Anti-psychiatry rabble at Benzo Buddies lie to their doctors out of fear of getting locked in psych wards

How are you speaking with your GP
« on: March 01, 2018, 08:43:03 am »

[Buddie]

Hi everyone,

Are you telling to your GP when you going to talk to him about a symptom like blood pressure spikes, headache, etc you are on withdrawal?

I’m afraid to tell to my GP when I’m going with blood pressure problem because the previous one want to send me back to psychiatric doctor after 5 month off when I was still in strong symptoms.

Re: How are you speaking with your GP
« Reply #1 on: March 01, 2018, 09:32:55 am »

[Buddie]

I don’t go to my GP or to psychiatrist because I would probably not tell them nice things about what I think about them, their profession and their knowledge.

Re: How are you speaking with your GP
« Reply #2 on: March 01, 2018, 10:30:30 am »

[Buddie]

I know what you mean. I thought long time same. Now I’m just afraid to go because I not want to hear any bad.

Re: How are you speaking with your GP
« Reply #3 on: March 01, 2018, 11:23:42 am »

[Buddie]

I avoid GP unless essential visit. No point. Just stresses me out.

Re: How are you speaking with your GP
« Reply #4 on: March 01, 2018, 01:00:50 pm »

[Buddie]

My advice is, YES, tell your GP that you know why you are having high BP and anxiety issues. Tell him that you have been doing a lot of homework that most in his profession don’t even bother to do. I have almost developed the opinion that if I want to get sick, go visit the doctor! If your GP gives you any condescending comments or shows any sign of brushing your concerns off as if you don’t know what you are talking about………Find another doctor!

Re: How are you speaking with your GP
« Reply #5 on: March 01, 2018, 01:49:24 pm »

[Buddie]

My GP is a good guy, who’s been doing this for 30 years, but has NEVER seen a reaction like mine.
he kinda sits there befuddled as i describe all this to him. im like “dude, im TELLIN ya im not exaggerating, and then i ramble for 10 minutes on the horror.”
He sorta skeptically believes me, and he actually feels bad, takes some responsibility. in my case, i tell him its not his fault because my whole ordeal im convinced was brought on with insane levels of binge drinking the last two years before i went sober. my alcohol withdrawal melded right into my benzo withdrawal.

hes doing what he can, taking frequent blood tests, monitoring my bp and all, but hes pretty uncertain on just what the hell to do with me. when im really struggling, hes like, well, the number one thing you need you cant take now.

its the irony of my life that 5 years ago i went completely sober, got in the gym, hit it hard, changed so many things in my life to try and “see the light” as i cruise through my 40’s…and its been an absoulte unholy hell since the day i put a beer down, quite frankly…and ive never felt as effed up in my life as i have when i went straight….yeah…

Kook petition for independent inquiry into benzodiazepines fails miserably

“The horrific life-destroying implications of benzodiazepines have been known about for decades and yet the medical profession remain largely in denial of the damage. The doctors are in denial not us. They conspired with Big Pharma to turn us into accidental addicts. Blah blah blah. The Department of Health, the BMA, and Parliament have a duty to give justice to those whose lives have been ruined. Blah blah. There must be an inquiry for the sake of future generations and for those undergoing the horrific consequences of this iatrogenically induced pandemic. Iatrogenic? Big word that means the doctors did it and we hate them. Pandemic? An epidemic of infectious disease that has spread throughout the world? Get a grip.”

https://www.change.org/p/health-select-committee-an-independent-inquiry-into-benzodiazepines

Even though it is a UK petition, signatures are being solicited, at secret online sites, not only from UK, but also from U.S. and Canadian, citizens. At last count they had 604 signatures. Their goal is 1000. One of the doctor-bashing groups claims to have over 1500 members but can’t even rouse a significant percentage of its members to sign the petition (they don’t have 1500 active members). Benzo Buddies claims 28,000 members but over 90% of the listed membership never posts, or has posted once, and ran from the site screaming (it is rumored Benzo Buddies even keeps deceased members on the membership rolls). If Benzo Buddies had that many members it would be very easy to get 5,000 of them to sign a petition that bashes doctors — some movement. It is as fake as their claims Big Pharma targeted them.

