What we have here is... a failure to communicate 3

My third and final post about my recent correspondence with three leading figures who, in one way or another, represent mental health charities here in the UK.

This will be my last say on the matter - Seroxat Secrets is still digging and unearthing a plethora of information regarding this issue and as I have said previously, does a much better job than I.

My previous two posts should be read before continuing - (1) & (2)

To recap:

Amelia Mustapha, Dr Chris Manning and Jim Thomson were at some point working for the mental health charity Depression Alliance who, in the past have been chastised for accepting up to 80% of Pharmaceutical funding (see the Select Committee on Health Minutes of Evidence)

Depression Alliance have never spoke out against Seroxat despite the thousands of adverse reactions reported by patients.

It was Amelia who first brought my attention to the way Depression Alliance thinks with a post on her blog entitled ' Seroxat Turned Me Green' and then later another post entitled 'Taking the Devil's Money, Doing the Lord's Work'. Although she does not advocate the use of Seroxat, she dismisses those who speak out against it. Amelia and I entered into email correspondence but she called it a day when her name was mentioned on Seroxat Secrets. She never told me she was going to cease communication with me, that was left to her friend, Jim Thomson. Mr Thomson was later to inform me that Dr Chris Manning had also decided to stop communicating with me.

This leads me to believe that Jim Thomson was copied in on my correspondence with Amelia Mustapha and Chris Manning although this cannot be proven (it is just a belief) - Jim was, after all, the CEO of Depression Alliance.

I entered into email correspondence with Jim Thomson after I saw he had commented on an article written by Seroxat Secrets ' What a tangled web we weave…'. Personally, I thought it was a brave thing to go public on a site that has a growing number of daily visitors. His comments came across as someone who was angry, some might say he had every right to be angry considering what had been wrote but as a former CEO I would have thought he would have at least learned decorum and people skills. His lack of tact became more apparent during our email correspondence as you will see when reading this.

At the end of this post I will leave Jim to have the final say - He wrongfully assumed that I would not let him - I always allow people to have their say on this blog, unless they advertise or use foul language.

Before reading on, please remember that Amelia Mustapha, Dr Chris Manning and now Jim Thomson all decided to cease communication with me. Read into that what you will.



I contacted Jim Thomson after I read his comments on Seroxat Secrets. His opening paragraph to the author of Seroxat Secrets was straight on the defence:

...I have been alerted to your comments about me and have just spent a most diverting half hour reading them. You are extremely lucky that I am not the litigious type. What you have “uncovered” is a tissue of conjecture and you are, clearly, a master at putting two next to two and seeing several dozen. For the record (and this will be the only message you receive from me as I have far better things to do with my days) I’ll try to sort out your maths. Just this once. (see here for full response)

Mr Thomson added further comments despite stating in the opening paragraph that he wouldn't. ( '...and this will be the only message you receive from me as I have far better things to do with my days'). In fact Mr Thomson added a further 4 comments!

In response to my first email I sent him he told me that he had spoken with Dr Manning and had learned that Dr Manning had decided not to sue for libel, although Mr Thomson was unsure whether he was referring to me or the author of Seroxat Secrets. I pointed out that I had never even mentioned Dr Manning on this blog, the only correspondence I had ever had with him was via email. Mr Thomson went on to tell me that Dr Manning was hurt by the comments/articles written on him and suggested that I find out more about him before any further implications about his integrity or that of Primhe. He went on to tell me that Dr Manning had once opened a blister pack of tablets live on air, he informed listeners that the medicine 'kept him alive'

I took tablets for nigh on 6 years but didn't feel the need to make a show of it. I really can't see why a doctor would do such a thing other than to prove to the listener that the product he was consuming was safe... this begs the question, why would he do such a thing? Was it to play down the talk that these particular drugs were dangerous?

Once again I pointed out that I had never spoken out against Manning - Jim replied with ' And he has chosen – rightly in my view – to cease communicating with you.'

Once again I had learned third party that an ongoing communication had been stopped, you may remember Amelia Mustapha had decided to cease communication with me too. Neither Dr Manning nor Amelia Mustapha had the decency to tell me, instead I was informed by the former CEO of Depression Alliance, Jim Thomson!

