I lift up my eyes to the hills!

[Otter]

.

[coalfire]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

My heart goes out to you and the stress you are suffering. This jumps out at me

"Those who are opposing us have decided to call as witnesses against us our GP, a psychiatrist who knows nothing about Baclofen but is, believe it or not, my wife's psychiatrist, even though she has never met her, and a nurse who has no experience in alcoholism or Baclofen. "-otter.

Pretend you were defending them and you had to make an argument supporting their point of view. Think of what they are going to say. That is what you will be up against. Things that come to mind are number of relapses post Baclofen for one. Have they info on that? Thats got to be the biggie I would have thought. It probably would not matter if the nurse had experience of Baclofen...its her experience of your wife that would matter.

[Otter]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

.en.

[Florieanne]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Really sorry to hear about that.
Sounds like kafka indeed.
Is it because you set up a website to promote baclofen? Or because your wife takes bac? or both?
F.

[Otter]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Florieanne;1097570 wrote: Really sorry to hear about that.
Sounds like kafka indeed.
Is it because you set up a website to promote baclofen?
F.

No, not at all. It is because of not getting enough Baclofen and being on Baclofen and drinking, relapsing, trying to detox and it all getting hopelessly out of control. It all ended horribly.

[Winks]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

I could understand this if it was a child custody case or something. But you and your wife are presumably both adults who can make your own decisions. So what happened that it became a matter for the court(s)? What does the opposition want? Is it something you could give them rather than going through all that?

[Winks]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Sorry, Otter. We cross-posted. Please ignore my questions. Good luck with it all.

[Cinders]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Otter,

I, too, want to extend my hand out to you and your wife. This must be horrific. Legal issues always send me into a tailspin.

I am confused as to exactly what caused this litigation.

Can you explain it a little better so we can understand? Who brought this litigation against you? Who has decided you know nothing about your wife's alcoholism and are doing nothing for it?

Take care, watch what you say and do around these people, and I am very glad you have a good lawyer for this!!

Love,
Cindi

[Florieanne]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Otter;1097571 wrote: No, not at all. It is because of not getting enough Baclofen and being on Baclofen and drinking, relapsing, trying to detox and it all getting hopelessly out of control. It all ended horribly.

My heart goes to you and your wife who must have suffered a lot.
Did you e-mail O.A to ask for help?

I agree with you that we need the help of neurologists. I said on another thread today that the SCI forums (and the likes) nurses tell patients not to drink more than one unit when they are on bac because of dramatically enhanced SE.
I also gave a link to a study on alcoholism ttt where the main searcher says he had not considered bac because of those enhanced SE (bac + alcohol) + cognitive impairment.
In all scientific literature it is recommended not to drink alcohol when usinf a CNS depressant.
Once you know that and the fact that stopping alcohol thanks to bac is dose dependant, it's obvious you need to reach the switch ( the right dose) as quickly as possible to avoid enhanced SE.
I don't know if this will be of any help.
All the best,
F

[bleep]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

I won't go into detail, other than to wish you the best of luck Otter.

I don't understands the grounds for the litigation?

[Seethepony]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Good luck from me too Otter. "Don't let the bastards grind you down!" as my right-on CND marching buddies used to say.

[Guest]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Reading between the lines it appears Otter is being accused of not doing anything to help his wife, they had to drop dose through lack of supply and she relapsed with some horrid consequences. So he's trying to say he was doing something to help her, they are saying baclofen doesn't work and it's a red herring - so in effect he wasn't trying to sort her problem out.

That's what I got from his post anyway.

If this is what it is Baclofen isn't necessarily on trial, and obviously without any hard and fast proof baclofen is a way out then there isn't any absolute proof apart from a book about Dr Ameisen using baclofen for himself and a few very small trials with mixed results.

Not going to convince a judge really.

Could have got it wrong though!

[Ne/Neva Eva]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Otter, my friend, I'm so sorry I didn't see this sooner.

I'm so sorry. I've sent you my support privately but wanted to offer it publicly.
Ne

[missyabby1]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Hi Otter, I too send my best wishes to you.

What you are going through must be truly horrible. I am truly sorry .

My best wishes and love to you both.

Missy xx

[ignominious]

I lift up my eyes to the hills!

Otter;1097564 wrote: Whence comes my help.


Behind this litigation are various figures including the Justice Secretary, who freed Al Megrahi, a former Mayor, the Chief of Police... the local Freemasonry...


.

For those who don't know, the Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, felt sorry for Al Megrahi and managed to have him released on compassionate grounds because he had prostrate cancer. This is the man that was convicted for the Lockerbie bombing that left 270 people dead. There was and is a lot of speculation that this release into the loving arms of Libya may have been connected to an oil deal that was negotiated being with Libya at the time.