or scientific method?

  • Blood and urine tests will indicate the presence of not yet metabolized drugs and metabolites of these drugs. No test will reveal how long the drug has been used. You didn’t ask, but no medical test can determine whether or not you are in a withdrawal state. If one value is out of range, the test still can’t tell you why this is out of range.

  • The most needed question, for these mind-lords, is:”HOW DO YOU KNOW That ?”. Show us your logic, produce evidence. Those under treatment are told not to be so negative. Who is negative again?

    Our lives tend to follow our expectations. Where we are looking becomes where we are going. This is not endorsing denial. It is taking control of futures. Look for more sick episodes, and we will find them. So look toward wellness even when it is derided as unrealistic. He who bills has a vested interest in making you sick.

    Psychiatric Fortune Tellers: listen. You can look toward “managing illness” and increase billing, or you can drop the fortune-telling and start helping.

  • Framer is the true expert in her own experience, miss-prescribed antidepressants and the resulting suffering.. To claim expertise in treatment for other psychoactive medications is improper. Number of posts indicates the overwhelming lack of effective help in medicine and on the internet. It does not validate a website. Further, mistreatment of well-meaning and more educated posters is not okay.

    I am aware of the anger that this may release, but we need to separate the need to create heroes from the need for tested fact. What is the source? What study listed these conclusions? “I saw it on the net” is not primary sourced information. “It was on a respected website” is not evidence.


  • Oh My; I got it too. The eight hour day’s number of patients potentially can be multiplied by the number of “allied assistants” also prescribing. If the doc can see 20 patients per day, then each assistant, in theory, has that potential as well. Would insurers be able to see this multiplication factor? Are the visits covered by many different insurers so that the outlandish number is undetected?

  • Well said, madmom!
    It appears that having any sort of angst is treated as criminal behavior, and any objection to absconding with constitutional rights amounts to waving the red flag in the face of assumed power.

    How does this happen? Psychiatry warns the public of the “danger” in leaving troubled people alone. Holy COW public safety is at risk? Fear of other people’s thoughts is at the root. Constitutionally guaranteed rights are ignored in the generated fear of anyone not like “us”. So artists and thinking people: BE very careful.

  • Simply put, the abuse of children is supported as parental rights. The parents’ narrative is preferred and the child is “protected” by denying its rights as a living creature. The response to this issue is to transfer parental rights to the state.

    An abused child who is identified is then chattel of the state and the self-interest groups that use courts to enforce their desires.

    It happens: Harmed children are taken from their abusive families only to be abused by government’s child protection workers. It’s abuse for their protection?

    The issue of mom’s harmful behavior during pregnancy ironically enforces the states’ power to eliminate personal freedom. I don’t pretend to have the answers. However, making these issues known or using the court of public opinion may be a beginning.

    While it is truly understandable that you must speak carefully for your protection, your efforts here are laudable. Also, I have been impressed by the success of those grown children who grew up while medicated. Those in foster-care commonly are medicated for no clear reason. When they “age out of the system” medication is no longer free. That “sudden neglect”occasionally has offered possible escape and the opportunity to recover from government-imposed chemical harm. How the developing brain can do this is a mystery and aevidence of personal strength.

    However I can’t deny the government spying and attempts to retain control of the escapee.
    About 15 years ago. I read about an”underground railroad” for those escaping forced drugging. The complications include managing drug withdrawal while hiding in protection. How does this happen under the Fourth Amendment? Some self-serving rat can just take a life because he claims to know what it best? And a court agrees???

  • I’ve seen this too. Before Covid, neighborhood get togethers happened a lot. People talked about their lives. All were either using prescribed psycho active drugs or their family members were. The drug combinations were unbelievable.

    They would talk about side effects when really they were in beginning stages of tolerance withdrawal. The evidence? Many graduated to full withdrawal syndrome in the next 12 months. If we, who have gone through and survived. had known the warning signs of full benzo withdrawal syndrome, what would we have done?

  • I keep current with “new “withdrawal schemes” by subscribing to journals and by using Google Scholar. Two aspects are both surprising and disappointing. Medicine remains off track because it uses unsubstantiated assumptions and not verified facts. Just listening to the harmed patients would reveal the errors.

