Colin Hope's Story

[Guest guest]

http://www.benzo.org.uk/

 

 

Colin Hope's Story

from the 1995 VOT Newsletter

 

 

I was prescribed Valium in 1983 as an aid in attempting to stop smoking

cigarettes. I became addicted. I decided to try and get off it in 1990. I took a

3 month sabbatical from work to do this. I was advised (by a doctor) to just

stop abruptly. I had several attempts at this, once staying off Valium for 10

weeks, but failed. I have no family, and had no friends local to me at that time

– i.e. no support. I took myself off to an Anthroposophical 'therapeutic

community' in the West Midlands. This is a general purpose clinic following the

teachings of an Austrian mystic Rudolph Steiner; it is not a psychiatric clinic,

nor is it a drug treatment centre. The people there are well intentioned and

mostly harmless. Unfortunately they have two medical doctors whose understanding

of psychoactive allopathic drugs is limited.

 

I eventually persuaded them that I needed to withdraw from Valium slowly. They

persuaded me that it would be a good plan to take Largactil (200mg/day) and

Anafranil (a tricyclic antidepressant 150mg/day) to help " ease the pain " and

" provide extra inner space " with which to engage in their artistic therapies

(painting, sculpture and eurhythmy). At no stage had I exhibited any symptoms of

psychosis, nor did they think that I had. They appear to regard these drugs as

innocuous and almost 'herbal'. They assured me that these drugs had few side

effects and no serious ones; they mentioned only 'increased photosensitivity'

and 'difficulty in micturition'. It is well known amongst experts that these two

types of drug should not be mixed as their side effect profiles are very

similar; in any case such polypharmacy is regarded by many as a very bad plan –

the side effects are worsened and the actual 'therapeutic' effects become more

unpredictable.

 

I ended up paying them a serious amount of money and staying for 18 months. I

became too ill to leave. Although I did finally get off Valium I regard the

price as being way too high; I'm scared that I have been permanently damaged by

Largactil. I would not do this again. Basically I almost died. I started out not

being particularly depressed, certainly not 'clinically'. I ended up profoundly

despairing. I very seriously contemplated suicide. This was a direct result of

the two drugs I was given. I was hardly eating, yet became two stones overweight

and was growing breasts. Once again these are common and expected side effects

of Largactil; the two doctors were unaware of this connection even the latter is

listed in the British National Formulary as 'gynaecomastia'. I was unaware of

this connection; I trusted them and their 'clinical judgement'. It cost me

dearly.

 

When I finally stopped the last half milligram of Valium these other drugs were

also stopped abruptly. They then packed me off to a drug rehabilitation unit run

by a fundamentalist Christian ex pig farmer and his family. This caters for

opiate and amphetamine addicts, who have often come straight from prison, and,

in the main, have never had jobs. I was treated, as was everybody, as a cross

between a criminal and a very naughty boy. Their 'treatment strategy' consisted

of manual labour coupled with an attempt to uncover some evidence of childhood

physical or sexual abuse – in every case. Their world view was not

overcomplicated; they believe that every single word in the Bible is the literal

and absolute truth and that anything at variance with this is probably the work

of the devil: yoga, for example, is the devil's work.

 

Many times I was told with a glare that I was an 'addict'; this supposedly to

explain my situation. I believe that during my time at the clinic and

subsequently at the rehab unit I was in the middle of complete insanity. I was

very frightened and latterly became quite institutionalised. I don't believe a

Monty Python sketch could have devised a more bizarre scenario. When I began to

surface from the clubbing caused by the drugs and to question the wisdom of what

was happening to me I was told that I was 'arrogant'. The clinic and the rehab

unit were entirely unconnected; they knew nothing in practice about each others

operations. The latter seemed quite unable to appreciate the possibility that my

state of disarray – basically fear and anxiety – may have been directly and

entirely caused by 'medications' given to me by the medical profession and which

I took in good faith: i.e. an 'iatrogenic' problem. After 20 weeks I had

surfaced sufficiently from my drugging to appreciate that I was in a very

inappropriate place and I left; that was the best decision I had made for quite

some time. I have since been recovering.

