BREAKING NEWS FROM UK ON ATIVAN
Question:
Ian, what do you think they don’t understand about benzos? We have beeen watching that site as my wife is trying to get off of Xanax and there is no good help that we can find in our area. The people at eGroup seem to be helpful and encouraging. I haven’t seen anything that seems to have the potential to kill. Please respond with what you think their bad advice is. Thanks , MM
Hi Mark, This site was promoted here by one of our resident anti benzo trolls, Rand, in early July. I’ve appended my reply to him below. I’ve deleted some material on non relevant matters. It should answer all the questions you’ve raised. The person claiming to be the author, David Woolfe, then tried to excuse the error with the following: ::…..My name is David Woolfe, and I am the ::principle author of the document you have generously critiqued. I ::appreciate your input. However, it indicates clearly on the FAQ, ::which I will now post directly to this group, that this is version ::1.0, and input is requested so that inaccuracies can be corrected or ::important additions/deletions made. So you couldn’t be bothered to check the accuracy of the information you are trying to impart to people who probably know even less. I’m sure that it will be a great comfort to anyone that may be harmed that this is only version 1.0 and all errors will be corrected in v 1.1!!!
Later he attributed some of the errors of biology to trying to make the FAQ intelligible to "lay people." However, as some of the advice given is based on this incorrect understanding, I can only conclude this was more of the distortion/half-truth/lies some members of the group indulge in. Promises were also made that the misleading/potentially dangerous statements would be corrected. Indeed Mr Woolfe promised to let us know when v1.1 had been uploaded. The last time I looked they hadn’t been, and Mr Woolfe hasn’t been heard from. If you have further questions please ask. Despite the anti benzo cliques claims, that we are a NG of "drug pushers" in the pay of the pharmeceutical companies, we do offer impartial, and factual advice. Take care Ian Re: IMPORTANT NEW WEB SITE LAUNCHED TODAY ::http://homepage.ntlworld.com/raymond.nimmo :: ::This site is one of the best ones yet, adding to the growing list of ::websites cautioning and advising regarding the use of benzodiazepines ::to control stress, anxiety etc. :: ::It just came out July 9th. :: While this site does contain some good strategies for weaning from benzodiazepines, much of the other material is based on biological nonsense and this has lead the author(s) to make assertions that are medically/physiologically untenable. SOME OF THE ADVISE GIVEN IS POTENTIALLY LIFE THREATENING!!! From the FAQ page: ::Valium is particularly common in the British Isles. Then why do so many Brits have to almost sell their souls to get NHS prescriptions for it? ::Benzodiazepines are general central nervous system (CNS) depressants. ::They are all very similar chemically. Specifically, they all bind ::directly to and act upon your GABA-A receptor sites in your brain. ::Those sites produce the neurotransmitter GABA (gamma-amino butyric ::acid). No, they don’t. Receptors don’t produce anything, they only react to something – a neurotransmitter. Neurotransmitters begin ‘life’ deep within the soma (body] of neurons and are completed as they travel down the neuron’s axon. GABA is an amino acid (Gamma Amino Butyric Acid) that is sourced from protein. ::The effect of benzodiazepines in binding to and acting upon your ::GABA-A receptor sites is to increase the production of GABA. No, 100% wrong!!! Benzodiazepines REDUCE the production of GABA slightly in the longer term. [1] What benzodiazepines do is increase the molecular attraction between GABA receptors and the neurotransmitter (receptor potentiation). this ensures that more of the receptors are bound by the NT, and they remain bound slightly longer, thereby increasing the flow of Chlorine ions into neurons (see next). ::GABA suppresses a wide variety of other neurotransmitters and neural ::activity including, for example, the production of adrenaline. This ::mechanism of action is what produces the primary effects of the drug. NO!! GABA does no such thing. When GABA binds with a GABA-A receptors, Chlorine ion channels open allowing the influx of these negatively charged ions through the neuronal membrane. In order to depolarize (‘fire’) a neuron needs to increase it’s internal charge from the resting state of -70mV to about -55mV. Chlorine ions, being negatively charged reduce/delay the probability that a neuron will reach the -55mV level. GABA has no direct affect on the production of adrenaline. Almost none is produced in the brain (and then mostly as a step in the synthesis of noradrenaline [norepinephrin]) and adrenaline produced by the adrenal gland is not directly affected by GABA output in the brain. Nor can adrenal adrenaline pass the Blood Brain Barrier. ::However, benzodiazepines no longer show up in blood screenings beyond ::30 days after discontinuance. This either means they are totally ::eliminated by that time, or that they persist in amounts too small to have any ::long term effect. Some are actually produced within the brain (diazepam [valium] for example) and if you use the right testing procedure you will detect it in most peoples’ blood.