Saturday, November 21, 2015
Earlier this year I reported on how GSK, via their team of highly-paid lawyers, had targeted four expert witnesses that were due to give evidence in (Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. et al., case number 1:12-cv-06403)
For those that don't know, Wendy Dolin had filed suit against GSK claiming that their antidepressant, Paxil, had induced the suicide of her husband, Stewart. Since filing, Wendy has, just like the four expert witnesses due to give expert opinion supporting her claim, has come under fire from GSK. In fact, Wendy Dolin has been sent more than 30 subpoenas from GSK, they have also made over 70 record requests and have shown the Dolin children their father's private medical notes. To top it all, GSK's lawyers have been asking (goading) Wendy about her love life since her husband killed himself.
Not satisfied with targeting a bereaved wife, GSK then turned their attention to four expert witnesses. One of those witnesses, Dr. David Healy, came under heavy fire from Glaxo's gunslingers, King & Spalding. They had accused Healy of being a radical activist who held an extreme bias against GSK (insert tears here). Furthermore, GSK had probed into Healy's private life and had, during a 10 hour deposition, talked more about his finances than the actual science behind Paxil and induced suicide.
The decision is in folks and.... (drum roll)..
GSK have been roundly trounced.
Judge James B. Zagel, in summary, said...
"I am denying all four of GSK’s motions to exclude. The Daubert criteria are satisfied when a well-credentialed expert provides well-supported opinions that are relevant and reliable. My decision does not, however, mean that the reliable opinions of all four of these expert witnesses are correct—reliability is a measure of consistency of opinions, not necessarily a measure of correctness. Such a determination will be the job of a fact-finder at trial."
Healy, along with three other experts, namely; Dr. David Ross, Dr. Joseph Glenmullen, and Dr. Roger Grimson, will now be allowed to offer their expert opinions in the Dolin case, something that GSK have fought desperately hard to suppress and, as I suspect, may now be the factor in some sort of settlement being agreed upon.
This isn't the first time GSK have faced claims that Paxil induces suicides in adults. In 2001 a jury returned a verdict that Paxil was responsible for inducing homicide and suicide in Don Schell, who had, some years previous, shot to death his wife, daughter and granddaughter before turning the gun on himself.
Glaxo were ordered to pay $6.4 million to the remaining family members.To the layman, it beggars belief why Glaxo would oppose the claims of Wendy Dolin given that they have already lost one Paxil induced suicide case. The mud-slinging and goading of plaintiff and expert witnesses doesn't surprise me in the least, it's what I have come to expect of Glaxo and their defence lawyers. Wendy Dolin isn't the first plaintiff to have pressure put on her by Glaxo, she won't be the last. Healy et al aren't the first expert witnesses to have mud thrown at them, again, they won't be the last.
If anything, this ruling has shown Glaxo that no matter how hard they try to suppress those who wish to seek the truth, they will always fail.
I hope the Dolin case goes the whole hog and isn't settled. To put Paxil in the public eye (yet again) is something that needs to be done. The message that this antidepressant can cause homicidal and suicidal acts needs to be repeated. It is, in my opinion, a menace to society just as, I believe, GlaxoSmithKline are. Yeh, okay, we will have those that say Glaxo have saved millions of lives with vaccines and have helped millions of people with various respiratory diseases, fair enough, I guess, but that does not give them the right to market and manufacture drugs that can induce homicide and suicide - it's akin to the defence of a serial killer, 'He donated to charities every week your honour, so what if he killed a dozen or so adults, he's a decent man, at heart."
Glaxo need to step up to the plate. They need to compensate Wendy Dolin for her loss, they need to stop pussy-footing around and acknowledge that defending Paxil in suicide cases is a fruitless exercise, they know it, their shareholders know it and the general public know it. Paxil is a nasty drug that causes more harm than good. Glaxo claim Paxil has helped millions of people worldwide but just like the fictitious serial killer above, they throw a blanket over the darker side of Paxil, the induced homicide and suicide, the birth defects, the horrific withdrawal suffered by those trying to stop Paxil.
It will be interesting to see what Glaxo's next step is regarding the Dolin case. They've thrown pretty much everything at the grieving widow but she has stood firm and remained strong because she knows that the truth will, eventually, out.
Thursday, November 19, 2015
A recent interview with Glaxo's Andrew Witty saw BBC journalist, Evan Davis, more or less told how to phrase questions. Davis had broached the subject of Glaxo's murky past - Witty, using the art of deflection, told Davis, "I think the bigger question is, where do you want to go forward?"
So, how do you polish a turd?
Well, you talk about what you have in the pipeline, (excuse the pun) thus eliminating tricky questions about the following...