 

During this time the crippling dysfunctionality directly caused by drugs was

interpreted variously as some sort of spiritual crisis and/or as being

indicative of characterological deficits: as I became progressively more

debilitated at the clinic the good doctor advised me that I was 'crippled in

thought, word and deed' by my 'acquired addictive tendencies'; he was never able

to explain exactly what this was supposed to mean. In retrospect it's very clear

to me that I was, in fact, crippled by polypharmacy – Largactil in combination

with Anafranil given to someone who was already addicted to Valium and trying to

stop. Largactil, especially, quite simply disables a person: that's what it

does. There is, of course, no guarantee that simply because a person is taking

such drugs that they do not have a preceding or entirely separate illness,

dysfunction, neurosis, 'emotional problem' or whatever. I would argue strongly

that there is no way of identifying any such problem whilst a person is taking

such drugs; they completely confuse the issue.

 

I am extremely angry at what happened to me. I believe it is a complete

disgrace. If I can help to prevent something similar happening to even one other

person then maybe some good will have come from my experience. I used to believe

that grown men and women, bright enough to get a medical degree, must have some

minimal understanding of drugs they prescribe, and that they must have sensible

level of 'clinical judgement'.

 

Someone who is withdrawing from a benzodiazepine drug may well find themselves

in a very vulnerable position. It can be very tempting to take the advice of a

medical person who represents themselves as an expert. I used to be reasonably

bright. I have a first degree in Psychology and a Masters degree in Systems

Analysis. Also I think that in some ways I am quite a durable character. These

people, however, fooled me. Don't make the same mistake!

 

If anyone offers you any of these drugs I would suggest that you check it out

for yourself. A good book about how to get off benzodiazepine drugs is (1);

summaries relating to antipsychotic drugs can be read in (2), (3) and (4) below.

These can all be obtained from a local library (via the inter library loan

facility), or the ISDD (Institute for the Study of Drug Dependence); Breggin's

book is available from 'Mind Publications'.

 

If a medical person suggests to you or a loved one that antipsychotic or

tricyclic antidepressant drugs are safe and would be good for you I would urge

that you show them extracts from (2), (3) and (4) and ask them to explain to you

whether they have had sight of this information before, and, if they have,

precisely why they ignore it or disagree with it.

 

I am willing to expand on any of the above if it will help someone faced with

making a choice about whether to accept these 'medications'. My address is 3,

Ray Lodge, Ray Park Avenue, Maidenhead, Berkshire SL6 8DR

 

I would also be very interested to hear from anyone who has taken an

antipsychotic drug for a significant length of time who feels that they have

recovered. This bit is personal; I'm scared that I've been permanently damaged

and I'm looking for some optimistic feedback.

 

Colin Hope

 

 

Shirley Trickett, 'Coming off Tranquillisers and Sleeping Pills – a Withdrawal

Plan that Really Works', 2nd. Edition, Thorsons,1991.

 

 

Martindale, 'The Extra Pharmacopoeia',1993, Royal Pharmaceutical Society of

Great Britain.

 

 

Andrew C. Bishop and Garfield Tourney, 'Antipsychotics' – chapter 7 from

" Toxicology of CNS Depressants " , Ed. I.K. Ho, CRC Press Inc., Boca Raton,

Florida.

 

 

Peter Breggin, 'Toxic Psychiatry', Fontana,1993

 

 

 

 

The use of antipsychotic drugs in attempting to relieve

symptoms of benzodiazepine withdrawal

by Colin Hope

 

HEALTH WARNING! This note is intended as a warning about the dangers involved in

taking antipsychotic drugs. These drugs used to be called 'major

tranquillisers'; they are also sometimes referred to as 'neuroleptics'. They

have been used by psychiatrists since the 1950s to control the symptoms of

serious mental disturbance, amounting to insanity. This is termed 'psychosis',

the most common manifestation of which is called 'schizophrenia'.