Jim later moved the goalposts when I brought him to task regarding my apparent 'dissing' of Manning. ' When you criticise Primhe, you criticise Chris Manning, because he IS Primhe'

So Primhe are not an organisation then, they are merely one person?

Jim asked me to provide him with evidence where he had endorsed any Pharmaceutical drug, he went on to say that he had previously asked Richard Brook (formerly of MIND), Paul Flynn MP, Charles Medawar, and Andrew Herxheimer to supply evidence. Incidently, the aforementioned have all spoken out against Seroxat and suppressed data. Coincidence that Jim Thomson should mention these names?

He claimed that there was a raging silence from us all because there is no evidence that he has ever endorsed any pharmaceutical product. I found this statement rather odd as I had never once said that he had? I will however go on record to say that although he does not 'endorse' pharmaceutical products, he does not speak out against them either - despite the overwhelming evidence that people are suffering at the hands of them, despite the fact that the MHRA are currently investigating GlaxoSmithKline, despite the fact that there have been four Panorama programmes on the subject and countless internal documents released on the internet.

I felt, as with Amelia Mustapha, that Jim and I were making headway when he informed me that he would contact the MHRA to verify the status of any investigation. We were on the same page when it came to the MHRA so that was enlightning.

I mentioned my correspondence with Amelia to Jim Thomson who informed me the reasons for her ceasing communication with me had nothing to do with the Seroxat Secrets website, later in the paragraph he told me ' You (or your chum – again, it’s hard to tell) chose not to remove the offending comments about her, so she broke off communication.'

Hmmm, so she did cease communication with me because of something that was written about her on another website?

Jim seemed to be hellbent on finding out whether or not I was party to a class action lawsuit. I pointed out to him that I wasn't aware that any such application had been made to the courts and if indeed I was part it would be improper to discuss it on a public forum that was visited regularly by GSK and it's lawyers.

His response?

'...Oh for God’s sake grow up man.'

'...you should declare whether you stand to gain financially from your stance on Seroxat.'

'...if you are pursuing GSK, then I think you should say so.'

'...if you are, you might also be getting very rich quite soon and I think your readers (or at least those who are not also part of the action) deserve to know.'

I am aware of the parallel Mr Thomson is trying to make here and if such a case is applied to the courts then he will be made aware if I am part of that case. Until then, I cannot make assumptions as to whether or not I am part of such a case.

I had previously asked Jim whether he had ever publically criticised any of the Pharmaceutical Companies that you receive funding from? He informed me that he had done so three times, two that featured the same company. He also stated that he had criticised the industry as a whole in front of the OECD, the WHO and the US Senate.

Strangely Jim asked me whether or not I had embarked on any previous compensation cases against large corporations, adding, ...' I know the answer anyway'

The only time I have ever had to use a solicitor was when I went through a divorce. I used the services of an Employment Law Advisor once when the company I worked for couldn't find me alternative employment when I developed bi-lateral osteoarthritis. If this is what he means by ' I know the answer anyway' then I really cannot see the parallel he is trying to make?

Then we have the issue of charity law. I've never disputed that charity have guidelines. I know charities have to accept funding from Pharma - my gripe is that some of these charities refuse to speak out against any of the drugs their funders manufacture. For me that is a conflict of interest. Jim mentioned that I would probably quote MIND to him (I had no intention of) then added ' ...in my view they are acting contrary to Charity Law. Incidentally, I broke off contact with them when they wrote threatening to sue me for having the audacity to criticise them'

Don't you just love the last line?

Audacity to criticise, threatening to sue - Exactly what Dr Manning had 'threatened' to do because someone had the 'audacity to criticise' - Pot, Kettle and black spring to mind.

Jim believes that Pharma set out to make profit by improving life, he wrongfully assumed I believe they set out to kill people. I just highlight the facts where they have killed people, something Depression Alliance, Primhe and Healthwell have never done. Why bite the hand that feeds you eh?

