Benzodiazapine withdrawl
Compucat
can someone tell me roughly how long a period taking benzo (and the dose)
would cause noticeable withdrawal, and what the withdrawal symptoms would
be?
I know it would differ with each individual and the med itself, but I am
curious as to what you may have found. I have been prescribed 30 caps of
Restoril 15 mg. to help with sleep. I am not finding them useful at all. I
started taking one cap about an hour before bed. I did this for about 3
nights. I then started trying 2 a night. Still nothing. I have kind of given
up on them working. If my pdoc suggests a larger dose, or a different benzo,
I'd like to get an idea from you as to how long you might have to be on
benzos before withdrawal becomes a problem.
thanks in advance,
Compucat
Dr. Squiggles
You might try going to the following site - I am not familiar with
Restoril.
Squiggles
Ian
though
Iain
http://lexington-on-line.com/naf_xanax.html
"Compucat" <com_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7yG38.70658$O3.14...@news1.telusplanet.net...
Compucat
Compucat
"Compucat" <com_...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7yG38.70658$O3.14...@news1.telusplanet.net...
mo...@news.com
>
> Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo withdrawal
> is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
Yeah, I suppose depersonalization, depression, heart palpitations, night
sweats, panic attacks, fatigue, agitation, and the litany of other
symptoms are "no big deal".
http://www.benzo.org.uk/sympt3.htm
Someone's going to revoke your Usenet license with all of these guffaws.
--
Cause its always jews that start all the shit. They always are for all
the civil rights shit...but behind the scenes they wanna make money off
the niggers.
- Posted By Eric <deeps...@aol.com> in a.s.d.med - a.k.a Lostboy
mo...@news.com
>
> Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo withdrawal
> is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
>
Eric has recently offered incorrect information about medications, so
please take everything with a grain of salt and by all means, consult a
competent Dr. for medical advice. Usenet advice, when performed by the
wrong person, can be dangerous.
Dr. Squiggles
>
> Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo withdrawal
> is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
>
> Eric
>
>
> Steroids caused my depression...prednisone should be used conservatively
Now I know you're a fraud Eric.
Squiggles
Dr. Squiggles
Yeah Mojo,
Why do I always trust shitheads? Maybe I do need a shrink
after all - maybe my daddy turned me into Wussette.
Squiggles
mo...@news.com
>
>
> >
> > I Plead Insanity wrote:
> > >
> > > Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo withdrawal
> > > is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
>
>
> Why do I always trust shitheads? Maybe I do need a shrink
> after all - maybe my daddy turned me into Wussette.
>
> Squiggles
It could have been a dig at you, knowing your situation, or scarier yet,
he actually believes this, once again, faulty medical advice. Either way
your adjective describing him fits. And I've hardly seen you act like a
"wussette", whether we agree on everything or not.
--
Too many jews, blacks and others of non white, non Christian origin in
this country. Its just my opinion they dont belong here, this country
was set up for mostly Anglo and WASP people like myself.
Dr. Squiggles
I think he killfiled me long ago.
I'd love to see pictures of people here, wouldn't you?
Squiggles
mo...@news.com
> I think he killfiled me long ago.
>
> I'd love to see pictures of people here, wouldn't you?
>
> Squiggles
I have mental pictures of most in my head, though it would be nice to
"see" people. I think a.s.anxiety-panic has a group page, don't think
that would fly here.
Larry Hoover
"I Plead Insanity" <deeps...@aol.comInsane> wrote in message
news:20020123234132...@mb-ck.aol.com...
> Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo
withdrawal
> is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
>
>
> Fuck all anti-psychiatry assholes...LostBoyinNC
>
> Steroids caused my depression...prednisone should be used conservatively
Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Sometimes you should just STFU.
There are few withrawal syndromes that can be more dangerous. Benzo
withdrawal can be fatal, if it is not managed properly. Unfortunately, there
are some subjects for which Medline lists most articles as having no
abstract available. This happens to be one of those, although there are
hundreds of papers listed.
J Clin Psychopharmacol 1996 Aug;16(4):315-9
Catatonia after benzodiazepine withdrawal.
Rosebush PI, Mazurek MF.
Department of Psychiatry, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada.
The use of benzodiazepine medication is associated with a variety of acute
and well-recognized withdrawal syndromes including anxiety, agitation,
insomnia, and confusion. Catatonia has not previously been described. We
report five patients who became catatonic after withdrawal of
benzodiazepines. All five were older individuals (53-88 years) who had
acutely become immobile, mute, and rigid with refusal or inability to eat or
drink. Each of the five showed pronounced and rapid improvement after
administration of low-dose lorazepam, which has previously been reported to
be effective in the treatment of catatonia. Careful review of the records
showed that each of the patients had been taking benzodiazepine medication
for anywhere from 6 months to 15 years and that it had been rapidly tapered
or abruptly discontinued 2 to 7 days before the onset of catatonia. These
cases illustrate that severe and potentially life-threatening catatonia can
develop in the wake of benzodiazepine withdrawal. Older individuals may be
particularly vulnerable to this side effect.
****See that!!!?? Life threatening!*****
N Z Med J 1980 Aug 13;92(665):94-6
Benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromes.
Khan A, Joyce P, Jones AV.
We report eight cases of benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromes seen in a
general psychiatric hospital. These consisted of acute organic brain
syndrome, grand mal convulsions and abstinence syndromes. All of the cases
were using benzodiazepines in prescribed therapeutic doses. These problems
appear to be more common than are generally acknowledged.
Ann Fr Anesth Reanim 1987;6(6):525-7
[Repeated convulsions after abrupt benzodiazepine withdrawal]
[Article in French]
Chapillon M, Fosse A, Grison P, Nicaise C, Delhumeau A.
Departement d'Anesthesie-Reanimation, CHR, Angers.
Benzodiazepines are widely used and well-known for their safety; serious
complications may, nevertheless, occur in the particular case of an abrupt
withdrawal, which is quite common after general anaesthesia. The case
reported emphasizes the seriousness of the syndrome : after vascular surgery
the patient presented with repeated epileptic seizures and a short lasting
cardiac arrest. The patient used to absorb large quantities of
benzodiazepines, without medical prescription. The convulsions stopped after
the benzodiazepine had been taken again. The exact mechanism of the
withdrawal syndrome remains hypothetical. There are numerous risk factors
which increase the probability and seriousness of the withdrawal symptoms.
The prevention of withdrawal accidents depends on the physician, and
especially the anesthetist, knowing the patient's drug intake. This shows
yet again the importance of the preanaesthetic visit.
****Cardiac arrest!!!!****
Dr. Squiggles
Larry I really appreciate this post - I felt I had a stroke
or seizure, by my doc. not seeing me said it was withdrawal -
well that is true. I am going up again now on K and boy am i
getting a headache, but no panic atttacks. Unlike X , K w/d
got worse after a year = incredible huh?
There is something I do not understand and that is the
attitude of the people at ASAP - these groups are posted
on IntelliHealth - and I think saying that benzos are not
so bad or addictive, is if not criminal at least dangerous.
Why do say that - why do they hate me so much when I go
there to warn of the withdrawal severity and the particular
difference of Rivotril.
just wondering.
Squiggles
Larry Hoover
"Dr. Squiggles" <squi...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:3C502785...@sympatico.ca...
> Larry Hoover wrote:
> Larry I really appreciate this post -
You're welcome.
> I felt I had a stroke
> or seizure, by my doc. not seeing me said it was withdrawal -
> well that is true.
It sounded like organic brain syndrome to me, which is one variant of acute
benzo withdrawal.
> I am going up again now on K and boy am i
> getting a headache, but no panic atttacks. Unlike X , K w/d
> got worse after a year = incredible huh?
>
> There is something I do not understand and that is the
> attitude of the people at ASAP - these groups are posted
> on IntelliHealth - and I think saying that benzos are not
> so bad or addictive, is if not criminal at least dangerous.
>
> Why do say that - why do they hate me so much when I go
> there to warn of the withdrawal severity and the particular
> difference of Rivotril.
Fear?
> just wondering.
>
> Squiggles
I can't speak for other people. Acute benzo withdrawal is not only one of
the most dangerous withrawal syndromes, it's one of the most lengthy. Some
authorities argue that the acute phase can last three weeks, and the delayed
phase up to 1 1/2 years. Moreover, their are gentic influences on this, as
well. About two years ago, a receptor variant was identified that
predisposed subjects to a more treatment-resistant form of GAD. Because
these subjects were treatment-resistant, they tended to get higher dosages
of benzos. The unfortunate side of that story is that these same individuals
were more likely, because of this genetic quirk, to experience the more
severe withrawal symptoms. These individuals require hospitalization for
withrawal, and constant medical support during the first few days.
The only thing you can really do is do a prolonged taper, with the period of
the taper determined by the symptoms you experience.
Lar
Dr. Squiggles
> It sounded like organic brain syndrome to me, which is one variant of acute
> benzo withdrawal.
>
does that go away - i think i still have it - tongue, mucous
membrane stuff, bitterness, saltiness, seizuroids, stroke type
stuff iwth migraine.... I had to double the dose.
> >
> > Why do say that - why do they hate me so much when I go
> > there to warn of the withdrawal severity and the particular
> > difference of Rivotril.
>
> Fear?
maybe - i actually thought they may be drug company reps who
do not dare say something against the drugs;
> I can't speak for other people. Acute benzo withdrawal is not only one of
> the most dangerous withrawal syndromes, it's one of the most lengthy. Some
> authorities argue that the acute phase can last three weeks, and the delayed
> phase up to 1 1/2 years. Moreover, their are gentic influences on this, as
> well. About two years ago, a receptor variant was identified that
> predisposed subjects to a more treatment-resistant form of GAD.
I was at the Benzo group with Ray and I helped him and David Woolfe;
I was the author of the chunk-0-Meter which is a really slow
taper variable - i took a year or more - did not work with Rivotril -
i never really recovered - i had diarreha for a year; when I reinstated
some of the decrements, it eased - this I thought was essential
as dehydration is very bad for lithium takers. There were other
things that improved as well - when I suggested that people not
be driven to the brink of seizure or stroke as I was, there was
a fight over reinstatement of dose. That is why I am no longer there.
Also, the element of Scientology interests being ideological and
not taking into consideration the posssible fatality of w/d.
Because
> these subjects were treatment-resistant, they tended to get higher dosages
> of benzos. The unfortunate side of that story is that these same individuals
> were more likely, because of this genetic quirk, to experience the more
> severe withrawal symptoms. These individuals require hospitalization for
> withrawal, and constant medical support during the first few days.
>
> The only thing you can really do is do a prolonged taper, with the period of
> the taper determined by the symptoms you experience.
My doctor is taking up not down. I doubt very much that they
wish to treat this condition as seriously as I do, though they
seem to know what they are doing. IMHO - YOU SHOULD NEVER GET OFF
RIVOTRIL - you might die.
Squiggles
Dr. Squiggles
These individuals require hospitalization for
> withrawal, and constant medical support during the first few days.
>
I asked to be hospitalized - there is a centre at McGill that
does benzos - I called them - that was a year and a half ago.
A friend at Benzoland told me it was not so great because they
really rush you and in three months you;re out wondering around
like a zombie; and my doctors did not seeem to think it was
a good ideas either. So it was the group and I. I am tired
of this existence - I really do feel like a junkie, and I never
know when i will be sick or have a seizure - it in itself is
very anxiety provoking. If they could be me on heroin, I think
I would happier.
Squiggles
Diablo
>I Plead Insanity wrote:
>>
>> Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo >>withdrawal
is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
>>
>> Eric
>
>Eric has recently offered incorrect information about medications, so
>please take everything with a grain of salt and by all means, consult a
>competent Dr. for medical advice. Usenet advice, when performed by the
>wrong person, can be dangerous.
It is doctors who prescribe addictive benzos in the first place. Usenet
is a wonderful place to get firsthand info on other people's experiences.