6/4/2015 - India Meningitis Vaccine Market Collusion - GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis - $9,442,587
9/15/2014 - Clean Air Act Violation at Hamilton, MT Facility - GlaxoSmithKline - $172,900
8/11/2014 - Hazardous Waste Violations in King of Prussia - GlaxoSmithKline - $317,550
6/4/2014 - Multistate Illegal Marketing Settlement - GlaxoSmithKline - $105,000,000
5/13/2014 - China Bribery and Fraud - GlaxoSmithKline - $487,000,000
3/25/2014 - Mylan v. GlaxoSmithKline (Breach of Generic Paxil Agreements) - GlaxoSmithKline - $106,700,000
3/18/2014 - Contaminated Drug Ingredients at Ireland Plant - GlaxoSmithKline - FDA Warning Letter
12/17/2013 - Maryland Diabetes Drug Improper Marketing Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline - $15,000,000
7/24/2013 - Multistate Avandia Settlement (July 2013) - GlaxoSmithKline - $184,000,000
6/14/2013 - Cappellino v. GlaxoSmithKline (Gender Discrimination) - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
4/19/2013 - OFT Paroxetine Antitrust Investigation - GlaxoSmithKline - U.K. Office of Fair Trading Press Release
2/5/2013 - Louisiana Off-Label Marketing Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline - $45,000,000
11/15/2012 - Multistate Avandia Settlement (November 2012) - GlaxoSmithKline - $90,000,000
11/15/2012 - Flonase Antitrust Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $150,000,000
7/9/2012 - Dolin v. GlaxoSmithKline (Paxil Wrongful Death) - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
4/17/2012 - Idaho Average Wholesale Price Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline - $2,600,000
2/7/2012 - Defrauding Louisiana’s Medicaid Program - GlaxoSmithKline - $10,000,000
1/11/2012 - Argentina Vaccine Trials Fine - GlaxoSmithKline - $93,000
11/3/2011 - Criminal and Civil Investigations Settlement - GlaxoSmithKline - $3,000,000,000
10/27/2011 - South Korea Antitrust Fine - GlaxoSmithKline - $2,651,737
10/7/2011 - Current Good Manufacturing Practice Violations at Worthing, UK Facility - GlaxoSmithKline - FDA Warning Letter
6/27/2011 - Nigeria Trademark Infringement - GlaxoSmithKline - $7,873,706
6/23/2011 - Puerto Rico Drug Manufacturing Facility Settlement - GlaxoSmithKline - $40,750,000
5/17/2011 - South Carolina Attorney General Avandia Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
2/15/2011 - Louisiana Attorney General Avandia Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
11/17/2010 - Humana v. GlaxoSmithKline (Reimbursement for Avandia-Related Injuries) - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
11/9/2010 - Utah Attorney General Avandia Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline - $8,500,000
10/26/2010 - Puerto Rico Drug Manufacturing Facility Settlement - GlaxoSmithKline - $750,000,000
10/6/2010 - Hawaii Average Wholesale Price Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $10,000,000
8/30/2010 - Kentucky Kytril and Zofran Average Wholesale Price Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline - $3,750,000
7/12/2010 - U.S. Senate Investigation of Avandia - GlaxoSmithKline - Senate Finance Committee Letter to FDA
6/23/2010 - Paxil Birth Defect Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - Confidential settlement with 190 families
4/19/2010 - FDA Review of Altabax Promotional Material - GlaxoSmithKline - FDA Warning Letter
10/13/2009 - Kilker v. SmithKline Beecham (Paxil Birth Defects) - GlaxoSmithKline - $2,500,000
10/1/2009 - Denture Cream Product Liability Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
12/23/2008 - Santa Clara County Drug Pricing Lawsuit - GlaxoSmithKline, Wyeth - Complaint
9/30/2008 - Paxil Class Action (National) - GlaxoSmithKline - $40,000,000
7/26/2008 - Medicines Australia Code of Conduct Violations - GlaxoSmithKline - $310,000
7/21/2008 - Relenza Litigation Settlement - GlaxoSmithKline - $19,500,000
5/19/2008 - Release of TCE in Scottsdale, AZ - GlaxoSmithKline - EPA Press Release
5/2/2008 - Wellbutrin Direct Purchaser Antitrust Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $49,500,000
2/27/2008 - Bartram v. GlaxoSmithKline (Paxil Birth Defects) - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
12/17/2007 - Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $770,000,000
10/6/2006 - Paxil Class Action Litigation (Madison County, IL) GlaxoSmithKline - $63,833,148
9/11/2006 - Under-reporting Profits - GlaxoSmithKline - $3,400,000,000
7/10/2006 - Cunningham v. GSK (Paxil Wrongful Death) - GlaxoSmithKline - Complaint
3/28/2006 - Paxil Multistate Litigation - NY Attorney General Settlement - GlaxoSmithKline - $14,000,000
9/20/2005 - Zofran and Kytril False Claims Act Violations - GlaxoSmithKline - $150,000,000
4/1/2005 - Relafen Multistate Litigation - NY Attorney General Settlement - GlaxoSmithKline - $10,000,000
11/24/2004 - Relafen Consumer Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $75,000,000
8/26/2004 - Paxil New York Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $2,500,000
7/8/2004 - Augmentin Antitrust Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $92,000,000
2/6/2004 - Relafen Antitrust Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $175,000,000
4/16/2003 - Overcharging Medicaid - GlaxoSmithKline - $87,600,000
9/6/2002 - Average Wholesale Price (AWP) Drug Litigation - GlaxoSmithKline - $70,000,000
6/6/2001 - Tobin v. SmithKline Beecham (Paxil Wrongful Death) - GlaxoSmithKline - $6,400,000
**TOTAL - $10,057,614,485 (That's 10 billion, folks!)
**Federal Contractor Misconduct Database
There are many more missing from the Federal Contractor Misconduct Database, most notably the settlement (resolution) GSK made with over 3,000 Paxil plaintiffs who alleged the drug had caused them addiction problems, Also missing is the individual payment made to Pennsylvania mother Joanne Thomas who settled with GSK after losing her original case against them, see here and here.
The UK Seroxat Group Action is also missing from the list. The claim alleges that UK consumers become dependent upon the antidepressant, Seroxat. (Paxil)
Then, of course, we have the on-gong investigations of bribery and corruption in the following countries, United Kingdom, Iraq, Poland, Bahrain, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Syria, Oman, Qatar, and United Arab Emirates.
The mission of GSK, according to their website, is to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer.
(Insert laughter here)
Tuesday, November 17, 2015
Back in September I wrote to the British drug regulator, the MHRA, under the terms of the Freedom of information act.
The question I put to them was in regard to reported suicides associated with Lariam (mefloquine) reported on their database. Their Drug Analysis Print (DAP) had shown that there were 9 completed suicides associated with the drug.
For those that don't know, Lariam, marketed and manufactured by Roche, is a drug used to treat the prevention of malaria and I wrote about it here back in August. It's used a lot by the military to treat soldiers who visit and train in countries that have a high risk of malaria.
Worryingly, it wasn't just the completed suicides that concerned me. There were a number of other psychiatric events associated with this drug, namely;
- 18 reports of Abnormal behaviour.
- 24 reports of Affect lability (rapid shifts in outward emotional expressions; often associated with organic brain syndromes such as intoxication.)
- 61 reports of Agitation
- 304 reports of Anxiety
- 38 reports of Aggression
- 82 reports of Paranoia
- 11 reports of Personality change
- 67 reports of Confusional state
- 61 reports of Disorientation
- 19 reports of Delusion
- 341 reports of Depression
- 10 reports of Depersonalisation
- 14 reports of Dissociation
- 28 reports of Irritability
- 59 reports of Mood swings
- 15 reports of Mental disorder
- 11 reports of Mania
- 162 reports of Panic attack
- 119 reports of Abnormal dreams
- 146 reports of Nightmares
- 113 reports of Hallucinations
- 19 reports of Acute psychosis*
- 76 reports of Psychotic disorder
- 9 reports of Completed suicide
- 33 reports of Suicidal ideation
- 12 reports of Thinking abnormal
* Bizarrely, there has been one reported death of "acute psychosis" - This seems to have been omitted from the "completed suicide" category - unless, of course, the person died naturally?
The MHRA took approx one month to answer my question. Their full response is below.
They told me...
"Of the nine UK spontaneous suspected ADR reports of suicide associated with mefloquine, I can confirm that three of the cases were followed up by the MHRA with either the reporting doctor or family member. Two cases were reported to us by pharmaceutical companies and so follow-up was conducted by the Marketing Authorisation Holder.