Jim eventually got around to talking about Paroxetine (Seroxat), telling me he knows how many prescriptions have been written for Paroxetine since it was launched and adding '...if the medicine is “a killer”, the numbers just don’t stack up. The suicide statistics alone do not support the argument'

Maybe he could be given access to the records David Healy was when called as an expert witness in June 2001, with the judgement in a Cheyenne, Wyoming court that paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat) had contributed to the wrongful and violent deaths of Don and Rita Schell and Deborah and Alyssa Tobin and that SmithKline Beecham (now part of Glaxo SmithKline) had been responsible for failures to test and warn. In the course of this case, David Healy (as an expert witness for the Plaintiffs) discovered key company documents, detailing the results of very early studies in which paroxetine had been taken by healthy volunteers.



There were a further number of emails between myself and Jim Thomson, basically which went over old ground about whether or not he or his organisation were right. He had wrote a 'scathing' reply to me (his own words) but apparently could not send it due to a malfunction in his email client... he, once again wrongfully assumed it had something to do with me, '...but I assume it is something you have done to your outgoing messages'

His last email was to let me know he no longer wished to correspond with me and, as promised, I shall leave the last words with Jim Thomson. I will not add any further comment other than to offer Amelia Mustapha, Dr Manning and Jim Thomson the further right to reply via the comments section of this blog.

I would like to take this opportunity to thank all three concerned for communicating with me.

Here are Jim Thomson's final words.


I decline to play your game and you intend to publish my declination anyway. You do not have my permission to publish any of our exchange. If you decide to do so anyway, which I am fairly convinced you will, then so be it. I trust if you have a shred of decency, that you will also publish the following comment, without commentary from you, and that you will let your readers judge….

“I went to great lengths to illustrate to Mr Fiddaman that he and others are totally mistaken when they imply that I and my colleagues, are in some way a mouthpiece for big pharma. At no point in our exchanges, did I conceal any information from Mr Fiddaman. I was at all times honest. I have never, in over a quarter of a century in the charity sector, received any funding based on any endorsement of any product – pharmaceutical or otherwise. None of those questioning my integrity have, or ever will, provide evidence to the contrary. On the other hand, I have been targeted and criticised by people who do stand to gain financially and reputationally (and in some cases have already gained) from their position regarding pharmaceutical products. I will no longer play on such a sloping playing field. Eventually, it became clear to me that Mr Fiddaman had no intention of listening to anything I had to say. There was no point in continuing, particularly as the final response that I wrote was, on reflection, extremely scathing. I decided not to send it. I wish the readers of this blog nothing but the best – and in particular I wish you all good health. Above all, I ask you all to do this one thing. When you see or hear anything in this context, ask yourself one question….”What does this person, or this organisation, have to gain from taking this position?” All may become marginally clearer. Jim”.

Coming Soon - Jim Thomson CEO, The Centre for Mental Health

I wanted to put this particular subject to bed once and for all as I stated in my last post on Jim Thomson HERE

As you will see from that post I gave Jim Thomson the final say, his words were left untouched and I added no further comment.

Well, it seems Jim Thomson was not content with that.

Earlier today I recieved an email off Jim Thomson, an email in which he copied in both Amelia Mustapha and Dr Chris Manning.

Tomorrow I will publish the email in its entirety - you can judge for yourselves if you think Mr Thomson, Cheif Executive Officer, The Centre for Mental Health, is acting in a professional manner.

It seems he has been doing his own research trying to discredit me. I will post his email and publically answer his accusations - I will also let you all into a few hometruths about Mr Thomson.

Who pays your wages Jim?

Keep em peeled

Bob

Jim Thomson CEO, The Centre for Mental Health - The final

To be honest I've become quite bored of Mr Thomson and his rants and think I have gave him enough space on here to vent his misdirected anger. The readers of this blog have all seen the mails - I was going to respond to them publically but then thought... what is the point?

It seems Jim Thomson and whoever he is part of, be it Depression Alliance, Innervate or the Centre for Mental Health, likes to have the last say.

I'm done with him now - Seroxat Secrets, who Jim seems to get worked up about, continues to press him for answers so what does Jim do? He emails me!

I have nothing to do with the Seroxat Secrets web page other than both I and its author share the same passion - one which is to expose GlaxoSmithKline.