    One aside comment: Although I do not support supplements as curing benzo dependence, Point of Return has published an urgent caution concerning Kaiser Permanente’s treatment of the benzo-injured. Making a 50% cut (from ANY benzo ) weekly for six weeks while taking an additional drug to manage the expected seizures is unacceptable, Has anyone survived this? I have first hand experience there. I dis-enrolled, survived, and quietly corrected the damage without “help”.

    Methods seem to cycle, If one has been abandoned for ten years, it often is reintroduced as “new”. Citing established science usually is met with hate, and this is not what we expected from our fellow-sufferers. The internet is a place where anyone can pose as an expert; now that is usual. False assumptions rule and many site owners perpetuate this. You Tube certainly does.

    I’ve watched this for 16 years. It’s demoralizing.

    Verified discontinuation methods are absent from both medicine and internet groups.

    Online help groups have the best intentions but still suggest methods based on hearsay. We see the results every day. Desperate people cry for real help, and it is not found. Really horrible stories like a recent one are now the rule. This happens because in the retelling, big errors occur. One poor guy was mixing Lorazepam in water, and asking why that wasn’t “working”.

    As for these methods, a lot is added in the translation. The real facts , then are lost and imitation takes over. So we are seeing fallacious methods, that were long abandoned for good reason , resurfacing. These are constantly promoted via You Tube videos. Reading these is cringe-worthy. It isn’t possible to provide substantive correction at these sites or at medical offices. It isn’t allowed. Saving our fellows is not allowed.

  • Yes, I did say: “It can lawfully hide its deeds.”, I should have written,”Use of HIPPA” allows misdeeds to remain unknown”. That was my mistake.

    Yes, most abuse is against law. However, acts against those laws will not see the light of day when these remain hidden from the view of the victim. Use of HIPPA, denying the right to view the medical record, hides the crime.

    I can actually recite the parts of my state code that would clearly be a basis for prosecution. Yet, I know that specific mental health workers did violate the law. The psychiatrist can make deals with the government to prevent criminal prosecution. Oddly enough, my state government mailed me a copy of one such arrangement with the offender’s name in plain sight. I wasn’t even the victim of that unlawful activity.
    Bottom line: There are several means of hiding prohibited activity of mental health professionals. One is HIPPA (in the USA) . However, you are quite correct; many countries do have laws against the workers’ bad acts.

  • All true. All true, but we live with on the fly interpretations of law. You are darned right about the contradiction! There is no point in sequestering information that the subject already knows, but there is a nefarious point in hiding unlawful activity of the record-maker.. HIPPA enables this.There is a point in hiding the fact that one worker who wants revenge and caused other workers to go along to get along and create fresh records to support the charges. HIPPA enables this, too by hiding the records under the guise of protecting the patient. They are hiding criminal activity “for the patient’s own good”. Who decides this? It is a setup protecting the malicious activity of unethical workers.
    So, I suggest recording the telephone threats where that is lawful. There is no other way to prove the malicious activity. I’ve heard: “It’s the patient’s word against theirs, and they have credibility”. Well, that credibility ends with hard copy evidence and recordings. Recording must be made according to law. We must do this by the book.

    Where is punishment for the wrong doer? A bad doc can contact a new doc, unlawfully and slander the patient. The slander is used by the new doc to harm the patient as a favor to the former doc? HIPPA is used to forbids access to the truth, and here is another problem:HiIPPA has no teeth; it names no punishment for a violation, or it didn’t when I checked.

    . So the mental health industry violates law continuously and faces no consequence. It can lawfully hide its deeds.
    Of course there are more details to this subject. I deleted some specific incidents. I’ve been talking too much lately.

  • “There are probably a few great minds that really want to speak up, but they can’t. “Yes, Sam!
    I first heard the phrase, ” Go along to get along” from a retired school psychologist. Is a well-intentioned psychologist able to survive with ethics intact while serving this system?