"The remaining four cases were received between 1998 and 2002 and as such were previously stored in our legacy ADR database. We do not hold records of follow up letters to cases from our legacy database and can confirm that we have no record of any further communications regarding these cases."
Hopefully, this somewhat blasé response from the MHRA will help those campaigning, or, as I strongly suggest, get those campaigning to write to the MHRA to ask them why the follow-up rate has been so poor regarding the reported suicides and other psychiatric adverse events associated with this drug.
The MHRA can be contacted via email here.
Thursday, November 12, 2015
It's kind of set in stone these days that Seroxat, the antidepressant manufactured and marketed by British pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline, is a faulty product. It's been through the American court system in various types of litigation.
1. Suicide - GUILTY - APPEALED - SETTLED - Compensation paid
2. Birth Defects - GUILTY - APPEALED - SETTLED - Compensation paid
3. Withdrawal problems - RESOLVED - Victims compensated
To date, GlaxoSmithKline have not settled any cases that relate to Seroxat use and suicide, birth defects and withdrawal problems in the UK.
They are a British company yet, it appears, will only settle with American consumers of Seroxat (Known as Paxil in the US)
To go up against a pharmaceutical company in the UK is notoriously difficult. Many law firms prefer not to touch cases against pharmaceutical companies because they can drag on for many years, the risk is too high, they can either 'make' or 'break' the claimant's legal representation.
The UK Seroxat litigation is fast approaching 10 years since it was first filed. Glaxo, represented by Addleshaw Goddard, have not, at any point, expressed an interest in resolving the litigation. They, it appears, wish for the cases, involving just over one hundred claims, to go to trial... at least they do at this point in the proceedings.
The litigation has been laboriously slow - claimants have been dropped by law firms, despite those law firms attesting that their cases against GSK were strong. Public funding has been given, then put on hold, then taken away.
In America, the Seroxat withdrawal problems lawsuit involved over 3,000 claims against GSK. The whole process of filing and agreeing to resolve took as little as two years. Each of the 3,000 were awarded compensation. Each of the 3,000 had to sign confidentiality agreements - ergo, they could not tell anyone how much they were awarded by GSK.
Meantime, UK consumers who suffered Seroxat withdrawal problems, some who still do, continue to wait for their cases to be heard in trial. The date of which has yet to be determined.
Almost 10 years.
It's a showing of the iron fist by GlaxoSmithKline and it sends out a strong message to consumers of pharmaceutical products. That message being, "We won't bend over for British consumers, even though we are a British company."
Glaxo are denying that they knew there was a withdrawal problem with Seroxat, this despite settling the 3,000 or so case in America. This, despite public documents that have shown that hey did indeed know about the withdrawal problem in adults but 'hushed up' these findings.
Project 1059 revealed a series of emails between Daniel Burnham of SmithKline Beecham and a ghostwriting company. In those emails, below, the Seroxat withdrawal issue was raised. Burnham became concerned and decided to pull the plug on Project 1059. There was no way that they could have this Seroxat withdrawal issue made public.
You can view the series of emails here.
Meantime, Glaxo CEO, Andrew Witty, continues to cover his company in garlands, he continues to refuse to meet with anyone who has suffered as a result if ingesting Seroxat. Irish blogger, the Truthman, who, like me, has been writing about GSK for almost a decade, perfectly dissects a recent interview between journalist Evan Davis and Glaxo's Witty here.
It's well worth the read, an edited version of the interview between Evans and Witty is also shared on the Truthman's post.
Glaxo, in my opinion, are psychopathic, it's hard to pinpoint who is the person behind the dodgy marketing and hiding of negative results, so, as a whole, Glaxo, to me at least are not only psychopathic but delusional too.
As for Witty, once again my opinion of him, is that he lacks compassion and empathy for those harmed by his company. He continues to harp on about how Glaxo (these days) are more transparent than any other pharmaceutical company. He fails to mention that they were forced to be more transparent by the recent $3 billion they paid the American Department of Justice for, amongst other things, a lack of transparency in sharing negative trial results.
Who knows if the UK litigation will ever see the light of day. I would love nothing more than a judge who sees through Glaxo's arguments and allows documents produced at trial to be made public and not sealed away.
The criticism of GlaxoSmithKline is warranted. As long as they continue to treat their consumers like lab rats then they will always fall under the spotlight.
We, as humans, have a desire to see more when something teasing is revealed, be that a woman in a sexy low-cut dress or a pharmaceutical company not disposing of emails that highlight how they ignored links of severe Seroxat withdrawal.
Glaxo are not sexy, in fact, the more that they reveal, the more sickened I become.
I'll eventually walk away from this blog, a change of direction and finding peace is, I feel, what I've earned over these past ten years or so. Until I feel that time is right I'll continue to cross swords with GSK - I guess that the Truthman will too.
Perfer et obdura; dolor hic tibi proderit olim. (Google it)
Tuesday, November 10, 2015
If you still believe that pharmaceutical companies have opened their doors and are being transparent then look no further than a recent report from the lawyer-based website, Law360.
Law360 are reporting on a recent investigation into Pfizer by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA)
Let me tell you folks, it's straight from the production team of Hanna Barbera. It's definitely a case for Scooby-Doo, Fred "Freddie" Jones, Daphne Blake, Velma Dinkley and Norville "Shaggy" Rogers.
It appears the FDA are being given the runaround by Pfizer officials who, it seems, are covering up manufacturing lapses at one of their sites in China.
According to the FDA, when Pfizer encountered "undesirable/suspect" test results, it simply performed new tests until satisfactory results were achieved.
"The original test results are not reported, and no laboratory investigation is initiated," the FDA wrote.
Agency officials also recounted fishy circumstances surrounding the availability of records. According to the report, investigators at one point noticed an 8-inch stack of documents in a room, then returned 10 minutes later to find that the stack had disappeared. When the investigators requested that the records be returned, only one-third of the papers were brought back, and the rest were later discovered stashed in a wooden crate in a construction area, the report said.
Subsequent analysis of those records revealed that Pfizer's internal documents contained conflicting data as well as references to possible use of expired ingredients, the 483 added.
Further, Pfizer's quality control unit lacked suitable oversight of records, and employees on occasion failed to document certain activities in a timely manner, according to the 483.
Never has the term "LOL" been more appropriate.
An 8-inch stack of documents that miraculously disappears into thin air, only to return somewhere else on the Chinese site... with two thirds of the stack missing! The likes of Dynamo, David Copperfield, Penn & Teller and even Paul Daniels must be quaking in their magical boots.