  • UK population 64 million
  • U.S. population 319 million
  • Canadian population 36 million

That is to say, out of a combined total population of 419 million only 604 people signed this garbage. What percentage is that? Pathetic is not even the right word to describe this.

Medication helps people live productive lives.

Kooky Monday: Self-pitying addiction vs iatrogenic dependence discussion devolves into wild bar brawl-style slugfest of personal insults


Appreciate the article, but not sure why this relentless demonization of big pharma and benzos…..similar trope over current “opiod” hysteria…blaming “opiod addiction” on Big Pharma and “oxycontin, etc. Big Pharma should be celebrated for providing us these ameliorative drugs.

as a “survivor” of many things including forced incarceration and Thorazine at a clip of 1600 mg. daily, should I have the right to flash my credentials any time you disagree with me and demand you apologize?

Whatever…regarding points missed– just trying to respond to a palpable hostile tone you have directed at me

http://www.madinamerica.com/2016/03/bridging-the-benzo-divide-iatrogenic-dependence-andor-addiction/#/comment-85090

SIG LINE TERROR

Turning off user signatures
« on: December 30, 2015, 07:42:43 am »

[Buddie]

I noticed that I was obsessing too much with other users’ signatures and taper histories. I’ve turned that off, and it’s made me feel better….

Re: Turning off user signatures
« Reply #1 on: January 12, 2016, 09:58:17 pm »

[Buddie]

I’d like to make a suggestion for you- try a lightbox. It may be just the ticket you need to feel better.

Re: Turning off user signatures
« Reply #2 on: January 13, 2016, 09:20:51 pm »

[Buddie]

I agree about user signatures. They can really freak me out too. I stay away from the horror stories and stick with threads like Accentuate the positive. Also, when I started my taper 7 weeks ago I literally sat on my couch all day on benzo buddies. I now go on twice a day for fifteen minutes and get on with my life. We have no choice in what we are going through but we do have a choice in how we deal with it.

Re: Turning off user signatures
« Reply #3 on: January 20, 2016, 12:22:10 am »

[Buddie]

Thank goodness the signature lines are in small print. Many are way too lengthy and to me your entire history and tapering schedule from day one doesn’t belong there. I wish folks would modify their signatures. I just try to ignore these unless I have some reason to want to know a person’s back story. 

Cult lied, people died

Cult gate keepers tell members that their medical symptoms are just benzo withdrawal and to keep tapering. Members are also pressured – by other members – not to see their doctors/psychiatrists (because… “it will only make you worse” and “they might give you meds” or “lock you in a ward”). Six months, a year, two, three years – later they’re still sick… sometimes even sicker. A few of the lucky ones finally give in and go to see a doctor. They’re diagnosed with something other that drug withdrawal – sometimes something life-threatening. God help the members. God damn the moderators.

SCIENCE VS. CULT FEAR OF BUTTER

Re: Banned for spamming too many kitty pics
« Reply #219 on: July 18, 2012, 12:51:57 AM »

Colin

Quote from: wharfrat666 on July 15, 2012, 04:32:18 AM
but when someone is afraid of mayonnaise or butter, that’s an issue that should not be encouraged. Shame on you and your cohorts for not stifling such.

Why don’t you do your own research instead of just swallowing the crap from your friend. Though, frankly, I think you know the content posted at the blog is nonsense. The ‘butter’ stuff was at the benzowithdrawal.com forum (not BenzoBuddies), and as it was explained to me, like the vast majority of the stolen content appearing at the abusive blog, it was totally misrepresented. My experience is that 99% of the content there lies somewhere between deliberate misrepresentation, and damn lies.

The only mayonnaise stuff of which I am aware (and blogged about at the abusive blog) is a recent comment from a BB member stating that they prefer full-fat mayo over half-fat because off all the additional crap they put in the half-fat version. They just felt that, ‘on balance, a modest amount of full-fat mayo was a healthier option’. In what world should they be disciplined for such a statement? It is you and your friend that are the control freaks, not I, not the team here at BB. You!