[2] Those with some forms of cancer have very high plasma levels.[3] Benzodiazepines even occur naturally in cereals and vegetables. [4], So you’ll need to give up eating if you want to avoid these chemicals. In particular you’d want to avoid newly sprouted seeds. It seems that sprout munchers may be closeted junkies!!! ::VBG:: ::Tolerance is the process by which the receptors in your brain become ::habituated to the action of a drug. When tolerance is reached, more ::of the drug is required to achieve the same effect. Tolerance appears to be a lesser problem for those with anxiety disorders. Even your fellow traveler, Rand, didn’t need to increase his Klonopin intake even after 9 years of daily consumption. The next bit explains why. :: Regular benzodiazepine use almost always causes some degree of ::deterioration in cognitive functioning, which progresses with ::continued use. This may be true if taken at abuse levels. It very rarely happens at therapeutic levels, possibly because those with anxiety have fewer benzodiazepine receptors numbers/sensitivity [5] and benzodiazepine action mostly just restores their GABA system to something approaching "normal" function. ::Use of an addictive substance such as a benzodiazepine physically ::alters :the receptors in your brain (in this case, your GABA-A receptors) Supply the evidence for this statement. Receptors are relatively short lived (ranging from seconds to hours, rarely more that a few days) protein molecules that are constantly being replaced. The brain makes up about 5% of the body but used some 20% of the body’s resources. Much of that is due to the energy drain of continual receptor production. ::that the drug acts upon. That alteration causes these receptors to ::become unable to function properly without the drug. In the case of ::benzodiazepines, this means that your brain is unable to produce ::sufficient amounts of GABA without stimulation from the drug. I’ve already explained that GABA receptors don’t produce GABA (its a naturally occurring amino acid). The drug actually reduces GABA output slightly, as explained above. Benzo discontinuation INCREASES GABA expression! ::There are a few scattered reports of people who have benefited from ::the use of an earlier class of anti-depressants known as "tricyclics." ::One of these is Doxepin, which has a primary sedative effect as opposed to ::the stimulant effect of the SSRIs. Not all TCAs are sedating. And not all SSRI are stimulatory, Prozac is, but most are as sedating as the tricyclics, as anyone on particularly Paxil and Zoloft will verify. ::Beta blockers (e.g. Inderal): beta blockers help with heart ::palpitations, hypertension, as well as shakes/tremors. They are ::probably mildly addictive and should be tapered to prevent a ::discontinuance syndrome. The discontinuance syndrome associated with ::beta blockers is not as severe or protracted as that of ::benzodiazepines. Produce one, just one study to support this – other than Rand’s assertions!! Most beta-blockers are water soluble and can’t even cross the Blood Brain Barrier!!! [Additional note: Apparently they formed the belief that beta-blockers are addictive because they've saw references stating these drugs need to be weaned from. This is true, but its because of the effects on blood pressure, not because of addictive withdrawal symptoms.] ::25. WHAT ABOUT HERBS AND OTHER HOMEOPATHIC REMEDIES – DO ANY OF THOSE :: HELP THE WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOMS? ::Maybe. Everyone’s experience is different. Acupuncture, massage ::therapy and chiropractic have been commented on, but there is little ::conclusive data as to their effectiveness in relieving withdrawal ::symptoms. As for herbal remedies, all of the following have been ::mentioned as helpful to one person or another: valerian, kava kava, Are you aware that the Kava/alprazolam (Xanax) combination has resulted in coma? [6] I’m no lawyer, but I hope you have a good one because you disclaimers may not save you should someone be harmed by following your advise. You might also consider the following, a report "Kava use in Arnhem Land" by Peter d’Abbs, deputy director (research) [Australian] Northern Territory Drug and Alcohol Bureau. "Health workers in the East Arnhem region filed reports of malnutrition among young children resulting, it was claimed, from parents spending large sums of … read more »
Response:
Promises were also made that the misleading/potentially dangerous statements would be corrected. Indeed Mr Woolfe promised to let us know when v1.1 had been uploaded. The last time I looked they hadn’t been, and Mr Woolfe hasn’t been heard from.