Scooby Dooby Doo, Where are you?
We've got some work to do now.
Scooby Dooby Doo, Where are you?
We need some help from you now.
Pfizer have responded in typical fashion...
"Materials and that drugs produced at the site met every national and international testing specification."
Thanks for clearing that up folks.
In other news, I recently bid on eBay for the complete series of Scooby Doo. I came so close to winning, but was outbid at the last second! I would have got away with it too, if it weren't for those meddling bids!
The FDA's 9-page warning letter to Pfizer below.
PS - I'd still do Daphne.
Wednesday, October 28, 2015
Sir Witty should have been a politician. Very adept at answering a question...with a question.
Here's a recent interview with Evan Davis, Presenter, Newsnight, BBC
Skip to 29.40. Transcript for this section is below video.
I'm going to open it to the floor in a second, because we do want to leave half the session for the audience to ask questions. I'll just finish with kind of a general reflection, because it is interesting, and it's nice when you talk about the drugs and what they cure, what the treatments are. Don't you find it very interesting that the pharmaceutical industry has a bad reputation? We read about the China corruption, we read about profits, we read about profiteering. It is an industry that saves lives, no one can dispute that. It's an industry that produces pills that are completely transforming for people's welfare. Yet, it's actually not a terribly popular industry. I just wonder if you can explain that paradox. Is it that you've done bad things and that's been recognized, or is there somehow something the public don't understand about the industry that makes them feel negative about it? Or am I wrong in thinking there's a slight [indiscernible] around it?
No, clearly – first of all, I think we are, slightly alongside any big industry, or any big institution, there is a bit of that. We are big companies, we're global. Again, like any big organization, you're vulnerable to your weakest link in the organization. So if something goes wrong, particularly in today's social media world – I often think about what it must have been like to run a global company in the 1970s, where you had to wait for the ship to arrive to find out what happened on the other side of the world. Today, the Wall Street Journal calls you before you've even heard about something inside your own company. So I do think there is a certain phenomena where – and you see that across many, you look at it in politics, you look at it in newspapers. The hacking stories, all things like that. So I think it's a bit of that. I do think – let's be honest, nobody wakes up in the morning hoping that they're going to need a drug from GSK. You don't wake up in the morning thinking, actually, if it's a really good day, I might be diagnosed to be ill and I might need a drug. So we're not aspirational in that sense. So you start by saying, actually, I've got some bad news, because I've been told I'm not very well. They then said: we might have some good news, because there's something we can help you with. Then in some countries, I have to pay for it. Or in Britain, you might go to the doctor and they say: actually, I'd like to give you this, but NICE have said I can't. So then there's a whole series of reasonably negative concepts around pricing. So there's a bit of that. Then you've got – actually, we do occasionally make mistakes. Things go wrong. We have inevitably – of course, we go through all the processes with the regulators to get a drug to be as safe and effective as it can possibly be. But the reality is, every time a human takes a drug, it's like a clinical trial. You don't really know what's going to happen. Everybody can react a different way. So on the one hand, what is the story of the drug industry? The story of the drug industry is wonder drugs. On the other hand, it's danger drugs. Those are the two extremes that we have. It's kind of unavoidable.
But you're saying there are bad apples, and it goes wrong. Is that right, or is it – for example, in the China case. Was it that there was a bad apple and it went wrong, or was it that that was normal behaviour in certain markets, and it just got called out in that particular case?
For obvious reasons, I'm not going to get into all the details of that.
Was that behaviour actually something, or was it just a slight extension of behaviour that is normal?
I think the bigger question is, where do you want to go forward?
No, but just answer that one.
There's no doubt, if you ask the more general question – so there have been concerns over the years of, is the drug industry transparent enough? What's the relationship of the drug industry with doctors? All of those are kind of concerns – let's call them concerns or reasons for anxiety, whatever they are. Sometimes they've spiked up into real issues. What we've really tried to do, and we're beginning to see some other companies, I think, following a similar direction, is we've said: you know what? We get that. We get that transparency is a cause of concern. People are worried that something is being hidden. We didn't think there was but people – perception is everything, right? So what did we do? We came out and said: we will publish every single bit of clinical data we have in the company. We are the only company to do that at this point. Every single thing. If a researcher wants to know exactly what the data was on patient number – all anonymized, but on Patient 1002, in Clinical Trial 87, from 2002, we will give them that information. All the way through, we'll do that. We've said we will stop all payments to physicians to speak on behalf of the company. It's a perfectly legal practice, everything the company has done – but we stopped it all.
But this is a recognition – there is a lot you've done to present these things differently. But it is a recognition that it was pretty dysfunctional before, isn't it? Because publishing data, to me, honestly, doesn't seem like a great achievement. It just seems to me that that's what you should be doing with data. Not bribing doctors seems like a thing you would do.
I wouldn't say it's bribing doctors – it's perfectly legal to pay. If you went to a physician and said, would you expect to be paid for speaking on behalf of somebody, they will probably say yes. Actually, in most countries in the world, it's perfectly legal. However, there are risks it can be abused. People can make mistakes. And there are risks that there is a misperception. Just to your point on publication, do you think academics are mandated to publish their data? Do you think universities publish all their failed studies? They don't, but we do.
One box of chocolates for the first person to tell me how many times Witty deflects the questions put to him.
GSK were forced to be transparent, they didn't just decide one day that they were going to be the first pharmaceutical company to "open it's doors" (Halfway)
This from the Department of Justice/GSK agreement
"Among other things, the CIA also requires GSK to implement and maintain transparency in its research practices and publication policies and to follow specified policies in its contracts with various health care payors."
"Moving forward, GSK will be subject to stringent requirements under its corporate integrity agreement with HHS-OIG; this agreement is designed to increase accountability and transparency and prevent future fraud and abuse."
I think the bigger question is why did Witty fail to mention that his company were forced to be more transparent.
I'll leave the last words to Witty...
"It's a perfectly legal practice, everything the company has done..."
Original video here.
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
Seroxat (Paxil) withdrawal...
If you, like many thousands, find difficulty when trying to wean yourself off Seroxat (known as Paxil in the US and Aropax in Australia) then you'll know that there is no guidance.
The manufacturers, GlaxoSmithKline, refuse to help - Any correspondence sent to them during your horrific withdrawal will be met with the bog standard replies of "We are not allowed to discuss individual cases blah, blah..."