Even if from time-to-time members should post something about an irrational fear, why is this a reason for them to be vilified, humiliated, and targeted? Why is it of any surprise that some people (particularly at a support forum where many members suffer from anxiety disorders) post about their anxieties and phobias? WharfRat: get – a – grip! Stop believing everything you read at your friend’s blog – read the original material – read it context – and if you still don’t like it: consider that the person posting it probably doesn’t deserve to be abused, have their words distorted, their visage superimposed upon a dog, their personal details published, or receive crank calls from a crank.

How food marketers made butter the enemy

James McWilliams—a historian who has made a name for himself in prestigious publications like the New York Times and The Atlantic for his contrarian defenses of the food industry—is back at it. In an item published last week in the excellent Pacific Standard, McWilliams uses the controversy over a recent study of saturated fat as a club with which to pummel food industry critics like the Times’ Mark Bittman.

Here’s what happened: A group including Harvard and Cambridge researchers analyzed 72 studies and concluded that there’s no clear evidence that ditching saturated fat (the kind found mainly in butter, eggs, and meat) for the monounsaturated and polyunsaturated kind (found in fish and a variety of vegetable oils) delivers health benefits.

Bittman responded to the study’s release with a Times item declaring that “butter is back.” His real point was more nuanced than that, though. The study’s conclusion “doesn’t mean you [should] abandon fruit for beef and cheese,” he wrote. Rather, he urged, “you [should] just abandon fake food for real food, and in that category of real food you can include good meat and dairy.”

Not so fast, McWilliams countered. He pointed out, correctly, that the study turned out to have errors, which the authors had to correct. But even after the corrections, the study’s lead author stood by the overall findings, Science reported. Another one of the authors told Science that the study’s main problem was the way it was covered by media. “We are not saying the guidelines are wrong and people can eat as much saturated fat as they want,” he told Science. “We are saying that there is no strong support for the guidelines and we need more good trials.”

Of course, headline aside, Bittman didn’t fall into that trap. He merely urged his readers to accept some fat when they’re “looking for a few chunks of pork for a stew,” and to use real butter in place of “I Can’t Believe It’s Not Butter.” Indeed, Bittman’s call for moderation in eating animal products is long-standing—he’s the author of a book called Vegan Before Six and a longtime champion of the “Meatless Mondays” practice.

But McWilliams’ real beef (so to speak) ultimately didn’t involve the study itself, or the debate over fat’s place in our diets. Rather, it centered on Bittman’s critique of the food industry, which Bittman blamed for stoking the public’s fat phobia, and manipulating to its own ends. McWilliams chides Bittman for the “disingenuousness of using a study on fat and heart health as grounds for condemning processed food,” and laments the “dubious manner in which processed foods are condemned.”

But he misses an important point: You can’t meaningfully debate the role of fat in our diets without looking hard at the way the food industry has manipulated the evolving scientific consensus around fat. On NPR last week, reporter Allison Aubrey showed how widespread fat phobia among the public gained traction from a 1977 decree by a US Senate committee that people should consume less saturated fat—which then got interpreted by the food industry as a license to promote sugar-laden, carbohydrate-rich products as “low fat” and thus healthy.

Simultaneously, as Bittman correctly noted, trans fats—cheap vegetable oils treated with hydrogen so that they remain solid at room temperature—emerged as the food industry’s butter substitute of choice for decades, providing the main substance for margarine. Based on relentless food industry marketing, generations of people grew up thinking trans-fat-laden margarine was healthier than butter—even after science definitively showed that it was much, much worse (a sorry tale I laid out here).

These fat-related marketing triumphs, quite profitable for the food industry, coincided with a surge in diet-related health troubles, including heightened obesity, diabetes, and metabolic-syndrome rates. Bittman is correct to discuss highly processed food in the context of the controversy over fat; and in trying to force it out of the conversation, McWilliams is playing his usual role: reasonable-sounding defender of a highly profitable but dysfunctional industry.