Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

Wednesday, February 20, 2008

MHRA - "We see no point in answering questions where you have prejudged the veracity of any answers"

Amazing line isn't it? Yet it is the latest weapon of defence the MHRA are using against people/patients wanting straight forward answers from them.

Apparently, one cannot ask the MHRA a question if one has already made up their mind about the answer?

Absurd isn't it? But that is the context of the email I received from them this morning in relation to a few questions I asked about their Chairman, Alisdair Breckenridge.

The questions I raised that they found so hard to answer were:

1. Was Alisdair Breckenridge unaware at the time of his statement that the clinical trial results actually DID show that there was a high rate of suicide attempts in adults during the first ten weeks? If so, why?

2. Would Alisdair Breckenridge or the MHRA be prepared to now state that based on fresh new evidence, we believe that Seroxat DOES cause suicide in adults? If no, why?

3. As you are aware myself and others have been saying for the past four years or so that we beleive Seroxat does/can cause suicide in adults. If proved correct would you think it reasonable to publically apologise to all those patients and patients families whom have suffered at the hands of this drug?

They threw no ruling or amendment at me instead they opted for, and here I quote them:

"We see no point in answering questions where you have prejudged the veracity of any answers"

Laughable isn't it? Particularly on the heels of the week they announce their new yellow card initiative. Patient reporting is allowed it seems, but when patients ask questions the MHRA don't like then they "see no point in answering questions where you have prejudged the veracity of any answers"

Their email to me and my answer is below for your perusal.


----- Original Message -----
From: MHRA Information Centre
To: fiddaman64

Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 9:59 AM
Subject: RE: Suicide attempts

Dear Mr Fiddaman

We note that you have posted your 10 February email to us on your blogsite. You have chosen to headline it with “Dear MHRA... Re: Alisdair Breckenridge lying on national Television”.

That headline makes it clear to any reader of your blog that you have already formed an opinion about whatever answer we might give you. It implies that you will not believe anything we say. That is consistent with the way you have responded on your blog to other answers we have given you in the past.

We see no point in answering questions where you have prejudged the veracity of any answers.

MHRA Information Centre


My reply:

To: "MHRA Information Centre
Cc: ; ; ;
Sent: Wednesday, February 20, 2008 11:44 AM
Subject: RE: Suicide attempts

Dear MHRA,

Is this a joint decision or a personal one?

The reason the headline reads as it does is because that was the crux of the email I sent you.

You are, however, correct. I do not beleive pretty much anything the MHRA have to say. Who would given your track record? The answers to my FOI requests, of which there have been many, have been less than transparent.

The reason you will not answer the 'Alisdair Breckenridge' questions is not because I have already made my own opinion is it?

I have already made my own opinions about the safety and efficacy of Seroxat yet you still answer my queries regarding that particular SSRi.

So once again, we have the MHRA being pinned down and unable (not wanting) to answer questions relating to their chairman.

From your response, I assume that it would be perfectly okay if someone else were to ask the same set of questions? However, you would probably find some other excuse not to answer.

Face it - you don't like me and I don't like you but as a body set up to regulate the medicines I and others take you have a duty to provide answers to queries, despite whether or not the person asking has already made his/her own mind up.

I shall, of course add this response to my blog - though it will be awhile because I am still getting many hits over the Myodil debacle and the Glenmullen report. Two incidents where you, as a regulator, have NOT acted with great rapidity.

Now, What is the benefit of Seroxat? We all know the risks but you have yet to show the benefits.

Your excuse for not answering my 'Alisdair Breckenridge' query is truly laughable and only highlights the fact that you like to keep your secrets 'in-house.'

''...these drugs DO NOT cause suicide, they DO NOT cause suicidal thoughts in adults"
Alisdair Breckenridge BBC Panorama

"Remember Seroxat has never been licensed in children, it has never been licensed in children at all... but nevertheless practitioners have, on their own behest, have used it extensively. Our best evidence is that some 7,000 children a year were ... or children and adolescents were recieving Seroxat."
Alisdair Breckenridge BBC Panorama

And don't even get me started on Alistair Benbow and his outlandish statements.

Remember, one small stone can cause big ripples... I have not even began throwing yet.


Bob Fiddaman

Read the new book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal

By Bob Fiddaman

ISBN: 978-1-84991-120-7