Eric implies that he went through benzo withdrawal but no information
about which benzo or dosage. I went through a benzo binge after I
discovered I could legally import them from Mexico. I went through
$500 worth of Xanax before quitting. They are definitely addictive.
Although I didn't suffer physical withdrawal symptoms, I did spend
some time thinking about how great it would be to buy some more.
Diablo
mojo wrote in message <3C4FBC46...@noheaders.com>...
>Cause its always jews that start all the shit. They always are for all
>the civil rights shit...but behind the scenes they wanna make money off
>the niggers.
>- Posted By Eric <deeps...@aol.com> in a.s.d.med - a.k.a Lostboy
I did a google search on the first sentence and came up with 0 results.
Perhaps you could repost the entire message including the headers in
which Eric says this. Even if he did it is just his opinion. While
I'm not a Jewish conspiracy theorist, I do dislike blacks myself. So
if Eric flames them I have to support him.
Mojo
>
> mojo wrote in message <3C4FBC46...@noheaders.com>...
> >Cause its always jews that start all the shit. They always are for all
> >the civil rights shit...but behind the scenes they wanna make money off
> >the niggers.
> >- Posted By Eric <deeps...@aol.com> in a.s.d.med - a.k.a Lostboy
>
> I did a google search on the first sentence and came up with 0 results.
Learn how to search. You get one freebie.
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01c4e534.b455d0dd%40usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com&output=gplain
> Perhaps you could repost the entire message including the headers in
> which Eric says this. Even if he did it is just his opinion. While
> I'm not a Jewish conspiracy theorist, I do dislike blacks myself. So
> if Eric flames them I have to support him.
More than one racist in the lot!
--
Too many jews, blacks and others of non white, non Christian origin in
this country. Its just my opinion they dont belong here, this country
was set up for mostly Anglo and WASP people like myself.
Mojo
>
> mojo wrote in message <3C4FBD4E...@noheaders.com>...
> >I Plead Insanity wrote:
> >>
> >> Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo >>withdrawal
> is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
> >>
> >> Eric
> >
> >Eric has recently offered incorrect information about medications, so
> >please take everything with a grain of salt and by all means, consult a
> >competent Dr. for medical advice. Usenet advice, when performed by the
> >wrong person, can be dangerous.
>
> It is doctors who prescribe addictive benzos in the first place. Usenet
> is a wonderful place to get firsthand info on other people's experiences.
It truly is, and it's a bad place to get medical *advice*. Big diff.
--
Too many jews, blacks and others of non white, non Christian origin in
this country. Its just my opinion they dont belong here, this country
was set up for mostly Anglo and WASP people like myself.
Mojo
>
> Diablo wrote:
> > I did a google search on the first sentence and came up with 0 results.
>
> Learn how to search. You get one freebie.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=01c4e534.b455d0dd%40usw-ex0101-006.remarq.com&output=gplain
> More than one racist in the lot!
As usual, my first instinct was correct. Hanging out in groups such as
news:alt.fan.adolf-hitler , news:alt.flame.niggers and
news:alt.fan.charles-manson , must make you a huge fan of Eric's, an
Eric wannabe perhaps. I apologize for telling you to learn how to
search, I realize smoking crack, being an admitted crack smoker, can
cause permanent cognitive damage.
So it's time to *plonk*, no need to give you an excuse to blabber like
an Eric wanna be outside your small collection of "friends" in your hate
groups. I do give you credit, at least you try to contain your hate to
an appropriate hate group. Eric thinks a depression NG is the place.
Happy Hating!
P.S. You might want to give Eric a real address if you haven't, it
peeves him off to see this happen in his group!
--
Mexicans are OK, they work hard, I dont have a problem with them at all.
But most of the jews, blacks and others could get on a bananna boat and
ship their asses back to wherever the fuck they came from.
Larry Hoover
<et...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:hqaf5u8n6e96fddi7...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:10:00 -0600, "Diablo" <nos...@nospam.org>
> wrote:
> There is no way that anyone can become truly addicted to benzos,
> though some people may become psychologically addicted.
It seems you wish to play semantic games to trivialize a serious problem.
OK, let's play semantics.
Psychological addiction is a physiological response, as it activates the
dopaminergic reward pathways. Addiction to substances other than
dopaminergic agonists is also well-documented in the literature. Addiction
is addiction, except for closed-minded people who want to make a point that
would otherwise be invalid right from the point of its conception. All that
follows is an argument based on petitio principii, "begging the question".
If, and only if, you accept the given definition is it even possible to
arrive at the conclusion argued here.
> But then there
> are some who become so psychologically addicted to aspirin that they
> will endure repeated surgery, even the likelihood of death to continue
> taking it.
Irrelevant to the present discussion.
> About 20-25% of kidney transplants damaged their kidneys by aspirin
> abuse. Aspirin is now also the main cause of stomach and upper bowel
> ulceration requiring surgery. Regrettably, many patients are so
> psychologically addicted to aspirin that they require repeated surgery
> to repair the holes that aspirin has burnt into the organs.
> Consequently, many gastric surgeons are now refusing to treat patients
> unless they can show they can remain "clean for some time.
Trivializing people with life-threatening drug addiction is a game for you?
> ****** NOTE: If you are taking aspirin for medical reasons, don't stop
> using it because of the above. Aspirin is not addictive, and when used
> at moderate doses in relatively safe. It only becomes a problem when
> abused. ********
But for your last statement, the same can be said for benzos.
> And you can even become dependent on psychotherapy, though its
> therapists reject that term and prefer to call it "Idealized Positive
> Tranference"!!!
You can even become dependent on demeaning others, though its critics reject
that term and prefer to call it "Little Dick Syndrome".
> Below is why benzos not only can't cause physical addiction, but are
> being increasingly used in detox centres to moderate withdrawal from
> alcohol, nicotine and the opiates.
Combining these two distinct and separate thoughts by using a compound
sentence structure is purposefully deceptive. Proposition A has nothing
whatsoever to do with proposition B, that benzos are a useful treatment.
> They actually counter the dopamine stimulating effects of these drugs.
Patently false. The withdrawal (abstinence syndrome) for these listed
substances does not involve a dopamine stimulation. Quite the opposite.
> Poly drug users probably take benzos not because benzos heighten the
> buzz they get from their rec drug, as has been claimed, but are using
> benzos to moderate the dopamine stimulatory effects of their main
> drug, cocaine, heroin, etc.
Now which is it.....they concurrently use benzos during abstinence, or
during the high?
> That is they are probably (unconsciously)
> self medicating to ease the unpleasant side effects of the buzz.
> BTW-something you and the other anti benzo agitators seem unaware of
> is that foods contain benzodiazepine and benzo like chemicals,
> including diazepam (Valium) and lorazepam (Ativan). Sprouted seeds are
> a particularly rich source.
Now that's rich. I've searched medline, and used powerful search engines,
and found nothing on the subject. Please do share your wealth of knowledge
with us. Fully referenced, of course.
> While the amounts are small they are not insignificant. Indeed they
> often present a problem for patients with some types of liver disease.
> Plasma levels can become so high that medical intervention is
> required.
Plasma levels of *what specific chemical* become so high that *what specific
intervention* is required? Liver disease is always a serious health problem,
but I've not heard of dietary restrictions like "avoid sprouted seeds".
> Ian
It has a name.
> The claim: Benzodiazepines are addictive
>
> The fact: While some people use addicted and dependent
> interchangeably, they are not the same thing.
>
> An addictive substance is characterized as one that hyper activates
> dopamine pathways in the brain's Limbic system and particularly it's
> "pleasure/reward" center, the Nucleus accumbens.[1]
Oh, so you found a definition you like. However, it is too restrictive for
the use of the rest of us.
> To quote Dr Roy Baker, a board member of the American Society of
> Addiction Medicine [2]:
>
> :: All drugs with the potential to cause addictions share certain common
> :: neurobiological characteristics: they activate the mesolimbic system,
> :: principally the nucleus accumbens, causing increased dopaminergic
> :: activity in that area of the brain.
But, not necessarily by direct dopaminergic agonism.
> This results in an increase in hedonic
> :: tone.
> and
> :: "It is important not to confuse physical dependence as evidenced by
> :: benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromes with addiction or drug dependence
> :: (DSM-IV). "
Do you recognize the distinction being made here?
> Benzodiazepine not only don't excite the N accumbens but have been
> shown to inhibit cocaine's affect on dopamine receptors in the N
> accumbens. [3] There is much evidence that benzos do reduce the
> withdrawal effects of most recreational drugs. Consequently,
> benzodiazepines are being increasingly used to mediate drug withdrawal
> in detox centers. [4]
Needless distraction.
> Another common test used to determine whether a drug is addictive is
> to apply the "3 C" test to its users. The term was coined by Dr David
> Smith of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and San Francisco Medical
> Center and is widely used by addiction specialists. To meet the
> addiction criterion, the patient must exhibit all three of the
> following:
>
> 1: Control: when the addicted person starts using their drug they
> episodically lose control over their ingestion.
You've never heard of that happening?
> This is something that rarely happens to benzodiazepine users. To
> quote Prof Heather Ashton, a leading anti benzo campaigner (and on the
> available evidence, the world's only pill phobic psycho
> pharmacologist):
> :: "Given the number of people who are prescribed benzodiazepines,
> :: relatively few patients increase their dosage...."
> http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/benz02.htm
>
> The American Psychiatrists Association made the same point in their
> "Benzodiazepine Dependence, Toxicity, and Abuse: A Task Force
> Report" To quote:
> :: "There are no data to suggest that long-term therapeutic use of
> :: benzodiazepines by patients commonly leads to dose escalation or to
> :: recreational abuse"
A rather self-serving statement, supported only by the absence of evidence.
It is axiomatic that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
> This is re-enforced by the recommendations in their current Panic
> Disorder III. Treatment Principles And Alternatives web page:
> :: "However, benzodiazepines may still be underused because of an
> :: inappropriate fear of addiction. The studies of long-term alprazolam
> :: treatment for panic disorder show that the doses patients use at 32
> :: weeks of treatment are similar to those used at 8 weeks, indicating
> :: that, as a group, patients with panic disorder do not escalate
> :: alprazolam doses or display tolerance to alprazolam's therapeutic
> :: effects, at least in the first 8 months of treatment. However,
> :: studies of dose escalation following longer periods of
> :: benzodiazepine use are generally lacking."
> http://www.psych.org/clin_res/pg_panic_3.cfm
You are describing tolerance, not addiction. Apples and oranges, with quite
different implications.
> If tolerance doesn't develop within 8 months, then its unlikely to in
> 1 year, or 10, 20 or 30. The probable reason for this is that most
> with anxiety disorders (and also common types of epilepsy) have an
> impaired benzodiazepine/GABA receptor system. [5] For these patients
> benzodiazepines only return to the benzo/GABA system to something
> approaching normal function.
Relevance?
> 2: Compulsion: getting and using the drug takes on more and more
> importance or salience in the person's life, crowding out
> relationships and activities that were once important to them
>
> This is far from typical behavior in those taking benzodiazepines. It
> may occur in poly-drug abusers. However, then the behaviors is
> generally due to the recreational drug, not the benzodiazepine.
Evidence?
> 3: Consequences: they continue using the drug despite the drug causing
> problems at home, problems in relationships, medical problems,
> legal problems, emotional and psychiatric problems and finally
> vocational problems.
>
> Again, this is not typical behaviors in those taking benzodiazepines
> in therapeutic doses. It may occur at very high doses, but epileptics
> are prescribed benzos in large doses (typically 10-20mg+ Klonopin or
> equivalent), much higher than are used to treat anxiety disorders, and
> there is no evidence that epileptics develop these behaviors. OTOH, it
> can become a typical behavior in aspirin abusers.
It matters not that some users have no problems, as you define them,
sufficient to fall within your definitions, if other users do. The existence
of one group does not preclude the other.
> >
> >
> Therefore, on all the criteria used to define addiction,
> benzodiazepines are not addictive drugs.
As you define addiction.