 

There are a number of antipsychotic drugs; they are very similar in their

actions and their effects. The oldest and most common is called

'chlorpromazine'; its trade name in this country is 'Largactil' and in America

it is called 'Thorazine'. These are the drugs that were given to Jack

Nicholson's character in the film 'One Flew over the Cuckoo's Nest’; they are

the drugs that were used in Russia to 're-educate' soviet dissidents; this is

the 'medication' that a large number of psychiatric patients seem so unwilling

to take. The terms 'chemical cosh' and 'chemical straight jacket’ refer

specifically to these drugs.

 

People who are dependent upon a benzodiazepine drug (diazepam, lorazepam,

temazepam etc.), and who are attempting to withdraw, and who are experiencing

difficulties in so doing, are sometimes persuaded to take an antipsychotic drug

by a well intentioned member of the medical profession in order to ease the pain

of withdrawal. This is a very bad plan.

 

The idea is that these are old drugs – tried and tested; that they have

anxiolytic properties; are 'non addictive', with few problems on withdrawal, and

are safe – with few side effects and no serious ones. The only truth in this is

that they are old drugs. Many people regard their use over the last 40 years as

scandalous and indicative of the low esteem in which psychiatric patients are

held. They are not 'addictive' in the sense that people do not exhibit

appetitive behaviour towards them. Unlike diazepam and temazepam they are not

sold illicitly on the streets; street drug users don't want them because they

make them feel bad rather than good. There is, however, a significant withdrawal

syndrome associated with these drugs.

 

They have multitudinous side effects, many of them serious and some of which can

be fatal. This is not contentious: the pharmaceutical companies themselves admit

this. In the short term they commonly cause a movement disorder closely

resembling Parkinson's disease (this is usually regarded as reversible). In the

medium to long-term they commonly cause Tardive Dyskinesia (T.D.). This is a

profoundly disfiguring and disabling condition which is regarded as permanent.

The British National Formulary suggests that this occurs 'rarely'; my reading of

independent research (that not sponsored by the pharmaceutical companies)

suggests that more than minimal T.D. occurs in between 20% to 60% of long-term

users of this drug. The definition of 'short term' varies between 2 weeks and 6

months depending on whom you read.

 

The idea that they can help ease the pain in withdrawing from a benzodiazepine

drug is very misguided. They are a completely different class of drug; in

principle they cannot do this. The notion of introducing such a toxic chemical

into a nervous system already compromised by a benzodiazepine is very strange. A

very simple contraindication in this context is that they lower the convulsive

threshold – sometimes actually causing fits. Once again this is not contentious.

It is well known that there is a possibility of epileptic seizures when

withdrawing from benzodiazepines, especially if the withdrawal is rapid. For

this reason alone the prescription of an antipsychotic drug to someone

withdrawing from a benzodiazepine drug is a dangerous practice. I believe that

the only defence for this very dubious practice is one of ignorance. Some

doctors appear not to understand even the basic facts concerning the drugs they

are licensed to prescribe.

 

There seems to be a broad consensus now amongst people who have been addicted to

benzodiazepines and recovered. Also amongst many professionals who are

specialists in the field of drug addiction and recovery. Firstly it is that the

withdrawal syndrome associated with benzodiazepines is arguably the worst of any

mood altering drug – including the so called 'hard drugs' such as heroin. This

is largely because of its duration. Secondly that withdrawal must be gradual.

Unlike withdrawal from opiates or alcohol benzodiazepines should not be

discontinued abruptly. They should be tapered off slowly at a pace that is

comfortable for the person concerned; this may take months. Thirdly that there

are measures that can be taken to help ease the pain: in the overwhelming

majority of cases these measures do not involve using other drugs. Antipsychotic

drugs are particularly unhelpful.

 

These drugs do not induce tranquillity, except possibly in the nursing staff.

They often have quite the opposite effect sometimes inducing profound agitation;

once again this is not contentious: the manufacturers admit this. They are very

effective in controlling disturbed, violent or 'odd' behaviour. They do this by

attacking vitality and, effectively crippling a person. They are very, very

unpleasant drugs.

 

Colin Hope

August, 1995

 

 

 

 

 

Gettingwell- / Vitamins, Herbs, Aminos, etc.

 

To , e-mail to: Gettingwell-

Or, go to our group site: Gettingwell

 

 

 

 

Mail Plus - Powerful. Affordable. Sign up now