I’ve finally had a chance to revisit this site and see that it has indeed now been updated. Tthey have copied and pasted some of the details from my critique to replace the more prominent errors. I guess I should be flattered, but I’m very glad they haven’t given me any credit because in the process they’ve just set up other inaccuracies. That often occurs when people don’t really understand what they write about. They still seem unable to distinguish between addiction and dependence. Even their main gurus, Professor Ashton and Dr. Ray Baker make a clear distinction. Guess it gets in the way of the often fishy tale they are spinning to confound the unwary. A very telling quote is "Unlike benzodiazepines, the primary symptom of Nicotine withdrawal is a craving for the drug." And that is the main distinctive difference between addiction and dependence!! If only they had the wit to understand it! They continue with the farcical claim that beta-blockers are addictive. They aren’t, by any medical definition. Yes, you do need to wean off them but that is not because of any effect on the brain. And they continue to mention "herbal" aids without giving any direct warning that some may be harmful. If anything the warnings have been reduced. Kava can still interact with benzos-as the Kava monograph clearly states, 5-HTP can still cause the potentially fatal Eosinophilia-Myalgia Syndrome (EMS). The latest case was confirmed just a week or two ago according to my sources in the EMS association. Nor is oral GABA any more likely to pass the brains’ blood barrier than it was 5 months ago. A complete waste of money!! So why don’t they say so?! They have also ammended some of the details concerning their lead guru, Dr Crystal Heather Ashton. The time she ran her (in)famous benzo detox clinic has been reduced from the previously claimed 15 years to the 12 that our number 1 anti benzo troll, Rand, has always claimed. And they also now repeat his claim that Ashton has a "Doctorate in Medicine." She doesn’t. DM is the British equivalent of MD. She is not a PhD, only a B.Sc. like every other garden variety GP/PCP. No doubt with more than a cursory study many other errors would become evident, but frankly, why would anyone bother to accept anything these guys wrote. Benzo withdrawal can sometimes be hard, but most folk do it with minimum discomfort if they wean off them slowly. However, if you believe that you are going to suffer the agonies of the damned, then you probably will. We are often highly susceptible to such claims about medications, its almost part of our disorders. Please don’t let these ignorants talk you into that! And please don’t follow any of their suggestions without clearing it with your doctor first. Ian
Response:
Do yourself a favor if you really want to wean yourself off these drugs you get off guaranteed. If you have any problems subscribing let me know. Liz
But take some of the recommendations with a large grain of salt, and don’t follow any without okaying it with your doctor first. If there website is any guide, these folk have avery poor understanding of what benzos do, and how they work. Some of the things they canvass have the potential to do great harm, even kill. ian
Response:
Ian, what do you think they don’t understand about benzos? We have beeen watching that site as my wife is trying to get off of Xanax and there is no good help that we can find in our area. The people at eGroup seem to be helpful and encouraging. I haven’t seen anything that seems to have the potential to kill. Please respond with what you think their bad advice is. Thanks , MM
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Do yourself a favor if you really want to wean yourself off these drugs you get off guaranteed. If you have any problems subscribing let me know. Liz But take some of the recommendations with a large grain of salt, and don’t follow any without okaying it with your doctor first. If there website is any guide, these folk have avery poor understanding of what benzos do, and how they work. Some of the things they canvass have the potential to do great harm, even kill. ian
Response:
WYETH SCANDAL JUST HIT THE PAPERS IN THE UK Here is a BOMBSHELL of a story which affects the health of millions of people everywhere. Horrifying legacy of the ‘celebrity sedative’ marketed without tests Sunday Express, October, 29 2000 by Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert MILLIONS of patients have been given a leading tranquilliser without being told of its potentially catastrophic long-term effects. And the manufacturer of Ativan – which is claimed to be linked with damage to the brain and nervous system – will this week face accusations that it should have known about its addictive dangers. The drug – produced by the American pharmaceutical giant Wyeth – has been prescribed since the Seventies as a wonder cure for anxiety. Wyeth has always insisted that it is harmless, but in the late Eighties it was forced to advise patients against long-term use of the drug – by then known as Lorazepam – because of health risks. Now long-term users, such as Mike Burkinshaw 56, who took Ativan for 18 years and is disabled and in constant pain, say they should have been told earlier. The former British Telecom engineer was prescribed Ativan at 34 for feelings of aggression. Just months later he suffered a violent seizure. He developed memory problems and soon lost his job. Today he is in constant agony walks with sticks, and suffers vision and memory loss. Barry Haslam, 58, also claims he became addicted to Ativan following a nervous breakdown. He suffered violent mood swings and memory loss so severe that he has "lost" 10 years of his life. "It is like having a chemical lobotomy" said Mr Haslam, from Oldham, Greater Manchester who doesn’t remember his children growing up and still suffers ill-health. Today the Sunday Express can reveal that two of Wyeth’s own medical directors had grave concerns about the long-term use of the drug. In documents seen by this newspaper they claim the company should have been aware of the potential dangers. They believe detailed research ought to have been carried out before so many people became dependent on the drug. One of the medical directors is Dr Thomas Harry who masterminded the crucial clinical trials for the drug at the company’s research centre in Taplow, Bucks. The UK was the launchpad for licensing Ativan around the world. In his statement he says he was never asked to undertake trials to find out whether it was safe to prescribe the drug for several months or more. He believes one reason why long-term trials were not carried out "was that there was nothing to be gained by them, but everything to lose in the sense we could be courting disaster". Ativan was launched in 