    Yes, obtain records for protection. Even non-psyche docs will accuse patients and record it. I saw a chiropractor claiming suicidal,idealization when the patient said that an injury couldn’t be ignored because living the rest of life would be disaster with the injury. Pediatricians ask children about their parents’ behavior! We need to proactively plan protection. Record everything by lawful means. If a conversation can be lawfully recorded, do it. Save records. Save old prescription bottles. Pharmacies will print out prescription records for you for past years. Records from phone carriers are more accessible today. These can prove stuff.
    Now I live in the USA. We have these HIPPA restrictions. “Psychological” records are not accessible to the patient. So how do we prove what the bad guys recorded?

    The psyche records are available to any physician whom you name. Just sign a form, and these records are sent. Once your records are in those friendly hands, these can be provided to you. Hey, I did it. I found, in the individuals’ handwriting, clear violations of law. I used it.

    Today I maintain the records , both old tapes and hard copy, as insurance. And these folks know that I have an aggressive attorney. I want that reputation.
    These are just somethings that I use to protect myself from medical mischief. It would be really good to hear other ideas.
    Oh, and my personal policy is never to speak, for any reason, to any of these people. When it is one person’s claim vs another, the Mental Industry will be the default. So we must avoid contact. When the aggressor knows that we have representation ready to go, the bad guys are not likely to fool with us.
    Yes, these people will lie. They will go along to get along, but when they commit prohibited activities and lie in writing, they can be placed firmly on the hook.
    My policy; Walk softly, don’t attract attention, and maintain evidence in several places. Be prepared; then relax and get some sleep.

  • I am a USA citizen. Recently I needed to explore living wills for both a friend and myself. An Attorney put my friend’s wishes into correct format, and I am the person designated to carry out those wishes. We are not related. We even live in different states.

    Naming a trustworthy person to make “medical” decisions in case of any incapacitation might be challenged, but that challenge might be too much work for the bad guys.
    In any case, it appears that, at least in this country, we are not required to name a family member. We can choose any adult.

  • Your concerns are truly terrifying. Are there governments and then hidden-governments? Is there any movement to correct this abuse and restore human rights?

    It seems that,world-wide, the issues are medical and then a legal system that enforces the medical-profiteers’ desires. A complication of concern in the USA are statutes of liability. A harmed person is unable to file any actio0n while harmed. Time runs out. There are provisions for tolling the statute, but representation may be out of reach when the case had this factor.
    I’m not a movement-leader, but I’m well enough help someone who is. When people escape the medication prison, few are willing to work against it. The subject matter triggers hard-to-endure reactions.
    Who is safe from abuse as things stand? Is this situation comparable to “The Crucible”, a play about accusation? It does seem that in The Crucible of 1650 or the legal systems of 2021, the accusation equals guilt.

  • This link may shed more light on that subject. I must read it again, but at cursory glance , it is just possible that Sertraline is inhibiting some of the same enzymes that are responsible for metabolizing the Sertraline. If so, the amount of that drug will certainly accumulate. Left unchecked, the built up drug level would be deadly.
    ( Take a look and be sure. If this really is the case, your doctor should be reported to your state government agency . If you report facts and not solely your judgement, the agency will take steps to protect the public.
    The concept of polymorphism deals with the different CYP 450 enzyme styles that we inherit. The different clearance rates ( ex. intermediate and extensive etc. explain a lot about inter-dose withdrawal and why we have different reactions to the same drug,

    I am guessing that all of us firmly believe you. It’s just puzzling to see how we can use medical facts to correct the damage while the prescribing doc cannot. Still I wouldn’t bark at the doc. Walk softly and do what you need to stay out of harm’s way. You’ll get emotional support from us because most of us have been in similar spaces. It’s just not possible to comprehend the harm without having been there.

    Medical docs really do learn about the CYP450’s. They just don’t connect it to the drugs that they prescribe. There’s a big and empty space there. Our job is not to educate the doc; it’s to save ourselves.

  • Well my doc was out of his mind then. He told me that :”There is a new drug for sleep that is very mild;it just makes you a little sleepy”. It was Seroquel. I just dug up the old prescription bottle. I keep these as evidence should it ever be needed. He prescribed 600.0mg immediately with no attempt at titration.

    Blood glucose testing every three months was the standard. Never did he order a single blood test at anytime.

    Here is the other odd part: Seroquel, not even 600.0mg, put me to sleep. Many psychoactive meds have no observable effect in me. This tells me that medication effects are not so much a function of the drug, itself, but mostly a function of the way that the individual metabolizes said drug.