Your prescribing healthcare professional will, more than likely, refer to the product monograph which really tells them that there isn't a huge problem when patients taper from Seroxat - the product monograph, if you didn't know, is crafted by the drug company.
The medicines regulator, be they the British MHRA, the American FDA or the Australian TGA, will shrug their shoulders then scurry back to their various rat holes in the hope that you don't disturb them again.
Internet forums will offer various tidbits of information, you'll show your prescribing physician and he/she will probably tell you that these types of forums are run by conspiracy theorists.
As I was getting nowhere debating back and forth with the MHRA and Pharmaceutical company Lundbeck I decided to write to the Minister for Public Health, Jeremy Hunt, about my daughters death which I believe was caused by the SSRI Citalopram. She was fatally malformed, incompatible with life. I had been given a "prescribed overdose" (according to lundbeck) by my GP unwittingly throughout the pregnancy and thoroughly reassured that it was not a teratogen. I was on a prescribed dose of 60mg, this dosage was the maximum back in 2004, but was lowered a few years ago to 40mg by the manufacturer and the MHRA as it was known to cause the heart condition "Long QT syndrome" and sudden death in adults. Today I was very surprised to have received a response -
Dear Miss Buchanan,
Thank you for your correspondence of 5 October to Jeremy Hunt about citalopram. I have been asked to reply.
I was very sorry to read about the death of your daughter and the circumstances surrounding her cremation.
However, the Department of Health is unable to comment on individual cases.
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) has provided the following information.
Citalopram is a member of the class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). SSRIs are used to treat depression in pregnant women in cases where there are no safer alternative effective treatments. The decision to prescribe SSRIs requires a careful evaluation of the need for treatment and any known risk of harm to the mother and/or foetus. Untreated depression during pregnancy is known to be harmful to the mother and foetus.
Some studies have suggested a small increased risk of birth defects with some SSRIs. Data has shown that paroxetine and fluoxetine are associated with an increase in risk of birth defects in the baby if the mother takes them in the first trimester. The background rate for birth defects is two to three per cent of all pregnancies. Current available data is insufficient to prove birth defects occur more commonly after taking citalopram than this background rate.
It is known that all the SSRIs can be associated with an increased risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension, a heart condition in the newborn, when taken later in pregnancy. Neonatal withdrawal and toxicity reactions have also been reported when SSRIs are taken in later pregnancy.
Several important changes to the citalopram prescribing information were introduced by the MHRA in 2011, including maximum dose restriction in adults after a detailed review of data showed citalopram was associated with a dose-dependent increased risk of abnormal heart rhythm.
The MHRA continues to monitor the safety of use of SSRIs in all patient populations very closely and all new data are rigorously assessed to evaluate the need for further regulatory action.
I am sorry I cannot be more helpful, but I hope this reply helps to clarify the situation.
Ministerial Correspondence and Public Enquiries
Department of Health
I'm sorry to see that, once again, I have been given the usual spiel about the MHRA monitoring medications such as these, but what use is monitoring them if, when issues are flagged up, they chose to do absolutely nothing about it? I have never had once single invitation from the MHRA to converse with them or provide them with further information on my daughters death, this is despite me contacting them fairly regularly for over the past two years.
What else can I do? Is there anywhere else I can turn, anything I can try? I'm not giving up on this. I won't ever give up.
Says it all really...
Wednesday, October 21, 2015
They have the pharmaceutical industry, medicine regulators and psychiatry to thank for their grief.
There is nothing left for me to say.
Leonie Fennell - Ireland
Causation: Cipramil (Celexa, citalopram)
Causation: Cipramil (Celexa, citalopram)
Stephanie McGill Lynch - Ireland
Causation: Prozac (fluoxetine)
Mathy Downing - USA
Causation: Zoloft (sertraline, Lustral)
Wendy Dolin - USA
Causation: Paxil (paroxetine, Seroxat)
Kim Witczak - USA
Causation: Zoloft (sertraline, Lustral)
Tuesday, October 20, 2015
It took me a while to get to the bottom of this. The MHRA are, and have always been quite vague when it comes to answering the simplest of questions put to them. None more so then when I asked a series of questions regarding their Yellow Card Reporting System. (YCRS)
For those that don't know, the YCRS is a way of reporting adverse events from the drugs you take to the British drug regulator, the MHRA. What they do with these reports has, to me at least, always remained a mystery.
A recent series of emails between myself and the MHRA leaves me somewhat perplexed, particularly as their last one to me finished with, "we now consider this case closed".
Hmm, I don't. So, where does that leave us?
My issue with the YCRS is that, I believe, it is a system designed to fail, moreover, it does not do as it suggests, ie; "Helping to make medicines safer."
After much hulabaloo of answering questions I put to them, I finally got the answer I needed. My question being, Do the MHRA actually follow up any Yellow card report sent in by the original reporter, i.e.; do they,or have they, ever contacted the patient who sent in the original yellow card?
"The MHRA regularly follows up Yellow Card reports with the original reporter. If permission has been given on the Yellow Card, we will contact the reporter to request any further information that we think would be helpful to enable assessment of the case."
I followed up their reply with, what I thought, a simple question...
We seem to be getting somewhere.
The answer, however, is quite vague. Please define 'regularly' - give me some figures.
You may think I am publicly bashing the MHRA via my blog, in truth, I do when you respond with vagueness.
Can you give me actual figures, ie; how many yellow card reports have been followed up with the original reporter, you must keep a record of this, right?
Their answer left me bemused. Years ago it would have left me frustrated but I've come accustomed to such contradictory answers from the MHRA.
We do not record the number of follow-up requests that are sent out by the Agency as knowing this information does not help monitor the safety of medicines in the UK. Rather, it is the follow-up information received that is useful for assessment of a suspected Adverse Drug Reaction (ADR). This can either be in response to a request sent out by the MHRA, or follow-up information that has been spontaneously provided by the reporter.
They added the standard disclaimers and also, bizarrely, a request for money (minimum £600) if I wanted them to perform searches for "an actual figure for the total number of all Yellow Card follow-up requests that have been sent out."
Here's their full suggestion..
Therefore to provide you with an actual figure for the total number of all Yellow Card follow-up requests that have been sent out, we would be required to manually review the case folder for each individual Yellow Card report submitted to the agency. Under the Freedom of Information (FOI) Act, a public body is only required to collate information that is already in a recorded form, rather than creating new information beyond basic collation. Furthermore, the agency has received over 600, 000 Yellow Card reports directly from healthcare professionals and members of the public to date, with approximately 16,500 Yellow Cards reported a year. The staff time and cost of extracting the requested information from this would far exceed the £600 limit for central government set by Section 12 of the FOI Act.