1972 and became one of the company’s most successful products with sales of 36million a year in the early Eighties. High profile users of this and similar drugs have included the late TV presenter Paula Yates, actresses Liz Taylor and Judy Garland, singers Marc Almond and Liza Minnelli and comedian Freddie Starr. Dr Harry a former psychiatrist, says the drugs were designed to be taken for only a few weeks, and if he had been told it was to be used long term, he would have queried the instructions over the trials. "I would have to advise a company that it would not be proper to market the product for a long-term," he said. But he says that for years after they went on sale, the company failed to make it clear that the drugs were not to be taken over a prolonged period. "The company did not tell doctors, either in data sheets or elsewhere, that Ativan should only be prescribed short-term," he said. In fact, many people became dependent on the drug for years. Dr Harry says the company could have foreseen this potential danger if they had done more research before Ativan was launched. He said: "The view of most people in the industry at the time was that there was a high probability that a patient would have difficulties in withdrawing from any drug that acts on the central nervous system. "The trials were carried out for too short a period of time to reveal the side-effects which, we now know result from prolonged administration of this drug." He says no proper long-term research work was done on dependency until after 1986 -14 years after the drug had gone on sale – despite the fact, he says, that "there was a growing awareness of the dependency problem from, at the latest, the late 1970s". He also alleges that Wyeth failed to pursue research which had earlier indicated that the drug could cause seizures, memory loss and tremors. In separate documents, Dr Deepak Malhotra, a former medical director of Wyeth Australia, also claims that Wyeth failed to warn the public about the dangers of Ativan. The company is obliged to highlight potential health risks in its data sheets distributed as a warning to doctors. In the UK, the first mention made of "possible dependence problems," was in 1979. By 1983 the company admitted that prolonged use may "occasionally" result in "some psychological dependence with withdrawal symptoms on sudden discontinuation". But it was not until1988, after pressure from the public and medical professionals, that the Government forced Wyeth to issue strict guidelines. These stipulated that the drug should not be taken for more than four weeks unless a specialist gave exceptional reasons for doing so. By then the drug had lost its patent and was being produced by a series of manufacturers under the new name Lorazepam. It is still known by that name today and has carried the warning since 1988. Thousands of people now claim to have been harmed by Ativan, which belongs to a group of tranquillisers known as benzodiazepines. According to Government figures they kill more people than heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine combined. It is believed that if they are used over a long period, the tranquillisers disrupt electrical pathways in the brain, causing damage to the central nervous system. This is alleged to have caused a number of symptoms including depression, epileptic fits, stomach disorders, irregular blood pressure, hallucinations, loss of vision or memory, insomnia and muscle problems. The evidence against Ativan and other tranquillisers will be heard at an international conference in Croydon this week. Scientists, MPs and victims will be calling for a public inquiry into how the drug was given approval. The company said on Friday that the drug is now only prescribed for short-term use because it is not desirable that people should become dependent. It does not accept that the drug is – or ever was – harmful and says its knowledge of the dependency problem developed over a number of years. In a statement it said: "While Wyeth sympathises with those patients whose illnesses have clearly caused them considerable distress and difficulties in life, the company firmly believes that there is no medical or scientific basis to substantiate allegations in this regard made against benzodiazepine products." A joint legal action against the manufacturers involving thousands of long-term users, collapsed in 1994 after the Legal Aid Board ended its funding for their case. Now 35 of them are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming they were denied a trial. Reg Peart, ex-atomic scientist and national co-ordinator of Victims of Tranquillisers, said: "This is the biggest medical scandal of the 20th century perpetuated by drug companies and resulting in a catalogue of misprescriptions, misdiagnosis and suffering." Pam Armstrong, co-founder of the Liverpool-based Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, added: "The legacy goes on. Thousands have been permanently damaged and we are picking up the pieces. Even today the addictive potential of these drugs is not being recognised. "This is a drastically under-estimated problem and even doctors don’t realise how bad it is."
Response:
I don’t like spending three days in the medical hospital everytime my pdoc tries to wean me off. I have had a headache for 3 weeks. No kidding. Something is not
right. Do yourself a favor if you really want to wean yourself off these drugs you get off guaranteed. If you have any problems subscribing let me know. Liz – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Karubin WYETH SCANDAL JUST HIT THE PAPERS IN THE UK Ah…another visit by One Man Anti Benzo Crusade Squad *Rand* with another horror story from the Third World of Meds, the UK. Don’t pay attention, Ativan-users! Philip Here is a BOMBSHELL of a story which affects the health of millions of people everywhere. Horrifying legacy of the ‘celebrity sedative’ marketed without tests Sunday Express, October, 29 2000 by Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert MILLIONS of patients have been given a leading tranquilliser without being told of its potentially catastrophic long-term effects. And the manufacturer of Ativan – which is claimed to be linked with damage to the brain and nervous system – will this week face accusations that it should have known about its addictive dangers. The drug – produced by the American pharmaceutical giant Wyeth – has been prescribed since the Seventies as a wonder cure for anxiety. Wyeth has always insisted that it is harmless, but in the late Eighties it was forced to advise patients against long-term use of the drug – by then known as Lorazepam – because of health risks. Now long-term users, such as Mike Burkinshaw 56, who took Ativan for 18 years and is disabled and in