    I read the literature. Horrified, I immediately stopped the use of Seroquel. I had no problems with this. However, this does not mean that the drug is benign. It doesn’t mean that many bodies don’t experience severe side effects and then severe withdrawal reactions. It means, at the least, that one human can have a very different drug processing type from others.

    Have these docs heard of additive effects before they engage in polypharmacy? Is not prescribing two drugs, in the same category, outside the standard of care?

    Still, it is outrageous that humans can fool with other humans’ minds and their lives.
    I was fortunate. Not everyone has my experience. Diabetes is a well known possible outcome. (see Zyprexa Papers new Your Times). Oh I was so lucky where Seroquel is concerned, and I am so sorry that this ugly thing happened to you.

  • It’s true that Magnesium Citrate is sold as a laxative as well as a supplement. The difference in effect stems from dosage. Dividing the day’s dose into two or three equal doses to be taken over the day does seem to eliminate the intestinal aggravation. I use quite a lot of MG for chronic charlie horses, but dividing doses works for me.

    Just a bit of input about not tapering vs C/T: A C/T allows protracted withdrawal, and from online reports, that condition is persistent. A taper using standard cuts may still be difficult but better than just jumping off. Jumping from the frying pan to the fire comes to mind.
    Posting personal information here seems inappropriate, but if you live in one of two states, I just might have an MD’S name for you. The “low doses” usually are more difficult to taper. Low dose would be in Diazepam. equivalent. Standard changes to cutting seem to require a change that few docs will manage. I worked with one doc, two and a half years ago who was agreeable to the change. I’m hoping getting another doc to supervise custom tapers.
    You might post here a few states and include your state in there. I understand that this site’s mission is not to taper psychoactive meds so I an trying not to do that, but sharing sources may be okay.

  • SA may be able to keep the peace when others cannot .That’s good. Using SA is a personal choice, but I have been distressed by their censorship, lack of very basic science, and misuse of other people’s work (without citing author and source).

    Still, the alternatives to SA have their own downsides.

  • #66? YES!
    Adding an antidepressant is seen as a treatment that can aid withdrawal but not its symptoms? This is a mystery. Is not modulating symptoms the same thing as aiding withdrawal?

    Although it really is possible to become dependent upon an antidepressant prescribed for easing benzo-withdrawal symptoms, what is the evidence that this is true? We’ve seen examples of people tapering benzos aided by antidepressants, atypicals, and anti-seizure meds. At the conclusion of the benzo taper, symptoms continue and these symptoms are attributed to dependence on the auxiliary drug. But is this correct? Is it not more likely that the continuing symptoms are actually those of an incomplete or faulty benzo withdrawal that is now exposed when the auxiliary drug is no longer used?

    In addition to all of this, added medications may interfere with the benzo-recovery.
    One example of medicine’s failure to account for this effect: Kaiser Permanente’s (KP) benzo withdrawal consists of making a 50% cut every week for six weeks. Then the taper is cut off. Starting dosage (in milligrams) is irrelevant to this method. Relative potency also is ignored. This “big step” method is recognized, by KP, to cause seizures. So KP prescribes Tegretol to prevent the seizure that KP causes. Now Tegretol also alters the clearance of most benzos. It is said to interact. Result: the benzo taper is skewed and so the rate of taper is no more than a guess. These KP patients may taper with masked symptoms and so do not recognize that their tapers are unsafe.
    Drug interactions are a major impediment to a gradual taper, and medicine does not even mention this.

    We hear little from the subjects of this type of taper. I fear that few have survived it.
    The statements in these medical papers are offered without any evidence at all. Medicine insists that a benzo-taper must be done under medical supervision. REALLY?

    Your points are right on the mark, JanCarol.

  • Looking up Glutamic acid decarboxylase (GAD) may help. There are many isoforms. For GABA production, we’re interested in GAD-2. GAD acts on glutamate to produce GABA. I was looking at that last night. Then you posted!
    Oh yes, Benfotiamine is worth a look too. When the consensus says that exogenous GABA does nor pass the blood brain barrier, the emphasis is on making our own, onsite.