> However, they can and very often do cause dependency. Dependence is
> produced by the presence of a drug causing changes in body systems
> that then need to time to return to their pre drug state if the drug
> is withdrawn. A drug doesn't have to be active in the brain for
> dependency to develop - many cannot pass the blood-brain-barrier, but
> they must for true addiction to develop.
Semantics again.
> Benzodiazepines do over time produce a small bio-feedback reduction in
> both benzodiazepine receptors and expression of the neurotransmitter
> GABA.
Drop the prejudicial use of the word "small", and your statement has more
validity.
> If the benzodiazepine is discontinued abruptly, this reduction in
> receptors and neurotransmitter can cause a rebound reaction with
> symptoms similar to anxiety and panic. In most cases with a slow
> taper, withdrawal symptoms can be minimized to a comfortable level.
>
> Moreover, not all withdrawal symptoms may be due to these
> physiological changes. Some, perhaps most, can be produced by
> psychology, that is the mind. It is well known that benzo withdrawal
> effects can often be induced simply by making patients believe their
> benzodiazepine dose has been reduced, even though no reduction
> actually occurs. This has been shown in a number of studies. [6]
>
> There is also evidence [7] that withdrawal is more intense in some
> patient groups, notably those who have neurotic personalities,
> females, former/current alcoholics, the less educated, and those with
> dependant personalities. It also appears that the worse the original
> anxiety disorder, the more severe the benzo withdrawal.
Character assassination. Ad hominem.
> Probably the best indication that many of the withdrawal problems
> experienced by those who were taking benzodiazepines for anxiety
> disorders are mostly psychological rather than chemical is the fact
> that the other main benzo using patient cohort, epileptics, seem to
> have much fewer problems.
By a similar argument, then, it can be argued that opiate addiction cannot
exist, because those in severe chronic pain can use opiates without
escalating dose and without developing addiction.
I grow weary of this.
Bottom line is that your unstated objective is to trivialize and ridicule
people who hold different opinions or have had different experiences than
your own. "Little dick syndrome", indeed.
Go away. People have real problems with benzo abstinence. Period. Support,
or fuck off.
Larry Hoover
<et...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:8raf5u8u19vdeqbqi...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 10:36:13 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
> >It sounded like organic brain syndrome to me, which is one variant of
acute
> >benzo withdrawal.
> >
> syndrome" and provide a mechanism for how they could do this.
Easily found. Go to the Merck site, and look up OBS.
> What a pity that more people don't!!!!! And that Squiggles isn't up
> to date with the latest change in group ideology!!!!
You've nailed it pal. Ideology. Go preach to your choir.
Squiggles
>
> >
> >"Dr. Squiggles" <squi...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> >news:3C502785...@sympatico.ca...
> >> Larry Hoover wrote:
> >> Larry I really appreciate this post -
> >
> >You're welcome.
> >
> >> I felt I had a stroke
> >> or seizure, by my doc. not seeing me said it was withdrawal -
> >> well that is true.
> >
> >It sounded like organic brain syndrome to me, which is one variant of acute
> >benzo withdrawal.
> >
> syndrome" and provide a mechanism for how they could do this.
>
> >> getting a headache, but no panic atttacks. Unlike X , K w/d
> >> got worse after a year = incredible huh?
> >>
> >> There is something I do not understand and that is the
> >> attitude of the people at ASAP - these groups are posted
> >> on IntelliHealth - and I think saying that benzos are not
> >> so bad or addictive, is if not criminal at least dangerous.
> >>
> benzo group Irene constantly promotes seem to have had a conversion
> even greater than Saul's on the Damascus road and no longer claim that
> benzos are addictive. To quote one of her bosom buddies (and a fellow
> Canadian):
> >
> (from: Subject: [benzo] Be Calmed; Date: Sun, 6 Jan 2002 00:31:02
> -0800
> >"My advice is this: If you are dependent on benzos then you don't need
> >NA. but if you are addicted to them then you do need NA.
>
> >I have yet to find anyone who was addicted to benzos. As Dr. Ray
> >Baker said..."they are not addicts". Dr. Baker was one of the board
> >members for CSAM ( Canadian branch of ASAM) and knows the
> >difference."
>
> What a pity that more people don't!!!!! And that Squiggles isn't up
> to date with the latest change in group ideology!!!!
>
> >> there to warn of the withdrawal severity and the particular
> >> difference of Rivotril.
> >
> >Fear?
> >
> sprout? No. Unlike her, and I suspect you, we actually do know
> something about the subject.
>
> She is treated with contempt because that is what she has consistently
> shown those at ASAP.
>
> >> just wondering.
> >>
> >> Squiggles
> >
> >I can't speak for other people. Acute benzo withdrawal is not only one of
> >the most dangerous withrawal syndromes, it's one of the most lengthy. Some
> >authorities argue that the acute phase can last three weeks, and the delayed
> >phase up to 1 1/2 years.
>
>
> Or why it seems to almost exclusively be a problem of those with mood
> disorders, and not of other benzo treated patient cohorts like
> epileptics?
>
> Or why this doesn't happen with drugs like heroin and cocaine?
>
> >Moreover, their are gentic influences on this, as
> >well. About two years ago, a receptor variant was identified that
> >predisposed subjects to a more treatment-resistant form of GAD. Because
> >these subjects were treatment-resistant, they tended to get higher dosages
> >of benzos. The unfortunate side of that story is that these same individuals
> >were more likely, because of this genetic quirk, to experience the more
> >severe withrawal symptoms. These individuals require hospitalization for
> >withrawal, and constant medical support during the first few days.
> >
>
> The fact is that epileptics are prescribed benzos at far higher doses
> than those typically required to calm even the worst anxiety cases,
> yet benzo withdrawal is almost a non issue with them.
>
> While there are many papers in the medical literature regarding
> adverse withdrawal effects among anxiety and depression patients,
> there is almost nothing on epileptics. As far as I've been able to
> determine after reading thousands of papers, there has been not one
> reported case of prolonged withdrawal syndrome in an epileptic. Even
> the claimed "world's only benzo detox clinic" seems not to have had
> one epileptic patient in the 15 years it operated. Yet it was active
> in the very years when millions of epileptics were swapped to the then
> newer non benzo anti seizure meds.
>
> Nor does withdrawal seem to be much of an issue in another patient
> group that receive benzos in huge doses, those that are keep heavily
> sedated in ICUs for extended periods - burns patients, those kept
> medically comatose, etc.
>
> >The only thing you can really do is do a prolonged taper, with the period of
> >the taper determined by the symptoms you experience.
> >
> demonstrated that there is a strong psychological component in the
> severity of withdrawal effects. Believe you will suffer the torture of
> the damned and you almost certainly will. Which is of course what
> Squiggles and her fellow ideologues want you to do! Then they can
> justify their miserable existences by gleefully telling you how right
> they were.
>
> And of course forget trying to be benzo "clean." That is impossible
> for all but possibly hunger strikers and then only just before they
> die, if at all.
>
> >Lar
> >
>
> Ian
LISTEN YOU LITTLE PHARMACY CLERK! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU
CALL IT, YOU CAN CALL IT "DISCONTINUATION SYNDROME", YOU CAN
CALL IT "ADDICTION", YOU CAN CALL IT "ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY
DISORDER" - WHATEVER THE HELL YOU CALL IT - THE DOSE IS RAISED
AFTER TOLERANCE IS REACHED - IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WORD TOLERANCE,
THE DOSE IS RAISED AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME.
I DON'T RAISE THE DOSE - THE DOCTORS DO. AS I SAID,
READ THE MERCK MANUAL - THAT HYSTERICAL PIECE OF CANONICAL ANTI-MED
PROPAGANDA - SEE CHAPTER OF BENZODIAZEPINES.
SQUIGGLES
Mojo
> LISTEN YOU LITTLE PHARMACY CLERK! I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU
> CALL IT, YOU CAN CALL IT "DISCONTINUATION SYNDROME", YOU CAN
> CALL IT "ADDICTION", YOU CAN CALL IT "ADDICTIVE PERSONALITY
> DISORDER" - WHATEVER THE HELL YOU CALL IT - THE DOSE IS RAISED
> AFTER TOLERANCE IS REACHED - IF YOU DON'T LIKE THE WORD TOLERANCE,
> THE DOSE IS RAISED AFTER A PERIOD OF TIME.
>
> I DON'T RAISE THE DOSE - THE DOCTORS DO. AS I SAID,
> READ THE MERCK MANUAL - THAT HYSTERICAL PIECE OF CANONICAL ANTI-MED
> PROPAGANDA - SEE CHAPTER OF BENZODIAZEPINES.
>
> SQUIGGLES
Ok squiggles, I need some clarification.. How do you REALLY feel? :)
--
************************************************************
Eric welcomes yet another female newcomer:
Are you dense stupid bitch? Can you understand why I
dont like people like you? Duh...get lost dummy girl.
Squiggles
Why do you ask that question Mojo - it's true I am sick.
And I have problems getting people to believe that when
I take my lithium I get toxic symptoms, and that the raised
dose of K is giving me headaches.
How do I REALLY feel - I feel that benzos have not been
monitored by the medical profession for their addicting
effect. I feel that there are probably other drugs such
as SSRIs which are problematic. I suppose that is what
I think. What I feel is that I am caught betweeen a rock
and a hard place.
How do you feel?
Squiggles
Mojo
>
> Mojo wrote:
> > Ok squiggles, I need some clarification.. How do you REALLY feel? :)
> > --
> > ************************************************************
> > Eric welcomes yet another female newcomer:
> > Are you dense stupid bitch? Can you understand why I
> > dont like people like you? Duh...get lost dummy girl.
> > - Posted By Eric <deeps...@aol.com> in a.s.d.med - a.k.a Lostboy
>
> Why do you ask that question Mojo - it's true I am sick.
> And I have problems getting people to believe that when
> I take my lithium I get toxic symptoms, and that the raised
> dose of K is giving me headaches.
>
> How do I REALLY feel - I feel that benzos have not been
> monitored by the medical profession for their addicting
> effect. I feel that there are probably other drugs such
> as SSRIs which are problematic. I suppose that is what
> I think. What I feel is that I am caught betweeen a rock
> and a hard place.
>
> How do you feel?
>
> Squiggles
Just being facetious squig, I think everyone knows how you feel after
that post, on that issue anyway. I started Lithium to augment my AD, it
has made a world of difference. So I feel fine.
Klonopin gives me headaches period. Am on a huge dose for petit-mal
seizures. Don't feel it, only when it's taken away do I notice.
Cheers!
MnOver
> LostBOYinNC wrote:
> >
> > Here is my advice about benzo withdrawal. Dont worry about it. Benzo withdrawal
> > is overrated. Its not that big of a deal.
>
> Yeah, I suppose depersonalization, depression, heart palpitations, night
> sweats, panic attacks, fatigue, agitation, and the litany of other
> symptoms are "no big deal".
> http://www.benzo.org.uk/sympt3.htm
> Someone's going to revoke your Usenet license with all of these guffaws.
Yeah, and death by convulsions. It's basically non-existant!
Larry Hoover
<et...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:ndvh5uoisnpcclh1v...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:25:40 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> >Easily found. Go to the Merck site, and look up OBS.
> >
> cause it.
It's correlated.
> But then being a know all on all these matters, you will know that OBS
> has been dropped from DSM 4, and is no longer considered a separate
> syndrome.
OBS is a catch-all for "something's going on, but we don't know what".
Something's going on.
As you say:
> :: "Organic brain disorder" is not a bona fide diagnosis. It is a very
vague
> :: and general term, akin to saying that your car has "engine trouble."
> There is no evidence in the medical literature that benzos can damage
> the brain, not even in overdose. Until you can show they do, then your
> claims are just so much hot air.
I'm not claiming anything. I was trying to help someone understand that
their troubling personal experience is not unique. I was offering
intellectual comfort.
> OTOH, lithium can, but I don't suppose you told Irene about that.
Yes, I did.