constant pain, say they should have been told earlier. The former British Telecom engineer was prescribed Ativan at 34 for feelings of aggression. Just months later he suffered a violent seizure. He developed memory problems and soon lost his job. Today he is in constant agony walks with sticks, and suffers vision and memory loss. Barry Haslam, 58, also claims he became addicted to Ativan following a nervous breakdown. He suffered violent mood swings and memory loss so severe that he has "lost" 10 years of his life. "It is like having a chemical lobotomy" said Mr Haslam, from Oldham, Greater Manchester who doesn’t remember his children growing up and still suffers ill-health. Today the Sunday Express can reveal that two of Wyeth’s own medical directors had grave concerns about the long-term use of the drug. In documents seen by this newspaper they claim the company should have been aware of the potential dangers. They believe detailed research ought to have been carried out before so many people became dependent on the drug. One of the medical directors is Dr Thomas Harry who masterminded the crucial clinical trials for the drug at the company’s research centre in Taplow, Bucks. The UK was the launchpad for licensing Ativan around the world. In his statement he says he was never asked to undertake trials to find out whether it was safe to prescribe the drug for several months or more. He believes one reason why long-term trials were not carried out "was that there was nothing to be gained by them, but everything to lose in the sense we could be courting disaster". Ativan was launched in 1972 and became one of the company’s most successful products with sales of 36million a year in the early Eighties. High profile users of this and similar drugs have included the late TV presenter Paula Yates, actresses Liz Taylor and Judy Garland, singers Marc Almond and Liza Minnelli and comedian Freddie Starr. Dr Harry a former psychiatrist, says the drugs were designed to be taken for only a few weeks, and if he had been told it was to be used long term, he would have queried the instructions over the trials. "I would have to advise a company that it would not be proper to market the product for a long-term," he said. But he says that for years after they went on sale, the company failed to make it clear that the drugs were not to be taken over a prolonged period. "The company did not tell doctors, either in data sheets or elsewhere, that Ativan should only be prescribed short-term," he said. In fact, many people became dependent on the drug for years. Dr Harry says the company could have foreseen this potential danger if they had done more research before Ativan was launched. He said: "The view of most people in the industry at the time was that there was a high probability that a patient would have difficulties in withdrawing from any drug that acts on the central nervous system. "The trials were carried out for too short a period of time to reveal the side-effects which, we now know result from prolonged administration of this drug." He says no proper long-term research work was done on dependency until after 1986 -14 years after the drug had gone on sale – despite the fact, he says, that "there was a growing awareness of the dependency problem from, at the latest, the late 1970s". He also alleges that Wyeth failed to pursue research which had earlier indicated that the drug could cause seizures, memory loss and tremors. In separate documents, Dr Deepak Malhotra, a former medical director of Wyeth Australia, also claims that Wyeth failed to warn the public about the dangers of Ativan. The company is obliged to highlight potential health risks in its data sheets distributed as a warning to doctors. In the UK, the first mention made of "possible dependence problems," was in 1979. By 1983 the company admitted that prolonged use may "occasionally" result in "some psychological dependence with withdrawal symptoms on sudden discontinuation". But it was not until1988, after pressure from the public and medical professionals, that the Government forced Wyeth to issue strict guidelines. These stipulated that the drug should not be taken for more than four weeks unless a specialist gave exceptional reasons for doing so. By then the drug had lost its patent and was being produced by a series of manufacturers under the new name Lorazepam. It is still known by that name today and has carried the warning since 1988. Thousands of people now claim to have been harmed by Ativan, which belongs to a group of tranquillisers known as benzodiazepines. According to Government figures they kill more people than heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine combined. It is believed that if they are used over a long period, the tranquillisers disrupt electrical pathways in the brain, causing damage to the central nervous system. This is alleged to have caused a number of symptoms including depression, epileptic fits, stomach disorders, irregular blood pressure, hallucinations, loss of vision or memory, insomnia and muscle problems. The evidence against Ativan and other tranquillisers will be heard at an international conference in Croydon this week. Scientists, MPs and victims will be calling for a public inquiry into how the drug was given approval. The company said on Friday that the drug is now only prescribed for short-term use because it is not desirable that people should become dependent. It does not accept that the drug is – or ever was – harmful and says its knowledge of the dependency problem developed over a number of years. In a statement it said: "While Wyeth sympathises with those patients whose illnesses have clearly caused them considerable distress and difficulties in life, the company firmly believes that there is no medical or scientific basis to substantiate allegations in this regard made against benzodiazepine products." A joint legal action against the manufacturers involving thousands of long-term users, collapsed in 1994 after the Legal Aid Board ended its funding for their case. Now 35 of them are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming they were denied a trial. Reg Peart, ex-atomic scientist and national co-ordinator of Victims of Tranquillisers, said: "This is the biggest medical scandal of the 20th century perpetuated by drug companies and resulting in a catalogue of misprescriptions, misdiagnosis and suffering." Pam Armstrong, co-founder of the Liverpool-based Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, added: "The legacy goes on. Thousands have been permanently damaged and we are picking up the pieces. Even today the addictive potential of these drugs is not being recognised. "This is a drastically under-estimated problem and even doctors don’t realise how bad it is."