If any of you want to learn more about Jim Thomson then you can read his biography here

His myspace page can be found here

I suspect many of the readers (whom I only have a small audience if Jim is to be believed) have also become bored by it all. My aim was to allow Thomson to have his say, something his websites do not allow.

Read through the correspondence and see who is the one who appears to be 'losing the plot'

Jim is a fan of music.... there is a wonderful chorus in a Deacon Blue song which I keep hearing over and over again in my head as I read through the correspondence between Jim and I.

And I'll sail her up the west coast
Through villages and towns
I'll be on my holidays
They'll be doing their rounds
They'll ask me how I got her I'll say I saved my money
They'll say isn't she pretty that ship called dignity

I think Jim should look up the word 'Dignity'

I've now added his email address to my spam filter.

There will no doubt be more unearthing over at Seroxat Secrets.

THERE WILL NOT be anymore time or space given to Thomson on this blog

And a message for you Jim. I decline you offer of a meeting where you would like to meet me face to face, eyeball to eyeball - to be honest I found that quite threatening and if it gives your ego a massive boost I feel very intimidated by you. Apart from that I could never accept a 'freebie' off you Jim - that would change me into something that I despise.

Now if you wouldn't mind Sir... this site has bigger fish to fry

Bob

Jim Thomson CEO, The Centre for Mental Health - The Emails

It seems Jim Thomson has been busy looking in at my blog this morning (you will see evidence in the emails he sent me earlier and last night)

Make of these what you will

This is one he sent last night:

----- Original Message -----
From: jim thomson
To: 'fiddaman'
Cc: 'Amelia' ; chris.manning@primhe.org
Sent: Monday, June 04, 2007 6:15 PM
Subject: RE: recent exchange

Hi Bob,

Thanks for letting me know. And thanks so much for ignoring the “without commentary from you” request. I figured you wouldn’t be able to resist it….

I trust the DVD business is going well? Or is it poetry? I forget. And perhaps you could ask your oppo how the Dundee fresh meat market is going…..

In any event, I will ignore your extremely clumsy summation of our exchange. It is beneath contempt. But I will offer this. You gave me the opportunity to say what I wished on your blog. In return, I offer you the chance to meet, face to face, with me. I will ask Chris and Amelia to do the same. I’ll even pay the bar bill. Face to face, eyeball to eyeball, no holds barred. I tell you what….I’ll provide the laptop and you get to provide the after-dinner movie. But please do make sure that it has a BBFC certification – I do hate those moody DVDs. Don’t you?

In the meantime, I am particularly gratified that you and your chums seem to think that now it is acceptable to question my anti-counterfeiting creds. Of course, it matters little to you that patients with prostate cancer, serious psychoses and major stroke/cardiovascular problems… are being harmed by taking fake medicines (all three in the last seven days – or don’t you read the news???) It is clearly MUCH more important that the conspiracy theory continues to gather pace. God forbid that the interests of someone with a terminal illness should get in the way of a good story or an even better lawsuit.

Go on, take me up on the offer. It’s good to talk. And, unlike some “expert witnesses”, I don’t charge a Monkey a time for my opinion. You people crack me up… but I am willing to be convinced of your motives….face to face.

I await your availability. Personally, I am ready to clear my diary. Can you say the same?

Jim

P.S. Congratulations on making the trip to OZ – quite an achievement for someone with your stated medical issues.


Jim Thomson is CEO for The Centre for Mental Health who proudly boast on their website:

"The Centre is a collaboration of all who share our values, bringing together and galvanising interested individuals, mental health organisations and leaders, patient groups, the media, corporate sector partners, and statutory agencies. It is designed to provide a beehive for policy and service development, giving everyone in mental health a voice. "

More of Jim's emails coming soon.

Bob

Jim Thomson CEO, The Centre for Mental Health - The Emails Part 3

Sent to me at 9.54am

He never copied in his two friends this time.

----- Original Message -----
From: jim thomson
To: 'fiddaman'
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:54 AM
Subject: I almost forgot


Sorry….. Bob,

I almost forgot. Why is it that you draw attention via your blog (damn, that counter is STILL running slowly today) to the ranting dwarf’s submissions to the Health Select Committee inquiry, yet you conveniently neglect to mention my submissions to same. Come on, fair play and all that guff ….. ….Bob……

You must have read my comments (made under oath, as it happens.) I would have thought you’d be congratulating me on two in particular – the one calling for routine and ongoing post-marketing clinical trials….and the one calling for a revamped system to report adverse effects of medications.

