Posted by Alan on March 9, 2002, at 10:07:06
In reply to Re: No experts on Benzodiazipines! Alan, posted by gilbert on March 9, 2002, at 0:10:06
> With all due respect The bearpaw site and data >is simply a collection of opinions of patients >and prationers......we are not sure how the data >was similated, what methods were used etc. >Almost everything on the web is opinion >originated I know Alan you like or would like >everyone to site sources but the sources you >list are not scientific stuies done with random >sampling but just a collection of observations >well written and organized to support your >particular belief. Simplty read the preface to >The bearpaw site it pretty much says it all.
Then how would you explain in particular the cited conclusions of the World Health Organisation in the section on BZD's for example -one of several used as particularly relevant information on the site. This is not about opinion and in particular, not about my own personal belief at all.
> I did show my pdoc the data from the ste it >does go a bit ovberboard on comorbid illnesses >his words"the only thing left off the list of >comorbids was world hunger". Now I am not >saying all the dta is garbage but is is loaded >with opinion much of which again is not backed >up by pure scientific methodology.The opinion IS backed up with evidence from a plethora of scientific studies all of which you can email the author about if you like, they're just not footnoted. They have been posted ad nauseum on the site for all to read if one visits the tAPir site regularly enough since they are not archived to the extent they are here.
>not travel any further the International mental >health site look up xanax or generic apr. and >look up adverse effects. There you will find an >array of tolerance and addiction studies. Or >look up xanax addiction under a google search >and browse all of the different dta there...some >is garbage, some is not. To take the attitude >that because you can site the berapaw site or Dr >shipko or the Tapir site all very pro benzo >anxiety sites doesn't mean a hill of benas to >the individual like myself who becomes addicted >to xanax.
True, one has to seperate the wheat from the chaff. That's why critical thinking is so important. These sites are not "pro-benzo". They are "pro-treatment" sites - or ANTI "anti-benzo" sites designed to get ALL of the facts and evidence into play so that the patient can be informed so that they aren't scared into complacency (or to go off their med that are working for no good reason) by the claims of exaggerated risk with the BZD's exclusively. Inumberable studies and personal experiences have been cited and posted on the sites you mention that overwhelm the board about studies that provide evidence to what I and the bearpaw site advocate.
>Yes addicted....not dependent, I came off coke >and vodka easier than this.
And this is a prime example of reason not to take BZD's. History of a predisposition to or history of poly-drug abuse is, respectfully, a contraindication for BZD use in many cases.
> I am happy that a certain dose of klonopin or >whatever has worked well for you and that is >great. I strongly advocate the use of benzos >but every time some one brings up an opinion >different then yours you keep siting web sites >as if they prove something.....They prove >nothing....If they did we would visit here once >get the one answer we needed and shut off our >computers for good.
>
> Sincererly,
>
> Gil
>
> P.S. I do enjoy your posts so please take this >in the spirit it was meant....a simple >difference of opinions.
Thanks. I'm not so sure we're in so much disagreement.I've mentioned the websites (with their corollary reliance on scientific evidence) in response to the some misunderstandings stated about these medications on this board. If you view that as contradicting someone simply because of my personal beliefs, you've possibly misunderstood my reason for posting. I'm not posting to prove anything, only to provide evidence about ALL sides of the issue. Evidence is not proof - especially in the realm of psychotropic medications or psychiatric medicine in general - but credible and overwhelming evidence is a good start for the assertions that have been made, that's all.
I would ask that you visit tAPir and pose some of these same assertions in the "debate" forum of the site and see what happens. The scientific evidence is overwhelming and will be cited to you individually if you ask - I do not have it in my computer power to store such information but others there do.
When in the realm of statistics, one has to realise that statistics mean nothing in individual cases. So studies admittedly are only useful up to a point. Treatment must be individualised.
BUT, to not give the patient freedom of choice with ALL of the information about BZD's is poor medicine and continues the stimatisation of these perfectly legitimate medications - a story heard repeatedly at the tAPir site and here as I'm finding. For proerly diagnosed chronic anxiety disorders, the overwhelming evidence demonstrates that BZD's should be considered on equal footing with any other medication vis-a-vis the risks involved.
Please visit the tAPir site in the "debate" forum and ask "Jilly" or "Alden" (the author of the bearpaw site) to cite the medical studies that I've mentioned and the studies that the World Health Organisation has amalgamated over decades and passed judgement on concerning the efficacy and safety of these medications in short AND long term treatment.
Alan
poster:Alan
thread:96969
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20020307/msgs/97192.html