Before you buy.
Response:
writes: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WYETH SCANDAL JUST HIT THE PAPERS IN THE UK Here is a BOMBSHELL of a story which affects the health of millions of people everywhere. Horrifying legacy of the ‘celebrity sedative’ marketed without tests Sunday Express, October, 29 2000 by Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert MILLIONS of patients have been given a leading tranquilliser without being told of its potentially catastrophic long-term effects. And the manufacturer of Ativan – which is claimed to be linked with damage to the brain and nervous system – will this week face accusations that it should have known about its addictive dangers. There are so many errors of fact in this beatup that I can see the Sunday Express being sued for many many millions. I am right in thinking that this paper is one of Ruperts scandal rags with less credibility than the National Enquirer? Wonder if Rand is Lucy Johnson or Jonathan Calvert! Ian
LOL That was a good one Ian. Thanks! Di
Response:
Actually, I would prefer to look at both sides of the story before I make a decision. I know for a fact that my benzos(klonopin and Xanax) affect my memory to a great extent. I would quit taking the klonopin, if I would not have a seizure when I try to stop(yes I weaned). I don’t like spending three days in the medical hospital everytime my pdoc tries to wean me off. I have had a headache for 3 weeks. No kidding. Something is not right. Karubin
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WYETH SCANDAL JUST HIT THE PAPERS IN THE UK Ah…another visit by One Man Anti Benzo Crusade Squad *Rand* with another horror story from the Third World of Meds, the UK. Don’t pay attention, Ativan-users! Philip Here is a BOMBSHELL of a story which affects the health of millions of people everywhere. Horrifying legacy of the ‘celebrity sedative’ marketed without tests Sunday Express, October, 29 2000 by Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert MILLIONS of patients have been given a leading tranquilliser without being told of its potentially catastrophic long-term effects. And the manufacturer of Ativan – which is claimed to be linked with damage to the brain and nervous system – will this week face accusations that it should have known about its addictive dangers. The drug – produced by the American pharmaceutical giant Wyeth – has been prescribed since the Seventies as a wonder cure for anxiety. Wyeth has always insisted that it is harmless, but in the late Eighties it was forced to advise patients against long-term use of the drug – by then known as Lorazepam – because of health risks. Now long-term users, such as Mike Burkinshaw 56, who took Ativan for 18 years and is disabled and in constant pain, say they should have been told earlier. The former British Telecom engineer was prescribed Ativan at 34 for feelings of aggression. Just months later he suffered a violent seizure. He developed memory problems and soon lost his job. Today he is in constant agony walks with sticks, and suffers vision and memory loss. Barry Haslam, 58, also claims he became addicted to Ativan following a nervous breakdown. He suffered violent mood swings and memory loss so severe that he has "lost" 10 years of his life. "It is like having a chemical lobotomy" said Mr Haslam, from Oldham, Greater Manchester who doesn’t remember his children growing up and still suffers ill-health. Today the Sunday Express can reveal that two of Wyeth’s own medical directors had grave concerns about the long-term use of the drug. In documents seen by this newspaper they claim the company should have been aware of the potential dangers. They believe detailed research ought to have been carried out before so many people became dependent on the drug. One of the medical directors is Dr Thomas Harry who masterminded the crucial clinical trials for the drug at the company’s research centre in Taplow, Bucks. The UK was the launchpad for licensing Ativan around the world. In his statement he says he was never asked to undertake trials to find out whether it was safe to prescribe the drug for several months or more. He believes one reason why long-term trials were not carried out "was that there was nothing to be gained by them, but everything to lose in the sense we could be courting disaster". Ativan was launched in 1972 and became one of the company’s most successful products with sales of 36million a year in the early Eighties. High profile users of this and similar drugs have included the late TV presenter Paula Yates, actresses Liz Taylor and Judy Garland, singers Marc Almond and Liza Minnelli and comedian Freddie Starr. Dr Harry a former psychiatrist, says the drugs were designed to be taken for only a few weeks, and if he had been told it was to be used long term, he would have queried the instructions over the trials. "I would have to advise a company that it would not be proper to market the product for a long-term," he said. But he says that for years after they went on sale, the company failed to make it clear that the drugs were not to be taken over a prolonged period. "The company did not tell doctors, either in data sheets or elsewhere, that Ativan should only be prescribed short-term," he said. In fact, many people became dependent on the drug for years. Dr Harry says the company could have foreseen this potential danger if they had done more research before Ativan was launched. He said: "The view of most people in the industry at the time was that there was a high probability that a patient would have difficulties in withdrawing from any drug that acts on the central nervous system. "The trials were carried out for too short a period of time to reveal the side-effects which, we now know result from prolonged administration of this drug." He says no proper long-term research work was done on dependency until after 1986 -14 years after the drug had gone on sale – despite the fact, he says, that "there was a growing awareness of the dependency problem from, at the latest, the late 1970s". He also alleges that Wyeth failed to pursue research which had earlier indicated that the drug could cause seizures, memory