I’ve had a good look through the blog….Bob…. but not a dicky bird. No mention at all of these recommendations and the contribution they would make to increasing patient safety. Why is that, Bob? Strangely enough, the wizened dwarf doesn’t ever mention them either. Funny that.

Thankfully, the Committee was listening, the recommendations I made (and another that would cost big pharma billions of dollars if implemented) made it into the minutes and the final report. That’s democracy in action – just in case you don’t recognise the concept….Bob.

Toodle Pip,

Jim


I sent a copy of this email to Gisela Stuart, who, it seemed Jim referred to as the 'ranting dwarf' and the 'wizened dwarf'


Jim Thomson is CEO for The Centre for Mental Health who proudly boast on their website:

Mental health is "everyone's business". The Government's particular role is to enable the opportunities and environment that sustainably and enduringly support this proven fact.

Jim Thomson CEO, The Centre for Mental Health - The Emails Part 2

This one I recieved at 9.38am

----- Original Message -----
From: jim thomson
To: 'fiddaman'
Cc: 'Amelia' ; chris.manning@primhe.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 9:38 AM
Subject: RE: recent exchange


Morning Bob (damn, that makes me smile every time I write it – just can’t help visualising Rowan Atkinson.)

have indeed read your blog this very morning (and what a fine sunny one it is.) I see you plan to respond in detail to my last email. Splendid – my day just gets better and better. I look forward to it. As an aside, Bob (there’s that smile again) why is it that you didn’t respond straight away to the points I raised – and specifically the invitation to meet face-to-face? Could it be that I sent the email after office hours? As we all know, Lawyers and PR agencies tend to keep strict hours. In any event, when it comes, I’m sure your response will be entertaining. I wonder if it will be like some of your offerings – written in perfect English, or like the others – written in abject colloquial English. A more suspicious or conspiratorial man than I might suspect that more than one hand is at work here. Perish the thought, eh?

While writing, I must commend you on criticising my lack of professionalism in suggesting that there might be more to your little blog than you would like your readers to know. Imagine my shock when I realised that you recognised the concept of professionalism. Who’d have thought it?

Of course, the other belly laugh was when you stated that I had done “some research of my own.” Let me get this straight…. You are allowed to say whatever you please about me to your thousands of readers (though, I have to say, Tuesdays must be quiet – your web counter has gone up by six this morning, and five of them have been me checking back to see if you’ve replied yet. Could it be that your scribblings are not as fervently followed as you think?) but I am not allowed to investigate who is dragging my name through the mud? Is that the deal here? You can say what you like about me and others? You can put my photograph on your blog? Yet you wail and gnash your teeth when, for example, the MHRA makes a tiny clerical error deleting your name and address from a form letter? Dual standards old chum, dual standards. And before you justify your behaviour by saying that all is fair in the crusade for truth and justice, or that you are doing this for patients, let’s get one thing straight. I (and others) know why you are doing this and now, following my email yesterday, you know that I know. Makes it interesting, eh? Oh, and for the record, I didn’t do any research. I was having a chicken mayo bagel when the information dropped into my lap. And no (yawns) it didn’t fly in from big pharma.

So, Bob (smiles), let’s have that meeting. Surely it’s the offer you’ve been waiting for. The opportunity to convince three prominent people working in mental health, of your case. That MUST be worth the trip. Hell, we’ll even come to you if you like. What are you waiting for.

Oh, and just so that you know that I’m not avoiding the question…. Who pays my salary? Right now, Bob (etc) no-one. Kind of knocks a big hole in your argument, n’est pas?

Best,

Jim


P.S. Come on Bob, it’s gone half-nine. Those nice folks down at the agency must have finished their croissants by now, surely………

Jim Thomson is CEO for The Centre for Mental Health who proudly boast on their website:

People are best served by all concerned with mental health working collaboratively. All those with a voice in mental health have a right to be heard.