> Much
> better to scare her on the benzo front because it better panders to
> her med prejudices.
> >> What a pity that more people don't!!!!! And that Squiggles isn't up
> >> to date with the latest change in group ideology!!!!
> >
> >You've nailed it pal. Ideology. Go preach to your choir.
> >
> Yes, it is about ideology for you isn't it Larry. Fortunately, even
> the most rabid of the anti benzo agitators accept that there is a
> difference between addiction and dependence. Its a pity you can't
> grasp it. But then uncontrolled mental disorders do affect thinking
> ability, don't they?
>
> Ian
I thoroughly grasp the distinction. What I have been trying to address is
that semantic criteria do nothing to change the reality of the individuals'
difficulties during withdrawal from benzodiazepines. It sucks. And it can be
fatal, no matter what you call it or what category your nosology assigns it.
I'm not anti-med. I'm anti-trivialization of another's experience, something
your latter comment seems to suggest you thrive upon.
Larry Hoover
<et...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:jcvh5uki1qb07lji0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:23:33 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> ><et...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
> >news:hqaf5u8n6e96fddi7...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:10:00 -0600, "Diablo" <nos...@nospam.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> There is no way that anyone can become truly addicted to benzos,
> >> though some people may become psychologically addicted.
> >
> >It seems you wish to play semantic games to trivialize a serious problem.
> >OK, let's play semantics.
You're trivializing peoples' real experience with word games.
> >Psychological addiction is a physiological response, as it activates the
> >dopaminergic reward pathways.
>
> Okay, so everything that people develop a psychological addiction to,
> and that can be just about anything is addictive. So we should make
> everything illegal, huh? LOL
That's quite a non sequitur you've created. Who would ever suggest that?
Drop the hyperbole.
I am of the belief that virtually anything can be addictive, and I am not
alone in that belief. And quite contrary to assertions you make elsewhere in
this piece, not every individual becomes addicted to the short list of
addictive substances you personally accept. What accounts for that
discrepancy?
> >Addiction to substances other than
> >dopaminergic agonists is also well-documented in the literature.
Addiction
> >is addiction, except for closed-minded people who want to make a point
that
> >would otherwise be invalid right from the point of its conception. All
that
> >follows is an argument based on petitio principii, "begging the
question".
> >If, and only if, you accept the given definition is it even possible to
> >arrive at the conclusion argued here.
> >
>
> Some people develop a psychological addiction to Big Macs, so on your
> basis, Big Macs are addictive substances and McDonalds are drug
> pushers. So why aren't you campaigning to have hamburgers banned and
> all of McDonald's staff jailed?
Again, hyperbole in place of reason. Food addiction is not a construct of my
creation. Your use of the construct is simple proof of that. A
physiological/psychological loop develops which becomes self-reinforcing.
> To be addictive in the medical sense requires more than just
> psychological addiction.
Again, if and only if one accepts your restrictive definition. If we can't
agree that this is a critical factor in the discussion, then further
discussion becomes moot. Your definition permits only one form of activation
of the reward pathway to be considered.
> If it doesn't, as you claim,. then everything
> is addictive. Hamburgers, football, sex, pornography, etc, etc, etc
>
> >> But then there
> >> are some who become so psychologically addicted to aspirin that they
> >> will endure repeated surgery, even the likelihood of death to continue
> >> taking it.
> >
> >Irrelevant to the present discussion.
> >
> Why? Because you deem it so? When we you elected to decide?
???
> Fact: People will consume aspirin even in the face of death. Yet,
> aspirin isn't addictive by any reasonable definition. Or are you
> claiming that it is? If so, provide references.
Your own words "...there are some who become so psychologically addicted to
aspirin...". Your inconsistency is quite confusing. Again, though, it would
seem we come down to semantics. You don't accept psychological addiction as
a form of addiction, and I do. Or do I have your belief wrong? I'm not sure.
> >> About 20-25% of kidney transplants damaged their kidneys by aspirin
> >> abuse. Aspirin is now also the main cause of stomach and upper bowel
> >> ulceration requiring surgery. Regrettably, many patients are so
> >> psychologically addicted to aspirin that they require repeated surgery
> >> to repair the holes that aspirin has burnt into the organs.
> >> Consequently, many gastric surgeons are now refusing to treat patients
> >> unless they can show they can remain "clean for some time.
> >
> >Trivializing people with life-threatening drug addiction is a game for
you?
> >
> Oh, the famous Larry smear, huh? It came in a bit earlier than I'd
> expected, but I'm not surprised. It is a favourite tactic of those who
> lack the intellectual rigour to sustain an argument, IME.
You trivialize these individuals' life-threatening disorder by not
acknowledging that this is not a conscious attribute of their cognition. It
is the physiological response to their behaviour that is trapping them. You
are engaging in stigmatization.
Ian, forgive me for "taking an attitude" with you, but I find your former
and present conduct to be quite distressing. Whatever you might think of
Irene, chasing after her as you have, following her to what she perceived to
have been something of an emotional sanctuary, is quite upsetting to me. I
can be the source of pointed commentary, but that commentary should be
viewed in context. You did not come here with an expository demeanour. You
came here to brow-beat someone who is not well.
> But I guess you've just answered by earlier question. You do believe
> that aspirin is addictive. Which tells us a lot about where your
> coming from, doesn't it Larry? So why aren't you campaigning to have
> it made at least a controlled drug if not banned completely? After all
> there are alternatives!
I am glad you are beginning to grasp where I am coming from.
> >> ****** NOTE: If you are taking aspirin for medical reasons, don't stop
> >> using it because of the above. Aspirin is not addictive, and when used
> >> at moderate doses in relatively safe. It only becomes a problem when
> >> abused. ********
> >
> >
> >But for your last statement, the same can be said for benzos.
> >
> True. Benzos aren't addictive, are relatively safe and only become a
> problem when abused, which the darling of the anti benzo crowd, Dr
> Heather Ashton unequivocally states is something that patients
> prescribed benzos rarely do. Thank you for adding your weight to that
> proposition.
That was a "test argument". I threw that in because I wanted to learn more
about your ability to argue. I had no idea whether you personally had even
written the material you posted.
"(It) can be said" is a stylistic representation of the open mind. It would
be a useful style for you to consider.
> >> And you can even become dependent on psychotherapy, though its
> >> therapists reject that term and prefer to call it "Idealized Positive
> >> Tranference"!!!
> >
> >You can even become dependent on demeaning others, though its critics
reject
> >that term and prefer to call it "Little Dick Syndrome".
> >
> I understand you are the king of the "Little Dicks" But hey,
> understand how distressing it must be for someone who believes that
> psycho-therapy is the only true path to salvation, that it can produce
> dependence that is just as powerful as anything that medications can.
My mockery does seem to have touched the sensitive spot in you. Your ideas
need not be connected to the demeaning of others, do they? Or did you mean
your original comment (with three exclamations) to be empathetic, and I
misunderstood?
> >> Below is why benzos not only can't cause physical addiction, but are
> >> being increasingly used in detox centres to moderate withdrawal from
> >> alcohol, nicotine and the opiates.
> >
> >Combining these two distinct and separate thoughts by using a compound
> >sentence structure is purposefully deceptive. Proposition A has nothing
> >whatsoever to do with proposition B, that benzos are a useful treatment.
> >
> Couldn't be bothered reading the abstracts I'd provided, huh, Larry.
> I'm not surprised. Wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your
> prejudices, huh?
I was making an argument in logic. In reality, I'm trying to separate your
prejudice from the facts.
> >> They actually counter the dopamine stimulating effects of these drugs.
> >
> >Patently false. The withdrawal (abstinence syndrome) for these listed
> >substances does not involve a dopamine stimulation. Quite the opposite.
> >
> same answer as the last one.
???
> >> Poly drug users probably take benzos not because benzos heighten the
> >> buzz they get from their rec drug, as has been claimed, but are using
> >> benzos to moderate the dopamine stimulatory effects of their main
> >> drug, cocaine, heroin, etc.
> >
> >Now which is it.....they concurrently use benzos during abstinence, or
> >during the high?
> >
> Both. Benzos do help ease drug withdrawal effect during abstinence, as
> you would have discovered had you read the literature, but that's cool
> Larry, I know that you don't want facts to get in the way of your
> beliefs. And they also moderate many of the most unpleasant effects
> that psycho stimulants can produce - again, as set out in the
> references provided.
I can read. There was an implication of my comments that I perhaps might
have stated more explicitly. The proposition that "(benzos) actually counter
the dopamine stimulating effects of these drugs", even if it is consistent
with empirical observations of dopamine release/inhibition, does not prove
intent.
> >> That is they are probably (unconsciously)
> >> self medicating to ease the unpleasant side effects of the buzz.
> >
> >> BTW-something you and the other anti benzo agitators seem unaware of
> >> is that foods contain benzodiazepine and benzo like chemicals,
> >> including diazepam (Valium) and lorazepam (Ativan). Sprouted seeds are
> >> a particularly rich source.
> >
> >Now that's rich. I've searched medline, and used powerful search engines,
> >and found nothing on the subject. Please do share your wealth of
knowledge
> >with us. Fully referenced, of course.
> >
> Yes, like you almost never provide. But unfortunately, for you, Larry,
> I do actually know about what I write, have the brain power to do an
> effective Medline search and can therefore provide the references.
> I've listed a few below under [1]
I used your keywords and found nothing. Were you purposely misleading?
<shrug> Ad hominem commentary is unnecessary. You already knew where to
look. I didn't know that the proponent of a thesis transferred
responsibility of its proof to others.
> >> While the amounts are small they are not insignificant. Indeed they
> >> often present a problem for patients with some types of liver disease.
> >> Plasma levels can become so high that medical intervention is
> >> required.
> >
> >Plasma levels of *what specific chemical* become so high that *what
specific
> >intervention* is required?
>
> having trouble comprehending simple english, Larry?
It is the simplicity of your English that is the problem. Specificity was
what was requested.
> Okay, for "specific chemical" read benzodiazepines, of which there are
> many circulating in the blood stream, including diazepam and
> lorazepam.
>
> For "specific intervention" read drugs, specifically an antibiotic
> (see the ref below).
When someone is having difficulty with your theories, are you always this
helpful? We're not all smart like you are.
> >Liver disease is always a serious health problem,
> >but I've not heard of dietary restrictions like "avoid sprouted seeds".
> >
> No, but then there is much you seem to be ignorant about.
No doubt.
> Here is just
> one reference. Particularly note the very first line about
> benzodiazepines being found in everyone's blood.
>
> Zeneroli ML, Venturini I, Stefanelli S, et al, (1997)
> "Antibacterial activity of rifaximin reduces the levels of
> benzodiazepine-like compounds in patients with liver cirrhosis."
> Pharmacol Res, Jun;35(6):557-60
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=9356209&dopt=Abstract
Doh! Rifaximin was the keyword I missed. Why didn't I think of that?
Tell you what, Ian. Provide a link to a more generalized resource for
individuals with liver disease, where dietary recommendations are made that
suggest avoidance of sprouted seeds. I have had some very serious liver
problems from prescription medications, and I'd be happy to share such a
resource with others suffering from iatrogenic hepatic injury.
> >> Ian
> >
> >It has a name.
> >
> >> The claim: Benzodiazepines are addictive
> >>
> >> The fact: While some people use addicted and dependent
> >> interchangeably, they are not the same thing.
> >>
> >> An addictive substance is characterized as one that hyper activates
> >> dopamine pathways in the brain's Limbic system and particularly it's
> >> "pleasure/reward" center, the Nucleus accumbens.[1]
> >
> >Oh, so you found a definition you like. However, it is too restrictive
for
> >the use of the rest of us.
> >
> Well, it happens to be the medical one. I know you want to widen it
> because it suits your purpose, but fortunately, the world doesn't
> revolve around you, Larry.
That's a useful counterpoint. Your definition is not universal, nor is it
the only medical one.