loss and tremors. In separate documents, Dr Deepak Malhotra, a former medical director of Wyeth Australia, also claims that Wyeth failed to warn the public about the dangers of Ativan. The company is obliged to highlight potential health risks in its data sheets distributed as a warning to doctors. In the UK, the first mention made of "possible dependence problems," was in 1979. By 1983 the company admitted that prolonged use may "occasionally" result in "some psychological dependence with withdrawal symptoms on sudden discontinuation". But it was not until1988, after pressure from the public and medical professionals, that the Government forced Wyeth to issue strict guidelines. These stipulated that the drug should not be taken for more than four weeks unless a specialist gave exceptional reasons for doing so. By then the drug had lost its patent and was being produced by a series of manufacturers under the new name Lorazepam. It is still known by that name today and has carried the warning since 1988. Thousands of people now claim to have been harmed by Ativan, which belongs to a group of tranquillisers known as benzodiazepines. According to Government figures they kill more people than heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine combined. It is believed that if they are used over a long period, the tranquillisers disrupt electrical pathways in the brain, causing damage to the central nervous system. This is alleged to have caused a number of symptoms including depression, epileptic fits, stomach disorders, irregular blood pressure, hallucinations, loss of vision or memory, insomnia and muscle problems. The evidence against Ativan and other tranquillisers will be heard at an international conference in Croydon this week. Scientists, MPs and victims will be calling for a public inquiry into how the drug was given approval. The company said on Friday that the drug is now only prescribed for short-term use because it is not desirable that people should become dependent. It does not accept that the drug is – or ever was – harmful and says its knowledge of the dependency problem developed over a number of years. In a statement it said: "While Wyeth sympathises with those patients whose illnesses have clearly caused them considerable distress and difficulties in life, the company firmly believes that there is no medical or scientific basis to substantiate allegations in this regard made against benzodiazepine products." A joint legal action against the manufacturers involving thousands of long-term users, collapsed in 1994 after the Legal Aid Board ended its funding for their case. Now 35 of them are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming they were denied a trial. Reg Peart, ex-atomic scientist and national co-ordinator of Victims of Tranquillisers, said: "This is the biggest medical scandal of the 20th century perpetuated by drug companies and resulting in a catalogue of misprescriptions, misdiagnosis and suffering." Pam Armstrong, co-founder of the Liverpool-based Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, added: "The legacy goes on. Thousands have been permanently damaged and we are picking up the pieces. Even today the addictive potential of these drugs is not being recognised. "This is a drastically under-estimated problem and even doctors don’t realise how bad it is."
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – WYETH SCANDAL JUST HIT THE PAPERS IN THE UK Here is a BOMBSHELL of a story which affects the health of millions of people everywhere. Horrifying legacy of the ‘celebrity sedative’ marketed without tests Sunday Express, October, 29 2000 by Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert MILLIONS of patients have been given a leading tranquilliser without being told of its potentially catastrophic long-term effects. And the manufacturer of Ativan – which is claimed to be linked with damage to the brain and nervous system – will this week face accusations that it should have known about its addictive dangers.
There are so many errors of fact in this beatup that I can see the Sunday Express being sued for many many millions. I am right in thinking that this paper is one of Ruperts scandal rags with less credibility than the National Enquirer? Wonder if Rand is Lucy Johnson or Jonathan Calvert! Ian
Response:
WYETH SCANDAL JUST HIT THE PAPERS IN THE UK
Ah…another visit by One Man Anti Benzo Crusade Squad *Rand* with another horror story from the Third World of Meds, the UK. Don’t pay attention, Ativan-users! Philip – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Here is a BOMBSHELL of a story which affects the health of millions of people everywhere. Horrifying legacy of the ‘celebrity sedative’ marketed without tests Sunday Express, October, 29 2000 by Lucy Johnston and Jonathan Calvert MILLIONS of patients have been given a leading tranquilliser without being told of its potentially catastrophic long-term effects. And the manufacturer of Ativan – which is claimed to be linked with damage to the brain and nervous system – will this week face accusations that it should have known about its addictive dangers. The drug – produced by the American pharmaceutical giant Wyeth – has been prescribed since the Seventies as a wonder cure for anxiety. Wyeth has always insisted that it is harmless, but in the late Eighties it was forced to advise patients against long-term use of the drug – by then known as Lorazepam – because of health risks. Now long-term users, such as Mike Burkinshaw 56, who took Ativan for 18 years and is disabled and in constant pain, say they should have been told earlier. The former British Telecom engineer was prescribed Ativan at 34 for feelings of aggression. Just months later he suffered a violent seizure. He developed memory problems and soon lost his job. Today he is in constant agony walks with sticks, and suffers vision and memory loss. Barry Haslam, 58, also claims he became addicted to Ativan following a nervous breakdown. He suffered violent mood swings and memory loss so severe that he has "lost" 10 years of his life. "It is like having a chemical lobotomy" said Mr Haslam, from Oldham, Greater Manchester