Benzo Buddies uses Las Vegas tragedy to promote Scientology

Re: Unfortunately the Las Vegas tragedy will create new benzo buddies
« Reply #4 on: October 03, 2017, 02:29:19 pm »


I wouldn’t be surprised if it turns out the killer was on psych drugs. Probably not benzos, but SSRI’s. Most of them are.


A revised benzo bill has been reintroduced into the Massachusetts legislature — HD.2918 An Act relative to benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics. They have six days to get co-sponsors for the bill.

I will be sending a detailed packet of information to all 160 members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, detailing the cult’s ties to Scientology, threats to doctors, the cult danger to medical science, examples of their harassment of doctors (and other medical workers / pharma employees), screenshots, etc. and of the urgent need to protect patients from cult abuse.

I urge readers to do the same.

Contact info

Psychiatry-bashing Scientology cult feeling the heat

Why doesn’t the Church of Scientology sue Leah Remini?

Because every single word she says it true.

How pro-Scientology / anti-psychiatry kooks see doctors

Massachusetts Medical Society hits back at kooks, demands anti-patient benzo bill be rejected

MMS Testimony in Opposition to House 4062, An Act Relative to Benzopiazapines and Non-Benzodiazepine Hypnotics

Before the Joint Committee on Mental Health and Substance Abuse

The Massachusetts Medical Society wishes to be recorded in opposition to House 4062, “An Act relative to benzodiazepines and non-benzodiazepine hypnotics.”

The Medical Society strongly supports the careful prescribing of benzodiazepines given concerns over addiction, over polypharmacy abuse with opioids, and given the clinical acuity of the detoxification process from benzodiazepines. Many of the continuing medical education courses that we provide free to all prescribers include section on improving benzodiazepine prescribing. The MMS supports thoughtful safeguards to promote best practices and to eradicate any fraudulent prescribing of these and other drugs. However, the Medical Society also believes that benzodiazepines are essential drugs for the wellbeing of many patients, including those in recovery from alcoholism. At present, the proper tools exist to ensure proper prescribing, and we ultimately feel that House 4062 will have a detrimental impact on care provided to patients.

There are many ways that the standard of care in the practice of medicine is enforced in the Commonwealth. The Board of Registration in Medicine has a team of attorneys that continuously work to hold accountable those physicians who improperly prescribe. The Department of Public Health has a clinical advisory group that mines Prescription Monitoring Program Data to highlight cases for further review by licensing boards. The Office of the Attorney General, the tort system, and law enforcement all also have roles in maintaining best prescribing practices. Additionally, benzodiazepines are the only class of drugs, along with opioids, that are part of the explicit regulatory requirement that prescribers check the PMP before issuance of such a prescription to a patient for the first time. The MMS supports this current requirement.

Many of the specific provisions in this bill are problematic and will not result in the intended effect. The definition of non-benzodiazepine hypnotics is imprecise and has sufficient ambiguity to disallow any anticipation of its application. While the Medical Society appreciates the complexity of the medical discontinuation of benzodiazepines, protocols by the Department of Public Health are not the answer. The Department of Public Health does not have the clinical expertise as an entity such as the Board of Registration of Medicine, and the again the aforementioned existing safeguards are more than sufficient to promote best prescribing practices. A protocol-by-protocol approach to issues of public health concern is neither sustainable nor consistent with the long history of the provision of good medicine in Massachusetts.

The “brightly colored” paper provision is also problematic. In a time when we’re trying to destigmatize mental health issues and to promote recovery of diseases such as alcoholism, requiring recipients of benzodiazepines to have to present to the pharmacy with a scarlet letter would be antithetical to the improvements in mental health and substance abuse care over the past many years. It does not seem to provide a concrete solution to any issue and it’s yet another burden to prescribers.

Lastly, the final section requiring written informed consent is also problematic. Physicians make decisions on a daily basis about how best to provide informed consent. Many factors dictate how best to communicate medical information to a particular patient- what level of scientific detail should they provide on the risk and benefits, what types of alternatives are relevant to this particular case, and in what medium can the information best be conveyed? Written form is most effective in some instances and physicians will elect to utilize it. In others, a verbal discussion is more appropriate because of various factors (i.e., multiple informed consent forms signed or discussions had over the course of refills, literacy issues, or prioritization of time during a given clinical encounter.)

The Medical Society supports the thoughtful prescribing of these complex medications. The Medical Society supports the intent to ensure that improper prescribers are held accountable and that patients are properly informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to benzodiazepines. But the Medical Society firmly opposes this bill, and believes that the specific policy provisions put forward in House 4062 will have a detrimental impact on the provision of care in the Commonwealth. The Medical Society asks you to reject this bill.,-An-Act-Relative-to-Benzopiazapines-and-Non-Benzodiazepine-Hypnotics/#.VwWEjxMrJBx