> >> To quote Dr Roy Baker, a board member of the American Society of
> >> Addiction Medicine [2]:
> >>
> >> :: All drugs with the potential to cause addictions share certain
common
> >> :: neurobiological characteristics: they activate the mesolimbic
system,
> >> :: principally the nucleus accumbens, causing increased dopaminergic
> >> :: activity in that area of the brain.
> >
> >But, not necessarily by direct dopaminergic agonism.
> >
> This guy is a board member of the American (and Canadian) Society of
> Addiction medicine. I suggest he knows a lot more about the subject
> than you!
His argument depends on his definition. That's petitio principii. And your
appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) does not refute my original
thesis that your entire argument is a semantic trivialization of a real
problem, whatever you choose to call it.
> >> This results in an increase in hedonic
> >> :: tone.
> >> and
> >> :: "It is important not to confuse physical dependence as evidenced by
> >> :: benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromes with addiction or drug
dependence
> >> :: (DSM-IV). "
> >
> >Do you recognize the distinction being made here?
> >
> Do you? Not on what you've written so far!
>
> >> Benzodiazepine not only don't excite the N accumbens but have been
> >> shown to inhibit cocaine's affect on dopamine receptors in the N
> >> accumbens. [3] There is much evidence that benzos do reduce the
> >> withdrawal effects of most recreational drugs. Consequently,
> >> benzodiazepines are being increasingly used to mediate drug withdrawal
> >> in detox centers. [4]
> >
> >Needless distraction.
> >
> Translation: I can't counter that so I'll pretend it doesn't matter
Alternate translation: It doesn't bear on the central debate that your
definition of addiction is more restrictive than mine.
> >> Another common test used to determine whether a drug is addictive is
> >> to apply the "3 C" test to its users. The term was coined by Dr David
> >> Smith of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and San Francisco Medical
> >> Center and is widely used by addiction specialists. To meet the
> >> addiction criterion, the patient must exhibit all three of the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> 1: Control: when the addicted person starts using their drug they
> >> episodically lose control over their ingestion.
> >
> >You've never heard of that happening?
> >
> Yes, but its a rare event with benzos, as the very next bit makes
> clear. Couldn't wait to read that before rushing into print, huh,
> Larry? Do you have a problem with attention spans, perhaps?
Your affirmation of this point is sufficient.
> Remember, Ashton is on the anti benzo group's gurus, and a leading
> anti benzo campaigner. She is also, BTW, a fairly poor
> psycho-pharmacologists if her trial evidence in the notorious
> Kouparris case is any guide.
>
> But then most of the gurus promoted by anti med advocates have feet of
> clay. Take Breggin, for example, doesn't want psych meds used to treat
> the mentally ill, but wouldn't stop his kids from using rec drugs, or
> having sex at age 10! [2] Heck, he even believes that schizophrenia
> is mostly a matter of the afflicted just behaving utterly
> irresponsibly. [3]
As I pointed out elsewhere, argumentum ad populum has no place in scientific
debate. This isn't a popularity contest.
> >> This is something that rarely happens to benzodiazepine users. To
> >> quote Prof Heather Ashton, a leading anti benzo campaigner (and on the
> >> available evidence, the world's only pill phobic psycho
> >> pharmacologist):
> >> :: "Given the number of people who are prescribed benzodiazepines,
> >> :: relatively few patients increase their dosage...."
> >> http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/benz02.htm
> >>
> >> The American Psychiatrists Association made the same point in their
> >> "Benzodiazepine Dependence, Toxicity, and Abuse: A Task Force
> >> Report" To quote:
> >> :: "There are no data to suggest that long-term therapeutic use of
> >> :: benzodiazepines by patients commonly leads to dose escalation or to
> >> :: recreational abuse"
> >
> >A rather self-serving statement, supported only by the absence of
evidence.
> >It is axiomatic that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence".
> >
> True. But is this is such a problem why isn't there any evidence?
You tell me.
> >> This is re-enforced by the recommendations in their current Panic
> >> Disorder III. Treatment Principles And Alternatives web page:
> >> :: "However, benzodiazepines may still be underused because of an
> >> :: inappropriate fear of addiction. The studies of long-term alprazolam
> >> :: treatment for panic disorder show that the doses patients use at 32
> >> :: weeks of treatment are similar to those used at 8 weeks, indicating
> >> :: that, as a group, patients with panic disorder do not escalate
> >> :: alprazolam doses or display tolerance to alprazolam's therapeutic
> >> :: effects, at least in the first 8 months of treatment. However,
> >> :: studies of dose escalation following longer periods of
> >> :: benzodiazepine use are generally lacking."
> >> http://www.psych.org/clin_res/pg_panic_3.cfm
> >
> >You are describing tolerance, not addiction. Apples and oranges, with
quite
> >different implications.
> >
> Isn't tolerance part of the addiction process? Maybe you should
> actually do a bit of study on addiction before entering a debate about
> it!
It's only because I have studied addiction that I have anything to say on
the matter.
> >> If tolerance doesn't develop within 8 months, then its unlikely to in
> >> 1 year, or 10, 20 or 30. The probable reason for this is that most
> >> with anxiety disorders (and also common types of epilepsy) have an
> >> impaired benzodiazepine/GABA receptor system. [5] For these patients
> >> benzodiazepines only return to the benzo/GABA system to something
> >> approaching normal function.
> >
> >Relevance?
> >
> Sigh!!
>
> The brains of people with anxiety disorders are different to those
> without. The difference relates to the function of the receptor system
> that benzodiazepines target. Benzos restore the benzo/GABA receptor
> system to a state similar to that of "normal" people. OTOH, rec drugs
> put, among other things, the state of the receptor systems they
> affect into "abnormal" states.
Why restrict your argument to those with anxiety disorders? That's why I
said "Relevance?". I'm quite aware of the discovery of allelic variability
in GABA receptor structures. Not only does this "alleleic selection" not
apply to all subjects diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, but not all
subjects with that trait have the disorder. If you're going to raise an
argument, be prepared to show how the conclusion you wish me to reach is
evident from the data.
> >> 2: Compulsion: getting and using the drug takes on more and more
> >> importance or salience in the person's life, crowding out
> >> relationships and activities that were once important to them
> >>
> >> This is far from typical behavior in those taking benzodiazepines. It
> >> may occur in poly-drug abusers. However, then the behaviors is
> >> generally due to the recreational drug, not the benzodiazepine.
> >
> >Evidence?
> >
> The fact that there are very few mono benzo abusers, but lots that
> abuse benzos in addition to other drugs. Why has already been
> canvassed.
So, poly-abusers are not addicted to benzos? You do acknowledge exceptions,
at least.
> >> 3: Consequences: they continue using the drug despite the drug causing
> >> problems at home, problems in relationships, medical problems,
> >> legal problems, emotional and psychiatric problems and finally
> >> vocational problems.
> >>
> >> Again, this is not typical behaviors in those taking benzodiazepines
> >> in therapeutic doses. It may occur at very high doses, but epileptics
> >> are prescribed benzos in large doses (typically 10-20mg+ Klonopin or
> >> equivalent), much higher than are used to treat anxiety disorders, and
> >> there is no evidence that epileptics develop these behaviors. OTOH, it
> >> can become a typical behavior in aspirin abusers.
> >
> >It matters not that some users have no problems, as you define them,
> >sufficient to fall within your definitions, if other users do. The
existence
> >of one group does not preclude the other.
> >
> Yes, it does!!
No, it does not (emphasis not required).
> If benzos are addictive as you maintain, then all
> patient groups that are treated with them should have the same
> percentage of people developing the same problems.
You are now in dispute with your own argument, made just above. You just
maintained that subjects with anxiety disorders are "special". Moreover, the
percentage of people having a particular problem is not relevant, except for
your clear intent to trivialize problems that others face and that you do
not.
> The fact that its
> almost exclusively those who were prescribed benzos for anxiety/panic
> suggests that the problems relate to their anxiety disorder, and not
> the medication.
You're arguing both sides. <confusion reigns>
Your conclusion is not supported by your arguments.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Therefore, on all the criteria used to define addiction,
> >> benzodiazepines are not addictive drugs.
> >
> >As you define addiction.
> >
> No. As those who specialise in addiction define them. I'm sorry that
> this negates your prejudices about benzos, but that is your problem,
> not mine.
Apparently, my disputing your presentation is some sort of a problem for
you.
> >> However, they can and very often do cause dependency. Dependence is
> >> produced by the presence of a drug causing changes in body systems
> >> that then need to time to return to their pre drug state if the drug
> >> is withdrawn. A drug doesn't have to be active in the brain for
> >> dependency to develop - many cannot pass the blood-brain-barrier, but
> >> they must for true addiction to develop.
> >
> >Semantics again.
> >
> Haven't been paying attention, huh, Larry?
>
> Vitamin C can produce dependence. Cold-turkey moderately high doses
> after long term use and you will develop scurvy even though you still
> get more than the daily requirement from food. That usually involves
> bleeding gums and to a lesser degree bleeding nails. In extreme cases
> it can cause teeth and hair loss. So is vitamin C addictive?
Is vitamin C psychoactive?
> Stop taking one of the water soluble beta blockers, which can't enter
> the brain, suddenly and you can get rebound increases in blood
> pressure that can make you very ill until the body adjusts. So do you
> consider these types of beta-blockers are addictive?
Are beta-blockers psychoactive?
In both these cases, you present examples of physiological dependence,
without psychological dependency/addiction/whatever you want to call the
event.
> >> Benzodiazepines do over time produce a small bio-feedback reduction in
> >> both benzodiazepine receptors and expression of the neurotransmitter
> >> GABA.
> >
> >Drop the prejudicial use of the word "small", and your statement has more
> >validity.
> >
> Not so. Provide evidence that the reduction is anything other than
> very small. Indeed, there isn't much evidence for the GABA reduction,
> but I included it because I also can't prove that it doesn't occur.
> As GABA is part of the brain's energy producing Kreb's cycle, it is
> probable that more GABA is produced that would be required just for
> neurotransmission.
The size of the measured change does not linearly relate to the size of the
effect. I re-iterate my contention that the use of the word "small" is
prejudicial.
> >> If the benzodiazepine is discontinued abruptly, this reduction in
> >> receptors and neurotransmitter can cause a rebound reaction with
> >> symptoms similar to anxiety and panic. In most cases with a slow
> >> taper, withdrawal symptoms can be minimized to a comfortable level.
> >>
> >> Moreover, not all withdrawal symptoms may be due to these
> >> physiological changes. Some, perhaps most, can be produced by
> >> psychology, that is the mind. It is well known that benzo withdrawal
> >> effects can often be induced simply by making patients believe their
> >> benzodiazepine dose has been reduced, even though no reduction
> >> actually occurs. This has been shown in a number of studies. [6]
> >>
> >> There is also evidence [7] that withdrawal is more intense in some
> >> patient groups, notably those who have neurotic personalities,
> >> females, former/current alcoholics, the less educated, and those with
> >> dependant personalities. It also appears that the worse the original
> >> anxiety disorder, the more severe the benzo withdrawal.
> >
> >Character assassination. Ad hominem.
> >
> Take that up with those that have done the research. But I'm
> surprised that you don't think psychology would have an effect on
> patients perceptions of withdrawal.
There is an interaction, of course, which is part of my thesis of addiction.
I took umbrage at the implicit stigmatization/marginalization inherent in
that quotation.
> >
> >> Probably the best indication that many of the withdrawal problems
> >> experienced by those who were taking benzodiazepines for anxiety
> >> disorders are mostly psychological rather than chemical is the fact
> >> that the other main benzo using patient cohort, epileptics, seem to
> >> have much fewer problems.
> >
> >By a similar argument, then, it can be argued that opiate addiction
cannot
> >exist, because those in severe chronic pain can use opiates without
> >escalating dose and without developing addiction.
> >
> And are there patients who use opiates for any length of time that
> don't become addicted to them? Who don't have stimulation of dopamine
> systems within the N accumbens? The fact that most don;t escalate
> their doses is more due to the very tight controls they have put on
> them.