Jim Thomson CEO, The Centre for Mental Health - The Emails Part 4

... and they keep on coming


This one from 11.01am

----- Original Message -----
From: jim thomson
To: 'fiddaman'
Cc: 'STUART, Gisela' ; 'Amelia' ; mhtml:%7B4F2932A1-7C6B-4867-AEC4-6B41014FDB7F%7Dmid://00000070/!x-usc:mailto:chris.manning@primhe.org
Sent: Tuesday, June 05, 2007 11:01 AM
Subject: RE: I almost forgot


But interestingly, Bob, no comments from you about the points I made below, and which clearly contradict your view of me as being a puppet of big pharma. I trust your M.P. (who I see you copied in on your non-reply) will take the opportunity to view the Hansard pages relating to my evidence, and come to her own conclusions regarding the fairness of your concerted attacks on me (and those of your acquaintances on other blogs.)

While it behoves a Member of Parliament to represent all of her/his constituents, I am sure that Ms Stuart, particularly given her time at the DoH, will be well able to sort the wheat from the chaff, and no doubt conclude that there are forces at work here that probably do not have the public interest at heart.

Ms Stuart, for your benefit, I have copied this to two other people that Mr Fiddiman and others have targeted for their singularly vile personal attacks, because they and I do not toe their particular party line. I will email you presently explaining who these people are and who I am.



Jim Thomson is CEO for The Centre for Mental Health who proudly boast on their website:

What are you working on right now and do you need any help. Email us with a short desciption of your project and the kind of input you're looking for.

What we have here is... a failure to communicate

The saying goes that there are two sides to every story. I am a firm believer in that saying, hence the comment sections within this blog - yes, they are moderated but I have only on one occasion refused to let a comment go through due to the bad language that was used.

The Seroxat debate also has two sides. There are some that say it is a great drug and has helped them whilst there are others who say the complete opposite.

As some of you know, I have touched on patient support groups on this blog, in the main my gripe was with the Australian patient support groups as you can see HERE, HERE, and more importantly, HERE.

It was the author of Seroxat Secrets that uncovered a 'tangled web' with his posts about Depression Alliance, a patient support group here in the UK. To be honest I try to steer away from subjects covered by Seroxat Secrets because the author writes so well and I feel I could not do justice to his investigations.

I became involved when a friend of mine informed me of a post on a blog on the popular myspace.com website. Reading it I felt the person was misinformed . I posted comments questioning the author's stance but unfortunately these were deleted as were comments by fellow campaigner Roger Cleghorn. The reason, say's the author, was that we were rude.

The blog post was created by Amelia Mustapha who is Vice President of the European Depression Association and Communications Director of the UK’s Centre for Mental Health. Amelia was previously Fundraising, Marketing and Communications Director of the Depression Alliance, the leading UK Charity for people affected by depression.

What caught my immediate attention was her particular stance on anyone who dared speak out against Seroxat - you can read the blog that first gained my interest here and you will see exactly what I mean. Terms such as ' Panorama witch-hunt programmes about Seroxat' and 'There have been 5 or 6 programmes in all and each has been an exemplar in bad science and shock tactics' . Not content with speaking out against the Seroxat (Panorama) programmes, Amelia later has a dig at Scientology and Prof David Healy, using inverted comma's to describe Healy as an expert. She also accuses certain patient support groups jumping on the 'profitable' anti-Seroxat bandwagon. One can see why this invoked a response from me.

It became apparent that adding comments to the blog post were really getting us nowhere so I contacted her and we emailed one another with opinions, admittedly both her and my emails were childishly filled with tints of sarcasm at first but after a while we seemed to be making headway although we both still strongly held our own views. We were pretty much in agreement over the MHRA and the chemical imbalance theory, so much so that she wrote to GSK to ask why they state on their Australian site that ' AROPAX corrects the chemical imbalance and so helps relieve the symptoms of depression.'

I asked Amelia if she would be prepared to talk to a group of us about Seroxat but seeing as we were just in the early stages of correspondence she declined. I also asked Amelia if she would accept a challenge to come up with more than 10,000 patients who support the use of Seroxat opposed to the 10,000 + that I could give her.