You can see my confusion. If they don't keep records of follow-up requests that are sent out then why are they asking for a minimum fee of £600 to search for records that, they have already said, don't actually exist?
Furthermore, how can they make the claim that "The MHRA regularly follows up Yellow Card reports with the original reporter", when they don't actually "record the number of follow-up requests that are sent out."
I'd like to ask them but at the foot of their final email to me they told me, "We now consider this request closed."
To date, the Drug Analysis Prints on the MHRA website list the number of yellow cards submitted to them and also the nature of the events, they range from completed suicide to skin rashes. There has not, to my knowledge, been any statement from the MHRA that any prescription drug currently on the market in the UK has caused a patient to complete suicide.
This attitude, I believe, keeps poor, unsafe drugs in pharmacies and keeps the MHRA from coming under fire - remember, it is the MHRA who grant licenses to the medicines you and I take.
The MHRA recently went all 21st century on us by creating a phone app for the yellow card. I have to ask what is the point in sending in adverse reactions when they don't, and I assume, never will, blame the drug for the more severe adverse reactions, such as completed suicide, suicidal thoughts and/or self harm.
I have further requests pending that are not related to the above. I suspect, due to my asking questions to seek the truth, the MHRA will probably, sooner or later, consider those requests closed too.
Saturday, October 17, 2015
It's not often one comes across a coroner who goes against the grain.
It's not often coroners come up against surviving family members armed with knowledge about drugs used to treat apparent mental illnesses.
Yesterday, at Dublin Coroner’s Court, Coroner Dr Brian Farrell ruled against suicide as being the cause of Jake McGill Lynch's death on 20 March, 2013.
Jake was just 14 years-old when he took a .22 rifle and placed it in his mouth and pulled the trigger. One year previously he had been diagnosed with Aspergers and, after a 15 minute consultation with psychiatrist,Dr Maria Migone, he was prescribed Prozac (fluoxetine) and was told that it would help him get through his exams at school - something that Jake had been worrying over.
Six days after starting his medication, Jake walked out of his first exam halfway through - later that night he cried for three hours. A day later his Prozac dose was doubled,
On day 46, Jake killed himself.
During the 18 month long inquest evidence showed that there were links to Prozac and suicide related deaths, in particular the black box warning on Prozac in the US. No such black box warning exists in either the UK or Ireland (Jake's place of birth)
In fact some years ago after meeting with the Irish Medicines Board (the equivalent of the FDA and MHRA) Jake's parents were told that, "nobody would take Prozac if such a black box warning was put into place."
Some informed consent that is, huh?
So, what is an open verdict?
In a nutshell it means that there is insufficient evidence that somebody had intended to kill themselves. In other words, Jake may not have intended to kill himself were it not for a third party, that party being Prozac.
The coroner's verdict is kinda vague in as much that he cannot say for certain why Jake did what he did but with Prozac on the table one only has to read between the lines. It leaves open the question as to whether or not Prozac induced Jake's death.
One fifth of adolescents experience suicidal thoughts, according to Dr Houlihan, a consultant Paediatric Psychiatrist at Temple Street Children’s Hospital.
Yesterday's open verdict was welcomed by Jake's parents, Steffini McGill Lynch and John Lynch from Clondalkin.
“It’s a huge relief. It allows us to grieve now. You can’t let go of that night but this allows another chapter to close. This is the verdict he deserved because in our eyes it was drug induced,” Steffini said after the inquest concluded.
One thing is certain. Jake should never have been prescribed Prozac for 'exam jitters'. He was a normal child made to feel abnormal the minute he walked into his psychiatrist's office. He was a child, who through no fault of his own, that had to deal with two things.
1. The worry of pending exams.
2. The chemical imbalance caused by the Prozac he was prescribed.
Earlier this year "Jake's Amendment" was tabled in the Dail of the Coroner's Amendment Bill 2015, a bill that calls for coroners to widen the scope so they are able to deliver a finding of Iatrogenic Suicide. Iatrogenic Suicide is the ending of one's own life where the effect of medical treatment undertaken by the deceased, including any prescribed medication.
Although no such verdict was delivered yesterday, the open verdict certainly points to the fact that Jake did not intend to kill himself - something pushed him. You'd have to be from the plant Zog to rule out Prozac.
Eli Lilly, who market and manufacture Prozac, have placed the following warning on the package insert for Prozac in the United States.
"Suicidal Thoughts and Behaviors in Children, Adolescents, and Young Adults: Monitor for clinical worsening and suicidal thinking and behavior."
The Irish Medicines Board should follow suit. I doubt if they will. The whole medicine regulatory system is run by limp-wristed buffoons who, it appears, merely shrug their shoulders when people die as a result of medications they have granted licence to.
Jake's voice has been heard. Hopefully the pro-antidepressant brigade in Ireland will cease writing column inches in the Irish media bigging up the use of these types of medications in children and young adults - I doubt that will happen too. Psychiatrists who write for the national press are, in my opinion, egotistical and bear all the hallmarks of narcissism.
Godspeed little man.
Tuesday, October 13, 2015
I've been watching the proceedings of a current trial in the US. It involves the wife of a man who killed himself shortly after being prescribed Paxil.
If you are like me, a bit of a geek when it comes to reading court documents, then you will just love this.
It plays out like a John Grisham novel. Here we get to see the mechanics of defence lawyers, particularly when it comes to allowing expert witnesses to offer evidence against the company they are representing, in this instance, GlaxoSmithKline.
In June 2010 Stewart Dolin visited his family doctor who wrote him a prescription for Paxil for "work-related anxiety and depression".
Dolin's prescription was dispensed but he received the generic form, manufactured by Mylan.
Six days after beginning his course of the generic Paxil, Dolin left his office shortly after having returned from lunch with a business associate. He walked to a nearby Chicago Transit Authority Blue Line station at Washington and Dearborn in downtown Chicago. As a northbound train approached the station, Mr. Dolin leaped in front of it to his death. Blood tests taken with Mr. Dolin’s autopsy were positive for paroxetine.
Stewart's wife, Wendy, filed suit against GSK. (Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. et al., case number 1:12-cv-06403)
GSK have filed so many motions in this case. Basically, they write to a judge asking him to make a decision on claims they make. In the case of Dolin they first claimed that, although Stewart Dolin had taken paroxetine, it wasn't their brand. In fact, the brand that Dolin had taken was a generic form, manufactured by Mylan and not GlaxoSmithKline.