Yes. I don't know. Relevance? Addiction to opiates is neither automatic nor
universal. Study the treatment of chronic pain, the receptor binding
affinities and opiate receptor classes and subclasses, allelic variability,
and confounds.
> But this is a nonsense attempt at muddying the waters.
You are attempting to generalize from a specific class to all classes.
> The fact is
> that if the severity of benzo withdrawal, and the onset of "prolonged
> withdrawal syndrome" was entirely due to the med, then all patient
> cohorts should experience the same difficulties in about the same
> percentages.
No. That's not true.
> The fact is that the non anxiety patient cohorts don't
> experience problems in anywhere near the same percentages as anxiety
> patients suggests that there is something different about the anx/pan
> group.
That's a good start.
> I suggest many of there problems are psychological in nature,
> not physiological.
Finally, we get to the core, the bias. I disagree.
> Not all, but many. And that is reinforced by
> studies showing that just believing that benzo doses have been reduced
> is enough to trigger some anxiety patients into experiencing
> withdrawal even though no reduction takes place lend weight to this.
There are alternate explanations, which are more supportive. Inducing an
anxious experience in an anxiety-prone subject could be expected to have
sequelae.
> >I grow weary of this.
> >
> What of, your pretence to actually understand this. Well you're not
> the only one!
I understand. We differ.
> >Bottom line is that your unstated objective is to trivialize and ridicule
> >people who hold different opinions or have had different experiences than
> >your own. "Little dick syndrome", indeed.
> >
> I don't trivialise any ones pain.
I think you do.
> But I suggest that insisting that
> there problem is caused by one thing when it is probably something
> else only adds to their suffering by denying them the help they really
> need.
And what help would that be? Presentations like yours?
> >Go away. People have real problems with benzo abstinence. Period.
Support,
> >or fuck off.
> >
> Yes, people have real problems, but probably not for the reasons you
> claim. Your head in the sand attitude will only ensure they continue
> to suffer instead of finding the real answers to their problems.
I'm not claiming ownership of the reason(s). I'm disputing your narrow
rationale. My thesis is that there is a real problem, and defining it away
semantically trivializes the issue.
> Just go and look at the crap that they get told at Irene's former
> home, especially about "prolonged benzo withdrawal syndrome." Almost
> all just have a reoccurrence of their anxiety disorder. That is
> evidenced by their oft repeated statements that symptoms get worse in
> times of stress and illness. But instead of being advised to get
> treatment, and therapy is as much maligned there as meds, they are
> brainwashed into believing it's all the fault of the benzos. That is
> crap. Crap you seem to endorse. Fine, but don't accuse me of enjoying
> their pain.
Then why rub salt into the wounds?
> But that is what you deal in, isn't it Larry? By continually attacking
> the use of psych meds, even though you know that for the vast majority
> of psych patients they are the only help they can expect, you
> discourage them from seeking assistance.
I don't attack psych meds. I encourage discussion of the vast variety of
effects. The intended effect, the implied "treatment" that a drug is said to
give, is not all that occurs. Even the term side-effect trivializes the
subjects' experience. Explain it however you want to, benzo withdrawal can
be fatal.
> Fortunately, most will treat your words with the large dollop of salt
> they deserve, but do you enjoy thinking about the misery of those
> that take them to heart and refuse to get help?
>
> Ian
I get no enjoyment from the misery of others.
Larry Hoover
news:jcvh5uki1qb07lji0...@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 30 Jan 2002 08:23:33 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
> <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> >
> >news:hqaf5u8n6e96fddi7...@4ax.com...
> >> On Thu, 24 Jan 2002 14:10:00 -0600, "Diablo" <nos...@nospam.org>
> >> wrote:
> >> There is no way that anyone can become truly addicted to benzos,
> >> though some people may become psychologically addicted.
> >
> >It seems you wish to play semantic games to trivialize a serious problem.
> >OK, let's play semantics.
You're trivializing peoples' real experience with word games.
> >Psychological addiction is a physiological response, as it activates the
> >dopaminergic reward pathways.
>
> Okay, so everything that people develop a psychological addiction to,
> and that can be just about anything is addictive. So we should make
> everything illegal, huh? LOL
That's quite a non sequitur you've created. Who would ever suggest that?
Drop the hyperbole.
I am of the belief that virtually anything can be addictive, and I am not
alone in that belief. And quite contrary to assertions you make elsewhere in
this piece, not every individual becomes addicted to the short list of
addictive substances you personally accept. What accounts for that
discrepancy?
> >Addiction to substances other than
> >dopaminergic agonists is also well-documented in the literature.
Addiction
> >is addiction, except for closed-minded people who want to make a point
that
> >would otherwise be invalid right from the point of its conception. All
that
> >follows is an argument based on petitio principii, "begging the
question".
> >If, and only if, you accept the given definition is it even possible to
> >arrive at the conclusion argued here.
> >
>
> Some people develop a psychological addiction to Big Macs, so on your
> basis, Big Macs are addictive substances and McDonalds are drug
> pushers. So why aren't you campaigning to have hamburgers banned and
> all of McDonald's staff jailed?
Again, hyperbole in place of reason. Food addiction is not a construct of my
creation. Your use of the construct is simple proof of that. A
physiological/psychological loop develops which becomes self-reinforcing.
> To be addictive in the medical sense requires more than just
> psychological addiction.
Again, if and only if one accepts your restrictive definition. If we can't
agree that this is a critical factor in the discussion, then further
discussion becomes moot. Your definition permits only one form of activation
of the reward pathway to be considered.
> If it doesn't, as you claim,. then everything
> is addictive. Hamburgers, football, sex, pornography, etc, etc, etc
>
> >> But then there
> >> are some who become so psychologically addicted to aspirin that they
> >> will endure repeated surgery, even the likelihood of death to continue
> >> taking it.
> >
> >Irrelevant to the present discussion.
> >
> Why? Because you deem it so? When we you elected to decide?
???
> Fact: People will consume aspirin even in the face of death. Yet,
> aspirin isn't addictive by any reasonable definition. Or are you
> claiming that it is? If so, provide references.
Your own words "...there are some who become so psychologically addicted to
aspirin...". Your inconsistency is quite confusing. Again, though, it would
seem we come down to semantics. You don't accept psychological addiction as
a form of addiction, and I do. Or do I have your belief wrong? I'm not sure.
> >> About 20-25% of kidney transplants damaged their kidneys by aspirin
> >> abuse. Aspirin is now also the main cause of stomach and upper bowel
> >> ulceration requiring surgery. Regrettably, many patients are so
> >> psychologically addicted to aspirin that they require repeated surgery
> >> to repair the holes that aspirin has burnt into the organs.
> >> Consequently, many gastric surgeons are now refusing to treat patients
> >> unless they can show they can remain "clean for some time.
> >
> >Trivializing people with life-threatening drug addiction is a game for
you?
> >
> Oh, the famous Larry smear, huh? It came in a bit earlier than I'd
> expected, but I'm not surprised. It is a favourite tactic of those who
> lack the intellectual rigour to sustain an argument, IME.
You trivialize these individuals' life-threatening disorder by not
acknowledging that this is not a conscious attribute of their cognition. It
is the physiological response to their behaviour that is trapping them. You
are engaging in stigmatization.
Ian, forgive me for "taking an attitude" with you, but I find your former
and present conduct to be quite distressing. Whatever you might think of
Irene, chasing after her as you have, following her to what she perceived to
have been something of an emotional sanctuary, is quite upsetting to me. I
can be the source of pointed commentary, but that commentary should be
viewed in context. You did not come here with an expository demeanour. You
came here to brow-beat someone who is not well.
> But I guess you've just answered by earlier question. You do believe
> that aspirin is addictive. Which tells us a lot about where your
> coming from, doesn't it Larry? So why aren't you campaigning to have
> it made at least a controlled drug if not banned completely? After all
> there are alternatives!
I am glad you are beginning to grasp where I am coming from.
> >> ****** NOTE: If you are taking aspirin for medical reasons, don't stop
> >> using it because of the above. Aspirin is not addictive, and when used
> >> at moderate doses in relatively safe. It only becomes a problem when
> >> abused. ********
> >
> >
> >But for your last statement, the same can be said for benzos.
> >
> True. Benzos aren't addictive, are relatively safe and only become a
> problem when abused, which the darling of the anti benzo crowd, Dr
> Heather Ashton unequivocally states is something that patients
> prescribed benzos rarely do. Thank you for adding your weight to that
> proposition.
That was a "test argument". I threw that in because I wanted to learn more
about your ability to argue. I had no idea whether you personally had even
written the material you posted.
"(It) can be said" is a stylistic representation of the open mind. It would
be a useful style for you to consider.
> >> And you can even become dependent on psychotherapy, though its
> >> therapists reject that term and prefer to call it "Idealized Positive
> >> Tranference"!!!
> >
> >You can even become dependent on demeaning others, though its critics
reject
> >that term and prefer to call it "Little Dick Syndrome".
> >
> I understand you are the king of the "Little Dicks" But hey,
> understand how distressing it must be for someone who believes that
> psycho-therapy is the only true path to salvation, that it can produce
> dependence that is just as powerful as anything that medications can.
My mockery does seem to have touched the sensitive spot in you. Your ideas
need not be connected to the demeaning of others, do they? Or did you mean
your original comment (with three exclamations) to be empathetic, and I
misunderstood?
> >> Below is why benzos not only can't cause physical addiction, but are
> >> being increasingly used in detox centres to moderate withdrawal from
> >> alcohol, nicotine and the opiates.
> >
> >Combining these two distinct and separate thoughts by using a compound
> >sentence structure is purposefully deceptive. Proposition A has nothing
> >whatsoever to do with proposition B, that benzos are a useful treatment.
> >
> Couldn't be bothered reading the abstracts I'd provided, huh, Larry.
> I'm not surprised. Wouldn't want facts to get in the way of your
> prejudices, huh?
I was making an argument in logic. In reality, I'm trying to separate your
prejudice from the facts.
> >> They actually counter the dopamine stimulating effects of these drugs.
> >
> >Patently false. The withdrawal (abstinence syndrome) for these listed
> >substances does not involve a dopamine stimulation. Quite the opposite.
> >
> same answer as the last one.
???
> >> Poly drug users probably take benzos not because benzos heighten the
> >> buzz they get from their rec drug, as has been claimed, but are using
> >> benzos to moderate the dopamine stimulatory effects of their main
> >> drug, cocaine, heroin, etc.
> >
> >Now which is it.....they concurrently use benzos during abstinence, or
> >during the high?
> >
> Both. Benzos do help ease drug withdrawal effect during abstinence, as
> you would have discovered had you read the literature, but that's cool
> Larry, I know that you don't want facts to get in the way of your
> beliefs. And they also moderate many of the most unpleasant effects
> that psycho stimulants can produce - again, as set out in the
> references provided.
I can read. There was an implication of my comments that I perhaps might
have stated more explicitly. The proposition that "(benzos) actually counter
the dopamine stimulating effects of these drugs", even if it is consistent
with empirical observations of dopamine release/inhibition, does not prove
intent.
> >> That is they are probably (unconsciously)
> >> self medicating to ease the unpleasant side effects of the buzz.
> >
> >> BTW-something you and the other anti benzo agitators seem unaware of
> >> is that foods contain benzodiazepine and benzo like chemicals,
> >> including diazepam (Valium) and lorazepam (Ativan). Sprouted seeds are
> >> a particularly rich source.
> >
> >Now that's rich. I've searched medline, and used powerful search engines,
> >and found nothing on the subject. Please do share your wealth of
knowledge
> >with us. Fully referenced, of course.
> >
> Yes, like you almost never provide. But unfortunately, for you, Larry,
> I do actually know about what I write, have the brain power to do an
> effective Medline search and can therefore provide the references.
> I've listed a few below under [1]
I used your keywords and found nothing. Were you purposely misleading?