  • The issue with these peer to peer sites is that their advice reveals lack of very basic science, chemistry and biology. Emotional support can be kind and helpful, but when a site publishes ignorance of the chemical and biological basics well, the advice is no better than that of the doc who never was trained to de-prescribe.

    I had decided to leave benzo-patients to discover, themselves, how uneducated the usual benzo-help really is. I didn’t want to be involved in those online arguments. Is this silence unethical?

    Unrelated to that: medical articles speak of anxiety as if it were the only benzo withdrawal symptom. The physical torture of an incorrect benzo withdrawal is too extreme to describe. This extreme pain is not acknowledged by the literature. I know that you speak the truth.

  • Yes, the medical response to being outed as incorrect, too often, is a warrant to be incarcerated without bond and drugged without any consideration of Patient safety.

    Make one of them angry, and risk your civil liberties. I say civil rights because these are constitutionally yours. Civil rights refers to the rights in question during the early sixties.

    Incarceration for crime requires evidence and legal procedure. Incarceration for disagreeing with a mental health professional requires opinion and damn the legal procedure.

    What happens to people so accused, imprisoned, and drugged? They may become drug-dependent and labeled, Addict.
    Now I wonder: Why is the person, accused of mental illness, not Mirandized? How about: ” You have the right to remain silent; but if you do, you will be declared catatonic or oppositional”.

  • ” There is no explanation for how doctors can frame these experiences as ‘relapses.” Agreed! My withdrawal syndrome was 100% physiological with not a hint of emotional disturbance. Suddenly my withdrawal is evidence of a mental illness with no mental symptom at all?

    We also read that withdrawal from benzos (but possibly from antidepressants) is always the “mirror image” of the symptoms for which the drug was prescribed. No, and the syndrome can be far from the originally diagnosed problem.

    We really are chasing a moving providers’ excuse target. New excuses appear as the old ones are exposed.

    It is popular to say that most people in a problematic field are honest and well-intentioned. Well today I must doubt that. The evidence is anecdotal, but. it is a tidal wave of anecdotes.

  • Yes, that is unusually well-written. So many people will see themselves in your account. That really does aid in healing the emotional harm.

    Quote:”Many doctors claim that the current prescribing and de-prescribing protocols are successful for most service users. Let’s not skew reality. Are the current trends within psychotropic prescribing conducive to positive outcomes? My definitive answer would be a no.”

    I would add that the current benzo help sites too often commit that same offence. They claim success while publishing continued suffering as success. Off the drug, yes. Recovered?

    I suggest that the word, success, is often used and never defined. It was puzzling to see the 90% “success” rate claimed for the old pill-splitting routine. How could that be true when so many people write about their continued suffering? It occurs to me, now, that the author of that method defined success as having discontinued the drug, remaining off the drug. No mention was made of the continued suffering from having used a method. The author renamed the failure, Protracted “Withdrawal Syndrome”, does giving it a name explain its occurrence? Failure is not failure of the patient. It is failure of a withdrawal method.

    Shouldn’t success mean having fully recovered from the withdrawal syndrome rather than just enduring an ineffective taper’s end point? “Success in what?” is the question.

  • I was surprised that hearsay from a fellow student or anyone was taken as fact. I should not have been.
    Is there a culture of malfeasance in Psychotherapy?

    I do know that crime or any bad acts are customarily backed up by colleagues once colleague-status is attained. Until that point, you are fair game.

    You are disappointed, but do you really want to work within that kind of system? Could your laudable goals have survived that system? Hey, how about law? Your commitment to good shouldn’t be wasted.

  • Quote “Researchers have published the first scientific paper looking at how patients can safely come off antipsychotic medication while minimizing the risk of withdrawal effects.”
    No it does not.

    Quote: “The paper, described as a ‘historic breakthrough’, suggests that extremely slow tapering with small reductions over months or even years could make it less likely for patients to relapse”

    Actually it describes nothing at all. It characterizes in place of describing.

    I hope that this “historic paper” is deleted before it causes more disappointment to unsuspecting antipsychotic-dependent people. What is “relapse”?. What is “slow”?” What is “small”? Well what is a “break through”?

    It’s shameful to offer a specific breakthrough and publish fuzzy claims in its place.

  • 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. (
    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 ( 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 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. ( 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?


  • 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?