On March 4, 2014, an Illinois federal judge determined that GlaxoSmithKline PLC can be held liable for a suicide even though the consumer took a generic version of the antidepressant Paxil, (Source)
Next form of defence for Glaxo's highly paid law team, King & Spalding, was to target the person bringing the claim against them. In this instance, the wife of the deceased, Wendy Dolin.
GSK's defence lawyers subpoenaed Wendy Dolin's cellphone and text message records, her home phone and her late husband's company phone.
Wendy then filed her own motion stating that she had already complied with what she characterized as GSK's intrusive discovery requests, and accused GSK of excessive prying that would not end without the court's intervention.
Furthermore, Wendy claimed in her motion that GSK had sent more than 30 subpoenas and over 70 records requests, and shown the Dolin children Stewart Dolin's confidential therapy notes despite Wendy Dolin's objections.
GSK has also taken hours of deposition testimony from her and grilled her about her personal medical information and her romantic life since her husband's death, according to her motion.
On September 12, 2014, Dolin and GSK came to a "resolution" regarding Glaxo's contentious subpoena. The resolution has, to date, remained confidential.
So, in attempts to, what can be seen as dragging the case out, King & Spalding have now turned their attentions on experts called by Dolin. One such expert witness is Dr. David Healy.
Healy and colleagues, earlier this month, published a damning report on Glaxo's handling of Study 329, a clinical trial involving adolescents and the use of Paxil. Glaxo had, back in 2001, claimed Paxil was safe and efficacious in this patient population. Turns out, they were lying and just spun the results, putting thousands of teens at risk - See (Restoring Study 329)
Fair to say then that Healy is not on Glaxo's Christmas card list.
Muddy the waters:
So, what does one do with criticism, what does one do to suppress the truth?
We've seen the above tactics of GSK's highly paid law team.
1. Claim it's not our drug, ergo not our responsibility
2. Throw endless subpoenas at the person bringing the claim, including delving into her late husband's phone records in the small hope they can find a crumb of evidence that will help them suppress the truth about the Paxil suicide link in adults.
3. Show the children of the deceased personal confidential therapy notes from their father.
4. Grill the widow about her medical background and romantic interests since the death of her husband.
Way to go King & Spalding, you're basically a mirror image of the clients you represent (my opinion "Todd" - see disclaimer at foot of blog - it's been there for years)
Not satisfied with raping the memory of Stewart Dolin, King & Spalding have now turned their attention to David Healy.
Now, I'm not going to blow smoke up Healy's ass, he's one of the good guys, that's all you need to know. He raises awareness because he cannot just stand by and watch bad drugs do harm. That alone should be applauded. Healy has a lot more to lose than your average blogger (myself included). He puts his career on the line by speaking out, it's one hell of a sacrifice. He could have quite easily closed his eyes but he has something that we all have, something that only those with blackened hearts suppress.
King & Spalding nefarious, nae rabid, attack on Healy is not too dissimilar to the raping of Stewart Dolin's memory.
So, what's this motion about?
Well, according to King & Spalding, Healy should not be allowed to give evidence in the trial, he's not credible, he has a bias, he's telling people to go out and kill.
Yup, you read that last bit correctly.
GSK's motion to exclude Healy is a work of art, the kind of art many of us don't understand. It's a huge pile of excrement carefully sculptured by the expert hands of King & Spalding's finest. Ironic that this huge pile of steaming cak is called a motion!
Here's some of the reasons why they don't want Healy to give evidence.
1. Dr Healy is not qualified to testify because of his radical advocacy and extreme bias against GSK.
Oh, boo hoo. Naughty Dr. Healy having an opinion on GSK. Since when did someone with an opinion become a radical activist?
Would this actually have something to do with the fact that Healy has, in the past, given his expert opinion in the cases of Kilker vs GSK and Tobin v GSK. In both cases jury's found GSK guilty. The Kilker case saw GSK's Paxil ruled as the cause of Lyam Kilker being born with birth defects. In the Tobin case a jury found that Paxil was the proximate cause of Donald Schell taking a gun to family members, killing them, then killing himself.
GSK, don't, it appears, think so. They claim Healy, via the medium of his blog, has, in the past, claimed that “the pharmaceutical industry ‘rapes’ patients,” that he “compares GSK’s insistence on statistically-significant findings to sexual abuse by Catholic priests,” and that GSK’s “widespread cover-up of adverse events dwarfs the Nazis’ cover-up of the Holocaust.”
Here's the rebuttal of Dolin's attorneys.
Dr. Healy never stated that pharmaceutical companies “rape” patients, but specifically defined a concept that he calls “pharmaceutical rape culture” which he defines as a “concept that examines a culture in which harm from pharmaceutical products is pervasive and normalized due to societal attitudes about medicine and health care.” Dr. Healy specifically distinguishes pharmaceutical rape culture from actual rape, but draws cultural parallels to the way society reacts to the problem, i.e., blaming the victim.
Similarly, Dr. Healy never compared GSK’s insistence on statistical significance to “sexual child abuse.” Dr. Healy’s blog entry simply discusses how the Church’s use of Canon Law to disregard state and federal law parallels how pharmaceutical companies “actively attempt to over-ride the legal systems of the United States and other countries with claims that unless findings are demonstrated in controlled trials to a statistically significant extent that they simply aren’t happening.”
Finally, GSK’s reference to the Holocaust is not only inaccurate, it is offensive. Dr. Healy made a passing reference to the Nazis in his blog entry to illustrate the fact that pharmaceutical companies have actively sought to hide risks from patients and authorities using a myriad of methods. The specific quote is:
[Pharmaceutical companies] have taken astonishing steps to prevent decent reporting, or to denigrate reporting when it happens, and to manage the perception of risk rather than risks themselves. If the Nazis had access to [their] bag of tricks, there would be real and widespread doubt that the Holocaust ever happened.
At no time did Dr. Healy suggest or even insinuate pharmaceutical cover-up of adverse events “dwarfs the Nazi’s cover-up of the Holocaust.” This sort of inflammatory and misleading...
Personally, and this is just my opinion, I think that King & Spalding paralegals and other staff have, seemingly, trawled through Healy's blog as a reporter for the National Enquirer would. The sole purpose is to dismiss his beliefs whilst trying to find cherry-picked sentences that they feel may incriminate him, and, furthermore, persuade a judge that Healy is some sort of crank.
For the record, the "pharmaceutical rape culture" reference was actually a blog post by another blogger.
Is it me, or does anyone else think these highly paid attorneys can't do their job properly?
Dolin's attorneys added that Healy "...discusses topical and controversial issues and he does so with poetic license."