<shrug> Ad hominem commentary is unnecessary. You already knew where to
look. I didn't know that the proponent of a thesis transferred
responsibility of its proof to others.
> >> While the amounts are small they are not insignificant. Indeed they
> >> often present a problem for patients with some types of liver disease.
> >> Plasma levels can become so high that medical intervention is
> >> required.
> >
> >Plasma levels of *what specific chemical* become so high that *what
specific
> >intervention* is required?
>
> having trouble comprehending simple english, Larry?
It is the simplicity of your English that is the problem. Specificity was
what was requested.
> Okay, for "specific chemical" read benzodiazepines, of which there are
> many circulating in the blood stream, including diazepam and
> lorazepam.
>
> For "specific intervention" read drugs, specifically an antibiotic
> (see the ref below).
When someone is having difficulty with your theories, are you always this
helpful? We're not all smart like you are.
> >Liver disease is always a serious health problem,
> >but I've not heard of dietary restrictions like "avoid sprouted seeds".
> >
> No, but then there is much you seem to be ignorant about.
No doubt.
> Here is just
> one reference. Particularly note the very first line about
> benzodiazepines being found in everyone's blood.
>
> Zeneroli ML, Venturini I, Stefanelli S, et al, (1997)
> "Antibacterial activity of rifaximin reduces the levels of
> benzodiazepine-like compounds in patients with liver cirrhosis."
> Pharmacol Res, Jun;35(6):557-60
>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov:80/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list
_uids=9356209&dopt=Abstract
Doh! Rifaximin was the keyword I missed. Why didn't I think of that?
Tell you what, Ian. Provide a link to a more generalized resource for
individuals with liver disease, where dietary recommendations are made that
suggest avoidance of sprouted seeds. I have had some very serious liver
problems from prescription medications, and I'd be happy to share such a
resource with others suffering from iatrogenic hepatic injury.
Larry Hoover
> >>
> >> The fact: While some people use addicted and dependent
> >> interchangeably, they are not the same thing.
> >>
> >> An addictive substance is characterized as one that hyper activates
> >> dopamine pathways in the brain's Limbic system and particularly it's
> >> "pleasure/reward" center, the Nucleus accumbens.[1]
> >
> >Oh, so you found a definition you like. However, it is too restrictive
for
> >the use of the rest of us.
> >
> because it suits your purpose, but fortunately, the world doesn't
> revolve around you, Larry.
That's a useful counterpoint. Your definition is not universal, nor is it
the only medical one.
> >> To quote Dr Roy Baker, a board member of the American Society of
> >> Addiction Medicine [2]:
> >>
> >> :: All drugs with the potential to cause addictions share certain
common
> >> :: neurobiological characteristics: they activate the mesolimbic
system,
> >> :: principally the nucleus accumbens, causing increased dopaminergic
> >> :: activity in that area of the brain.
> >
> >But, not necessarily by direct dopaminergic agonism.
> >
> This guy is a board member of the American (and Canadian) Society of
> Addiction medicine. I suggest he knows a lot more about the subject
> than you!
His argument depends on his definition. That's petitio principii. And your
appeal to authority (argumentum ad verecundiam) does not refute my original
thesis that your entire argument is a semantic trivialization of a real
problem, whatever you choose to call it.
> >> This results in an increase in hedonic
> >> :: tone.
> >> and
> >> :: "It is important not to confuse physical dependence as evidenced by
> >> :: benzodiazepine withdrawal syndromes with addiction or drug
dependence
> >> :: (DSM-IV). "
> >
> >Do you recognize the distinction being made here?
> >
> Do you? Not on what you've written so far!
>
> >> Benzodiazepine not only don't excite the N accumbens but have been
> >> shown to inhibit cocaine's affect on dopamine receptors in the N
> >> accumbens. [3] There is much evidence that benzos do reduce the
> >> withdrawal effects of most recreational drugs. Consequently,
> >> benzodiazepines are being increasingly used to mediate drug withdrawal
> >> in detox centers. [4]
> >
> >Needless distraction.
> >
> Translation: I can't counter that so I'll pretend it doesn't matter
Alternate translation: It doesn't bear on the central debate that your
definition of addiction is more restrictive than mine.
> >> Another common test used to determine whether a drug is addictive is
> >> to apply the "3 C" test to its users. The term was coined by Dr David
> >> Smith of the Haight Ashbury Free Clinic and San Francisco Medical
> >> Center and is widely used by addiction specialists. To meet the
> >> addiction criterion, the patient must exhibit all three of the
> >> following:
> >>
> >> 1: Control: when the addicted person starts using their drug they
> >> episodically lose control over their ingestion.
> >
> >You've never heard of that happening?
> >
> Yes, but its a rare event with benzos, as the very next bit makes
> clear. Couldn't wait to read that before rushing into print, huh,
> Larry? Do you have a problem with attention spans, perhaps?
Your affirmation of this point is sufficient.
> Remember, Ashton is on the anti benzo group's gurus, and a leading
> anti benzo campaigner. She is also, BTW, a fairly poor
> psycho-pharmacologists if her trial evidence in the notorious
> Kouparris case is any guide.
>
> But then most of the gurus promoted by anti med advocates have feet of
> clay. Take Breggin, for example, doesn't want psych meds used to treat
> the mentally ill, but wouldn't stop his kids from using rec drugs, or
> having sex at age 10! [2] Heck, he even believes that schizophrenia
> is mostly a matter of the afflicted just behaving utterly
> irresponsibly. [3]
As I pointed out elsewhere, argumentum ad populum has no place in scientific
debate. This isn't a popularity contest.
> >> This is something that rarely happens to benzodiazepine users. To
> >> quote Prof Heather Ashton, a leading anti benzo campaigner (and on the
> >> available evidence, the world's only pill phobic psycho
> >> pharmacologist):
> >> :: "Given the number of people who are prescribed benzodiazepines,
> >> :: relatively few patients increase their dosage...."
> >> http://www.a1b2c3.com/drugs/benz02.htm
> >>
> >> The American Psychiatrists Association made the same point in their
> >> "Benzodiazepine Dependence, Toxicity, and Abuse: A Task Force
> >> Report" To quote:
> >> :: "There are no data to suggest that long-term therapeutic use of
> >> :: benzodiazepines by patients commonly leads to dose escalation or to
> >> :: recreational abuse"
> >
> >A rather self-serving statement, supported only by the absence of
evidence.
> >It is axiomatic that "the absence of evidence is not evidence of
absence".
> >
> True. But is this is such a problem why isn't there any evidence?
You tell me.
> >> This is re-enforced by the recommendations in their current Panic
> >> Disorder III. Treatment Principles And Alternatives web page:
> >> :: "However, benzodiazepines may still be underused because of an
> >> :: inappropriate fear of addiction. The studies of long-term alprazolam
> >> :: treatment for panic disorder show that the doses patients use at 32
> >> :: weeks of treatment are similar to those used at 8 weeks, indicating
> >> :: that, as a group, patients with panic disorder do not escalate
> >> :: alprazolam doses or display tolerance to alprazolam's therapeutic
> >> :: effects, at least in the first 8 months of treatment. However,
> >> :: studies of dose escalation following longer periods of
> >> :: benzodiazepine use are generally lacking."
> >> http://www.psych.org/clin_res/pg_panic_3.cfm
> >
> >You are describing tolerance, not addiction. Apples and oranges, with
quite
> >different implications.
> >
> Isn't tolerance part of the addiction process? Maybe you should
> actually do a bit of study on addiction before entering a debate about
> it!
It's only because I have studied addiction that I have anything to say on
the matter.
> >> If tolerance doesn't develop within 8 months, then its unlikely to in
> >> 1 year, or 10, 20 or 30. The probable reason for this is that most
> >> with anxiety disorders (and also common types of epilepsy) have an
> >> impaired benzodiazepine/GABA receptor system. [5] For these patients
> >> benzodiazepines only return to the benzo/GABA system to something
> >> approaching normal function.
> >
> >Relevance?
> >
> Sigh!!
>
> The brains of people with anxiety disorders are different to those
> without. The difference relates to the function of the receptor system
> that benzodiazepines target. Benzos restore the benzo/GABA receptor
> system to a state similar to that of "normal" people. OTOH, rec drugs
> put, among other things, the state of the receptor systems they
> affect into "abnormal" states.
Why restrict your argument to those with anxiety disorders? That's why I
said "Relevance?". I'm quite aware of the discovery of allelic variability
in GABA receptor structures. Not only does this "alleleic selection" not
apply to all subjects diagnosed with an anxiety disorder, but not all
subjects with that trait have the disorder. If you're going to raise an
argument, be prepared to show how the conclusion you wish me to reach is
evident from the data.
> >> 2: Compulsion: getting and using the drug takes on more and more
> >> importance or salience in the person's life, crowding out
> >> relationships and activities that were once important to them
> >>
> >> This is far from typical behavior in those taking benzodiazepines. It
> >> may occur in poly-drug abusers. However, then the behaviors is
> >> generally due to the recreational drug, not the benzodiazepine.
> >
> >Evidence?
> >
> The fact that there are very few mono benzo abusers, but lots that
> abuse benzos in addition to other drugs. Why has already been
> canvassed.
So, poly-abusers are not addicted to benzos? You do acknowledge exceptions,
at least.
> >> 3: Consequences: they continue using the drug despite the drug causing
> >> problems at home, problems in relationships, medical problems,
> >> legal problems, emotional and psychiatric problems and finally
> >> vocational problems.
> >>
> >> Again, this is not typical behaviors in those taking benzodiazepines
> >> in therapeutic doses. It may occur at very high doses, but epileptics
> >> are prescribed benzos in large doses (typically 10-20mg+ Klonopin or
> >> equivalent), much higher than are used to treat anxiety disorders, and
> >> there is no evidence that epileptics develop these behaviors. OTOH, it
> >> can become a typical behavior in aspirin abusers.
> >
> >It matters not that some users have no problems, as you define them,
> >sufficient to fall within your definitions, if other users do. The
existence
> >of one group does not preclude the other.
> >
> Yes, it does!!
No, it does not (emphasis not required).
> If benzos are addictive as you maintain, then all
> patient groups that are treated with them should have the same
> percentage of people developing the same problems.
You are now in dispute with your own argument, made just above. You just
maintained that subjects with anxiety disorders are "special". Moreover, the
percentage of people having a particular problem is not relevant, except for
your clear intent to trivialize problems that others face and that you do
not.
> The fact that its
> almost exclusively those who were prescribed benzos for anxiety/panic
> suggests that the problems relate to their anxiety disorder, and not
> the medication.
You're arguing both sides. <confusion reigns>
Your conclusion is not supported by your arguments.
> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> Therefore, on all the criteria used to define addiction,
> >> benzodiazepines are not addictive drugs.
> >
> >As you define addiction.
> >
> No. As those who specialise in addiction define them. I'm sorry that
> this negates your prejudices about benzos, but that is your problem,
> not mine.
Apparently, my disputing your presentation is some sort of a problem for
you.
> >> However, they can and very often do cause dependency. Dependence is
> >> produced by the presence of a drug causing changes in body systems
> >> that then need to time to return to their pre drug state if the drug
> >> is withdrawn. A drug doesn't have to be active in the brain for
> >> dependency to develop - many cannot pass the blood-brain-barrier, but
> >> they must for true addiction to develop.
> >
> >Semantics again.
> >
> Haven't been paying attention, huh, Larry?
>
> Vitamin C can produce dependence. Cold-turkey moderately high doses
> after long term use and you will develop scurvy even though you still
> get more than the daily requirement from food. That usually involves
> bleeding gums and to a lesser degree bleeding nails. In extreme cases
> it can cause teeth and hair loss. So is vitamin C addictive?
Is vitamin C psychoactive?
> Stop taking one of the water soluble beta blockers, which can't enter
> the brain, suddenly and you can get rebound increases in blood
> pressure that can make you very ill until the body adjusts. So do you
> consider these types of beta-blockers are addictive?