who doesn’t remember his children growing up and still suffers ill-health. Today the Sunday Express can reveal that two of Wyeth’s own medical directors had grave concerns about the long-term use of the drug. In documents seen by this newspaper they claim the company should have been aware of the potential dangers. They believe detailed research ought to have been carried out before so many people became dependent on the drug. One of the medical directors is Dr Thomas Harry who masterminded the crucial clinical trials for the drug at the company’s research centre in Taplow, Bucks. The UK was the launchpad for licensing Ativan around the world. In his statement he says he was never asked to undertake trials to find out whether it was safe to prescribe the drug for several months or more. He believes one reason why long-term trials were not carried out "was that there was nothing to be gained by them, but everything to lose in the sense we could be courting disaster". Ativan was launched in 1972 and became one of the company’s most successful products with sales of 36million a year in the early Eighties. High profile users of this and similar drugs have included the late TV presenter Paula Yates, actresses Liz Taylor and Judy Garland, singers Marc Almond and Liza Minnelli and comedian Freddie Starr. Dr Harry a former psychiatrist, says the drugs were designed to be taken for only a few weeks, and if he had been told it was to be used long term, he would have queried the instructions over the trials. "I would have to advise a company that it would not be proper to market the product for a long-term," he said. But he says that for years after they went on sale, the company failed to make it clear that the drugs were not to be taken over a prolonged period. "The company did not tell doctors, either in data sheets or elsewhere, that Ativan should only be prescribed short-term," he said. In fact, many people became dependent on the drug for years. Dr Harry says the company could have foreseen this potential danger if they had done more research before Ativan was launched. He said: "The view of most people in the industry at the time was that there was a high probability that a patient would have difficulties in withdrawing from any drug that acts on the central nervous system. "The trials were carried out for too short a period of time to reveal the side-effects which, we now know result from prolonged administration of this drug." He says no proper long-term research work was done on dependency until after 1986 -14 years after the drug had gone on sale – despite the fact, he says, that "there was a growing awareness of the dependency problem from, at the latest, the late 1970s". He also alleges that Wyeth failed to pursue research which had earlier indicated that the drug could cause seizures, memory loss and tremors. In separate documents, Dr Deepak Malhotra, a former medical director of Wyeth Australia, also claims that Wyeth failed to warn the public about the dangers of Ativan. The company is obliged to highlight potential health risks in its data sheets distributed as a warning to doctors. In the UK, the first mention made of "possible dependence problems," was in 1979. By 1983 the company admitted that prolonged use may "occasionally" result in "some psychological dependence with withdrawal symptoms on sudden discontinuation". But it was not until1988, after pressure from the public and medical professionals, that the Government forced Wyeth to issue strict guidelines. These stipulated that the drug should not be taken for more than four weeks unless a specialist gave exceptional reasons for doing so. By then the drug had lost its patent and was being produced by a series of manufacturers under the new name Lorazepam. It is still known by that name today and has carried the warning since 1988. Thousands of people now claim to have been harmed by Ativan, which belongs to a group of tranquillisers known as benzodiazepines. According to Government figures they kill more people than heroin, Ecstasy and cocaine combined. It is believed that if they are used over a long period, the tranquillisers disrupt electrical pathways in the brain, causing damage to the central nervous system. This is alleged to have caused a number of symptoms including depression, epileptic fits, stomach disorders, irregular blood pressure, hallucinations, loss of vision or memory, insomnia and muscle problems. The evidence against Ativan and other tranquillisers will be heard at an international conference in Croydon this week. Scientists, MPs and victims will be calling for a public inquiry into how the drug was given approval. The company said on Friday that the drug is now only prescribed for short-term use because it is not desirable that people should become dependent. It does not accept that the drug is – or ever was – harmful and says its knowledge of the dependency problem developed over a number of years. In a statement it said: "While Wyeth sympathises with those patients whose illnesses have clearly caused them considerable distress and difficulties in life, the company firmly believes that there is no medical or scientific basis to substantiate allegations in this regard made against benzodiazepine products." A joint legal action against the manufacturers involving thousands of long-term users, collapsed in 1994 after the Legal Aid Board ended its funding for their case. Now 35 of them are taking their cases to the European Court of Human Rights, claiming they were denied a trial. Reg Peart, ex-atomic scientist and national co-ordinator of Victims of Tranquillisers, said: "This is the biggest medical scandal of the 20th century perpetuated by drug companies and resulting in a catalogue of misprescriptions, misdiagnosis and suffering." Pam Armstrong, co-founder of the Liverpool-based Council for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction, added: "The legacy goes on. Thousands have been permanently damaged and we are picking up the pieces. Even today the addictive potential of these drugs is not being recognised. "This is a drastically under-estimated problem and even doctors don’t realise how bad it is."