GSK then, quite remarkably, decided to look into the phrase, "poetic license."
Weeks after the rebuttal of Dolin's legal team GSK then attached as an exhibit a "true and correct copy of the online Oxford Dictionary definition of poetic-license."
Since when did GSK start using the Oxford Dictionary?
Here's part of a transcript from BBC Panorama. Journalist, Shelley Jofre was interviewing Glaxo spokesperson, Alistair Benbow. Ironically, the subject of definition came up.
BENBOW: Addiction is characterized by a number of different criteria which includes craving, which includes increasing the dose of drugs to get the same effect, and a number of other features and these are not exhibited by Seroxat.
JOFRE: That's not, with respect, what the Oxford English Dictionary says. It says addiction is having a compulsion to take a drug, the stopping of which produces withdrawal symptoms.
BENBOW: If you use that limited description of addictive then most prescription medicines could be defined as addictive.
So, on one hand the Oxford English Dictionary gives a true and correct definition, yet on the other hand the Oxford English Dictionary only gives a limited description!
Come on Glaxo, you can't have it both ways. If, as they claim, the dictionary (provided as an exhibit) gives a true and correct definition then Benbow telling Jofre that the same dictionary only gives limited descriptions was an actual lie... or was it just an opinion of Benbow, one that was radical and, dare I say it, biased.
One of the most ludicrous claims of GSK was that Healy, once again through the medium of his blog, suggested that "it would be reasonable for people who have lost loved ones due to alleged drug side effects to take violent revenge against pharmaceutical executives or editors of the New England Journal of Medicine."
Based on this one paragraph GSK accused Healy of inciting violence against GSK’s executives and medical journal editors.
(Insert laughter here)
(Change your underwear here)
As Dolin's attorneys put it, "Healy is expressing concern that discord is “brewing” and that absent action, there could be violence. Dr. Healy expressly condemns such violence. "
As I said a the top of this post, I'm a bit of a geek when it comes to reading court documents. Whilst reading through GSK's motions I've had Nescafe shoot down my nostrils, reached the point of apoplexy, so much so that I had to bite the arm of my chair, and, been to the bathroom to avoid any embarrassment of urinating myself.
Healy's deposition was supposed to be about science, in actual fact GSK's attorneys chose, for at least 90% of the 10 hours, to talk about Healy's blog, his financial accounts, and every other avenue that they could think of - rather than deal with the science.
If anything, these motions merely highlight the lengths GSK and their legal representation, King & Spalding, will go to as to avoid the Paxil/suicide link being, once again, publicly aired.
Other experts for Dolin have also come under fire from GSK. More mud-slinging, more cleverly crafted piles of poo.
Those King & Spalding offices, I believe, need fumigating.
Bob Fiddaman. (Using Benbow's poetic licence)
Source: Public Access to Court Documents (Pacer)
Wendy Dolin is represented by Bijan Esfandiari, Michael Baum, Frances Phares and R. Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC
Wednesday, October 07, 2015
Another number of lives lost.
Another media frenzy that splits itself with reporting about gun laws and/or more calls for a better mental health system.
Born and raised in the UK I don't really get why anyone would ever want to own a gun, unless their life was in imminent danger. (American accent) "Woah, hang on buddy, it's our right to defend ourselves." - Maybe so, I guess everyone has that right. I just can't see why killing someone to defend yourself makes you the better person. Let's face it, you own a gun not to wound someone, you own it to kill someone. The guy that breaks into your house in the middle of the night and puts your family in danger - any eye for an eye, right? (Winks)
The majority of wannabe John Wayne's are pretty sane guys. (American accent...again) "Get off your horse and drink your milk".
We've come a long way since the days of John Wayne, a tough cowboy who would take on the bad guys yet wince like a baby when the woman in his life would try to clean his wounds.
Hollywood now gives us bigger characters, bigger guns, more carnage - (American accent, tinged with Austrian) "I need your clothes, your boots and the keys to your motorcycle."
Let's face it, we like to watch these movies, unless of course we live our lives like Ned Flanders, he of The Simpsons fame. (“Hey-Diddly-Ho!”)
Then we have the gun-totting games on the latest games consoles - have we gone past Nintendo yet? Forgive me, I'm a 51 year-old.
So, for the majority of us we blame the gun culture when we hear of yet another school shooting. The mainstream media, who I'm growing to dislike with a passion, will have us believe that the perpetrator had a history of mental illness and his mom, dad, brother, sister, or cat had a passion for guns.
The quotes littered in these voyeuristic insights of the 'perp' tell us that he (because it's always a 'he') had a history of mental illness. ADHD, Bipolar, and all those other illnesses that seem to have just appeared out of nowhere during the past 20 years or so.
If the media aren't blaming the "brain disease", they are blaming the movies, the kind mentioned above, or the music that the perp used to listen to. Hey, the guy wore an AC/DC cap and they play the Devil's music, right? He had a Judas Priest album in his collection and if you play track 3 backwards there's a hidden message.
Comments under such articles leave me shaking my head. Those poor misguided souls, who hang on to every word the tabloids are spewing, call for a better mental health system to be put into place. What they are missing is that the perp was probably under the care of mental health. Talk therapy, an exercise regime, a better diet are not things your average psychiatrist would recommend for those who have a troubled mind.
Medication, and lots of it. Not one drug, hell no, one isn't enough to fix his mind, let's give him two, three, four, maybe five!
The latest media ignorance has come as a result of yet another shooting (once again coming in America) (“Hey-Diddly-Ho!”)
Christopher Harper-Mercer, according to the wonderful world media, had an obsession with the devil, black people, women, in fact, he hated everyone. So, what does he do? Well, he walks into Umpqua Community College in Oregon and kills 9 innocent people then, apparently, turned the gun on himself.
Yeh, kinda makes sense. A guy who hates everyone decides to shoot a bunch of kids... in a school.
Let's just stop for one moment and think about the medication he was undoubtedly taking. It is designed to flood the brain with chemicals, those chemicals target receptors, those things that, in essence, fire the obsessive, dark, depression thoughts we have. Now, I'm not going to show you instances where these school shooters have been on psychiatric medication. I think, if you are reading this, you'll already know about the psychiatric medication link with school shootings, if not, Google it.
The Internet is awash with conspiracy theories, psychiatric medication and school shootings have, for whatever reason, made it into a number of these conspiracy theory lists. Hey, it's the gun, it's the lack of mental health care, it's AC/DC or Judas Priest, it's the cat that once scratched the perp when he was a child... ad infinitum.
The mainstream media said so.
Do your homework folks.