Are beta-blockers psychoactive?
In both these cases, you present examples of physiological dependence,
without psychological dependency/addiction/whatever you want to call the
event.
> >> Benzodiazepines do over time produce a small bio-feedback reduction in
> >> both benzodiazepine receptors and expression of the neurotransmitter
> >> GABA.
> >
> >Drop the prejudicial use of the word "small", and your statement has more
> >validity.
> >
> Not so. Provide evidence that the reduction is anything other than
> very small. Indeed, there isn't much evidence for the GABA reduction,
> but I included it because I also can't prove that it doesn't occur.
> As GABA is part of the brain's energy producing Kreb's cycle, it is
> probable that more GABA is produced that would be required just for
> neurotransmission.
The size of the measured change does not linearly relate to the size of the
effect. I re-iterate my contention that the use of the word "small" is
prejudicial.
> >> If the benzodiazepine is discontinued abruptly, this reduction in
> >> receptors and neurotransmitter can cause a rebound reaction with
> >> symptoms similar to anxiety and panic. In most cases with a slow
> >> taper, withdrawal symptoms can be minimized to a comfortable level.
> >>
> >> Moreover, not all withdrawal symptoms may be due to these
> >> physiological changes. Some, perhaps most, can be produced by
> >> psychology, that is the mind. It is well known that benzo withdrawal
> >> effects can often be induced simply by making patients believe their
> >> benzodiazepine dose has been reduced, even though no reduction
> >> actually occurs. This has been shown in a number of studies. [6]
> >>
> >> There is also evidence [7] that withdrawal is more intense in some
> >> patient groups, notably those who have neurotic personalities,
> >> females, former/current alcoholics, the less educated, and those with
> >> dependant personalities. It also appears that the worse the original
> >> anxiety disorder, the more severe the benzo withdrawal.
> >
> >Character assassination. Ad hominem.
> >
> Take that up with those that have done the research. But I'm
> surprised that you don't think psychology would have an effect on
> patients perceptions of withdrawal.
There is an interaction, of course, which is part of my thesis of addiction.
I took umbrage at the implicit stigmatization/marginalization inherent in
that quotation.
> >
> >> Probably the best indication that many of the withdrawal problems
> >> experienced by those who were taking benzodiazepines for anxiety
> >> disorders are mostly psychological rather than chemical is the fact
> >> that the other main benzo using patient cohort, epileptics, seem to
> >> have much fewer problems.
> >
> >By a similar argument, then, it can be argued that opiate addiction
cannot
> >exist, because those in severe chronic pain can use opiates without
> >escalating dose and without developing addiction.
> >
> >I grow weary of this.
> >
> What of, your pretence to actually understand this. Well you're not
> the only one!
I understand. We differ.
> >Bottom line is that your unstated objective is to trivialize and ridicule
> >people who hold different opinions or have had different experiences than
> >your own. "Little dick syndrome", indeed.
> >
> I don't trivialise any ones pain.
I think you do.
> But I suggest that insisting that
> there problem is caused by one thing when it is probably something
> else only adds to their suffering by denying them the help they really
> need.
And what help would that be? Presentations like yours?
> >Go away. People have real problems with benzo abstinence. Period.
Support,
> >or fuck off.
> >
Keijo Lindroos
"Larry Hoover" <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
news:YGe68.20716$yi5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> I don't attack psych meds.
Yes, you do.
I encourage discussion of the vast variety of
> effects. The intended effect, the implied "treatment" that a drug is said
to
> give, is not all that occurs. Even the term side-effect trivializes the
> subjects' experience. Explain it however you want to, benzo withdrawal can
> be fatal.
>
>
Life is fatal, btw people commit suicides all over the world because
*anxiety* not because depression.
I have seen lots of lifes been saved because of benzos. Anxiety is real and
benzos are FAR MORE SAFER
WHEN IT COMES TO SIDE EFFECTS THAN ANY OTHER "PSY- MEDS"
Larry Hoover
"Keijo Lindroos" <Lind...@depressed.com> wrote in message
news:Kif68.375$ug2....@read2.inet.fi...
>
> "Larry Hoover" <larry...@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:YGe68.20716$yi5.3...@news20.bellglobal.com...
>
> > I don't attack psych meds.
>
> Yes, you do.
Thank you for telling me what I really meant.
> I encourage discussion of the vast variety of
> > effects. The intended effect, the implied "treatment" that a drug is
said
> to
> > give, is not all that occurs. Even the term side-effect trivializes the
> > subjects' experience. Explain it however you want to, benzo withdrawal
can
> > be fatal.
> >
> >
> Life is fatal, btw people commit suicides all over the world because
> *anxiety* not because depression.
> I have seen lots of lifes been saved because of benzos. Anxiety is real
and
> benzos are FAR MORE SAFER
> WHEN IT COMES TO SIDE EFFECTS THAN ANY OTHER "PSY- MEDS"
I'm not down on benzos. Quite the opposite.
Diablo
I'm not sure if benzo withdrawal is physical or psychological. I was
taking Xanax recreationally, usually around 8mg spaced over 4-5 hours.
I didn't feel any withdrawal but I wanted to do more after a day or two.
Methamphetamine was the same way. One reason it is so attractive is
that it doesn't appear to be physically addictive. There are no
withdrawal symptoms after a meth binge. But there is a desire to do
more and more of it. I thought about meth daily for a whole year
after quitting.
Psychological addiction can be a problem. It messes up your head and
makes you do all sorts of crazy things to get more. Just look at
Jeb Bush's daughter, she got busted phoning in a fake Xanax scrip.
Keijo Lindroos
>
>
up your mood ? In that case you should take an antidepressant. Benzos cause
depression on the long run.
I always feel great for a couple of days after taking benzos.
Larry Hoover
I'm sorry, Keijo, I caught you with my use of a euphemism.
I'm not critical of benzo use. They serve a very important purpose in
people's lives. I use them every day for a sleep disorder. There are serious
risks on sudden withdrawal, but that is simply a matter of becoming
informed, and choosing gradual dose reduction as an alternative.
Larry
Larry Hoover
<et...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:volp5u0k8u1b97ccm...@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Jan 2002 10:10:42 -0500, "Larry Hoover"
> >You're trivializing peoples' real experience with word games.
> >
Restating my argument, which you ignored.
> No you created it. You claim something is addictive because people
> manifest addictive behaviour/symptoms to it.
The behaviour is addictive. The "target" is not relevant.
> So for example, a shoe fetishists get a "buzz" involving shoes under
> some circumstance which stimulates his brain's pleasure/reward centre
> and this over time induces an addiction to shoes. So are shoes
> intrinsically addictive?
No.
> I don't think so, but you seem to.
No, I don't.
> The
> addiction is in this case a property of the individual, not the
> object. And the same goes for aspirin and benzos.
Which is exactly my point since I started discussing this topic.
>
> >I am of the belief that virtually anything can be addictive, and I am not
> >alone in that belief.
> >Again, hyperbole in place of reason. Food addiction is not a construct of
my
> >creation. Your use of the construct is simple proof of that. A
> >physiological/psychological loop develops which becomes self-reinforcing.
> >
> True. But that is not a property of the hamburger. Its not the
> hamburger exciting the pleasure/reward centre. Not even if you grind
> it finely, make a liquid suspension and shoot it up your arm.
Don't be absurd. As I stated, over and over again, indirect (as by food
addiction) stimulus of the same reward pathway can lead to addiction. What
about gambling addiction? There is no substance being ingested, by any
stretch of the imagination. Nevertheless, gambling addiction ruins lives.
> But understand your need to widen the definition so broadly. It
> allows your to place the onus for a person's psychological addiction
> back onto the med.
Don't attribute thoughts or beliefs to me that I have not expressed. The med
is not responsible for the addiction.
> But I do make the point, if you really believe that aspirin, Big Macs,
> shoes, whatever, are intrinsically addictive things/substances, then
> why are you singling out benzos for special treatment. If everything
> can cause addiction, then all things are equally bad. Benzos are then
> no better or worse that a pair of stylish size 8s!!!
Reductio ad absurdum. I didn't make that argument in the first place.
Extrapolating to an absurd conclusion only serves to reveal your biases.
> >If we can't
> >agree that this is a critical factor in the discussion, then further
> >discussion becomes moot. Your definition permits only one form of
activation
> >of the reward pathway to be considered.
> >
> No. But I don't attribute activation of the reward system to be caused
> by shoes or whatever.
Why not? Gambling addiction is very real. It ruins lives, and people die
from it.
>> You don't accept psychological addiction as
> >a form of addiction, and I do. Or do I have your belief wrong? I'm not
sure.
> >
> No, I do accept that the psychological addicted are just that,
> addicted, but that doesn't mean the substance/thing they are addicted
> to is addictive.
On that basis, you would trivialize benzo addiction? You're arguing in
circles, if you accept the premise of psychological addiction.
> But I do understand your need to use the widest possible definition so
> that you can satisfy your ideology and put the onus on the
> substance/object and make the individual a victim of it.
You are insolent. I have not placed the onus on the substance. And I am
strictly critical of your stigmatizing/victimizing approach to benzo (or any
other psychological) addiction.
> It may not have been voluntary, it
> probably wasn't something they could have predicted. But it is was
> things going on in their minds/brains that produced the addiction. Not
> any act of aspirin.
That's correct. That is my belief. Substitute any word you want for
"aspirin", and I agree. There are no victims, however.
> Oh, I grasped that a long time ago. You want paint everyone as the
> poor innocent victim and demonise the drugs they are taking.
You are quite incorrect about my beliefs.
> >"(It) can be said" is a stylistic representation of the open mind. It
would
> >be a useful style for you to consider.
> >
> It isn't my mind that is closed. I'm not the one that is parroting
> the popular view.
I have no interest in the popularity of my view. I do have trouble
conceiving that the narrower definition is representative of the more open
mind, however.
<repetitive material snipped>
There remains only one point that I would like to make.
> >> >Now that's rich. I've searched medline, and used powerful search
engines,
> >> >and found nothing on the subject. Please do share your wealth of
> >knowledge
> >> >with us. Fully referenced, of course.
> >> >
> >> Yes, like you almost never provide. But unfortunately, for you, Larry,
> >> I do actually know about what I write, have the brain power to do an
> >> effective Medline search and can therefore provide the references.
> >> I've listed a few below under [1]
> >
> >I used your keywords and found nothing. Were you purposely misleading?
> ><shrug> Ad hominem commentary is unnecessary. You already knew where to
> >look. I didn't know that the proponent of a thesis transferred
> >responsibility of its proof to others.
> >
> Had you used the keywords benzo, natural and sprout using the and/or
> switch you would have found some of the papers. If you'd used Pubmed
> then its "related" search option would have found most of the rest.
Quite incorrect. Using "benzo*", "benzodiazepine", "natural", "plant",
"sprout", "diazepam", "lorazepam", in a variety of simple combinations,
produces no hits of any relevance. The only search which produced any number
of papers was the "benzodiazepine and natural" search, but I refuse to wade
through hundreds of hits to find your needle in the haystack. The first 80
papers were not on topic.
> snipped
The part you snipped was some obtuse reference to an antibiotic and hepatic
injury.
Oops. Just one more:
> >There is an interaction, of course, which is part of my thesis of
addiction.
> >I took umbrage at the implicit stigmatization/marginalization inherent in
> >that quotation.
> >
> Of course you do. You don't want the psychology of the patient to be
> an issue, it may rob them of the victim status you seek to apply to
> them. That's why you put the onus for any psychological addiction they
> may develop back onto the med. In your model of addiction, be it
> chemical or psychological, its always the meds fault. never the
> individuals. They are always the victim, never the cause.
I have never demonized the med. I have never victimized the individual. I
have never removed the onus from the subject with the difficulty. Their
problem is real. That's all I've ever said.
The fact that I dispute your narrow definition of addiction is not, in any
way, evidence for other beliefs. Kindly keep your "us against them" biases
to yourself.
Larry