Bluerose - If someone expresses a view that, for them personally, Benzos have worked better than SSRIs, then I respect that view. I know that, for some people, Benzos work well. For others, SSRIs work well. And for yet others, neither work -- or both work, although they may serve different purposes. So I have no problem with people expressing their personal experiences or opinions, if they are stated as such.
But when someone states what purport to be facts -- and those "facts" are in reality not true -- it is entirely appropriate to point that out, because writing misinformation as if it were fact does a disservice to readers of this forum. For example, if I were to state "medical evidence shows that it is a great idea to take Xanax and Single Malt Scotch together" -- that might be my opinion, but in reality it is not true -- and saying it on the forum is unhelpful and dangerous.
The reason I responded in the way that I did is because Two-One made assertions that are simply untrue, or at best are grossly misleading. For example, she (he?) said: "Benzodiazepines should be the only pharmaceuticals prescribed for anxiety." That is an absurd comment. Even if you accept that Benzos have a role (which I do), beta blockers and SSRIs also have a role, as do certain other medications. Similarly, Two One stated that "Serotonin has very little involvement in anxiety disorders." She states this as if it were a fact, but in reality there is, at a minimum, a very credible position that Serotonin levels have a role in anxiety. See, e.g., http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11110013; A. Rex and H. Fink, Neurotransmitter and Behaviour: Serotonin and Anxiety ; M. Briley and P. Chopin, Serotonin in Anxiety: Evidence from Animal Models, available at http://oxfordindex.oup.com/view/10.1...20118.003.0015. Two-One also stated, in her post, "Psychiatrists receive commission for promoting/pushing and prescribing SSRIs." This is, as a general matter, not true. Indeed, at least in the United States, it is unlawful for a pharma company to pay a commission to a psychiatrist to "promote" or "push" SSRIs. And her comment is dangerous to the extent that it could cause patients to assume that their doctor's recommendations are based upon the payment of "commissions" rather than upon their best judgment as to what medication will help the patient. She also stated: "Benzodiazepines have become criminalized due to their dependence and addiction risk." This is also stated as if it were a fact, but is in reality untrue, or at least misleading. Benzos are not "criminalized" if they are prescribed and dispensed appropriately. It is of course a crime to deal Benzos on the street, without a prescription, but that is true of other prescription meds too. Finally, she says "the reason benzos are difficult to get is because there is a huge push by the mental healthcare industry to use SSRIs." Again, this is asserted as if it were a fact, but it is, in reality, at best, an unsubstantiated opinion. To the extent benzos are difficult to get, it is because doctors make judgments about what medications are most safe and effective for their patients.
You are right, Bluerose, that people are allowed on this forum to say whatever they want (within reason). But when someone says something that is untrue -- and that could be dangerous if others read and believe it -- then it is appropriate for others to point that out. Just because we are not a professional or expert forum does not mean that anyone can say any sort of nonsense they want and expect nobody else to respond and correct it.
I will not tell you that you should "get a clue" because that would be silly and immature. That is the sort of thing 15 year old kids say on the high school playground to each other. But I do wish that you would be more thoughtful in your responses. Just because this is not a professional website does not mean that it should be a source of reckless disinformation.
Best wishes, Kuma*
[I am not a medical professional, and nothing I say on this forum should be taken as medical advice]