Posted by yxibow on January 31, 2007, at 1:41:00
In reply to Why is valium relatively unpopular?, posted by saturn on January 30, 2007, at 21:49:14
> Reputation? It would seem to me that all other things considered equal (anxiolytic capability, side effects) that it would be a good long-term benzo due to its long half-life and active metabolite (which I believe itself has a long half-life).
>
> Perhaps my analysis is oversimplistic.
>
> Phillipa, I know you have lots of experience with it. Any thoughts?
>
> Thanks...Peace...Saturn.
Probably because as said it had the burden of "Mother's Little Helper" in the 70s but in reality it is no different than other long half life benzodiazepines such as Klonopin, Librium, etc. In fact it replaced Librium as the second benzodiazepine because Librium was found to be on the weak side. Librium is still used in detox situations, but for anxiety relief one would probably need a hefty dose.
I currently take a fair dose because I tend to metabolize things faster, I converted from Klonopin which I felt was a bit too subtle and not as anxiolytic. We are currently in the process of slowly reducing the dose but it definately does make a difference in my Somatiform NOS condition.
There's no real reason why people should not take it if it benefits them over other benzodiazepines -- frankly from the stories of depression with Klonopin, which I never experienced but I see mentioned all the time, and Klonopin really is only around 16 hours of half life, Valium should remain a viable choice with around a 24+ hour half life. It is listed with longer half lives because one of its less active metabolites, Restoril, has a theoretical very long half life.
As noted, there are people on here who have taken it nearly since it came out with out problems.
poster:yxibow
thread:728281
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20070125/msgs/728334.html