Unfortunately Amelia ceased contact with me after She learned that Seroxat Secrets had mentioned her name - I don't know why as I am not affiliated with Seroxat Secrets and cannot control what one wants to write about on their personal blogs. To be honest if anyone should be annoyed for being lambasted then it should be David Healy after what Amelia wrote on her blog about him.

Amelia never told me she was not going to communicate with me anymore, that was left to her friend, Jim Thomson (More on Jim Thomson another time). It's a great pity that two adults with opposing views cannot debate without one throwing the 'dummy out of the pram' and doing a runner because of something negative that was written about them on a site that has nothing to do with Seroxat Sufferers apart from sharing the same passion for justice.

Everyone is entitled to their own views but it is my belief that someone who works with mental health patients should talk to sufferers and collect their stories before writing off Panorama's Seroxat programmes and labelling them a 'witch hunt.'

I'm sure deep down Amelia is a nice person with a genuine belief that she is right and others including SSRi experts are wrong. The evidence she provided me to back up her claims were all funded by Pharma. Breggin's evidence, which I sent to her, was merely glossed over and added with Amelia disputing his credentials.

In truth, we could have gone on for years arguing over who was right and who was wrong. Any evidence I may have put forward to her will have been written off with a whim. The difference between my opinion and Amelia's is that I have experienced the perils of Seroxat first hand - she hasn't. Yes she has spoke to sufferers but I have spoke to women that have had babies and I and any other man could not possibly know the pain a woman goes through when giving birth.

As always, this post is open for comments.

Later this week I shall write about my brief correspondence with Dr Chris Manning of Primhe (formerly of Depression Alliance) and also the rather animated Jim Thomson who used to be the CEO of Depression Alliance.

Keep em peeled

Bob

What we have here is... a failure to communicate 2

Following on from my correspondence with three leading figures for mental health patient support groups HERE I now will turn my attention to Dr Chris Manning with whom I had brief correspondence with via email. If you read my first post on this subject you will have learned that the author of Seroxat Secrets had unearthed what seemed like very close ties between Depression Alliance, Primhe, Healthwell and pharmaceutical marketing.

On closer inspection I learned that Primhe were funded by pharma and on their site they boast “Primhe is the UK primary care professional charity dedicated to mental health and the care of those with mental illness in primary care settings. Our mantra is “bringing ‘mental’ into the mainstream”.

I wrote to Primhe because I was unhappy to say the least that the Pharmaceutical funding Primhe were receiving was from Lundbeck who have a bad history of manufacturing bad pills.

I wrote the following:

Dear Primhe

Why is it that you are associated (funded) by Lundbeck when the three antidepressants they manufacture are all known to cause serious side effects?

I thought Primhe was set up to HELP patients with mental illness?

CIPRALEX
Total reports: 75
Reported deaths: 9
Reported hospitalizations: 30
Learn about CIPRALEX serious adverse events reported to Food and Drug Administration

LEXAPRO
Total reports: 413
Reported deaths: 71
Reported hospitalizations: 136
Learn about LEXAPRO serious adverse events reported to Food and Drug Administration

SEROPLEX
Total reports: 74
Reported deaths: 15
Reported hospitalizations: 39
Learn about SEROPLEX serious adverse events reported to Food and Drug Administration


Dr Manning wrote back thanking me for raising the issue and adding that Primhe have excellent working relationships with funders (including pharma). At the end of his email he asked what it is I do? I replied sometime later telling him I was a campaigner speaking out against GlaxoSmithKline, The MHRA and Seroxat... his response? "Well, you can continue to do that. Primhe has other fish to fry".

I asked him if he thought the public were confident in the light that Primhe were funded by pharma to which he replied, "I have no idea; you clearly are not".

I told him I would applaud Primhe if they were to carry warnings on their web page regarding the drugs their funders manufactured - His reply came as a bit of a shock:

"Then we can agree to disagree and there is no way that the charity can, or will, do as you suggest"

Make of that what you will folks.

He also went on to tell me that Suicide rates have fallen in every country where SSRIs have been prescribed (and there are now rises in US states in children and adolescents where SSRI prescribing rates have fallen. This, as we know, is a myth and more than likely Pharma spin (SEE HERE). He also added "The charity does not promote any single medicine or inform professionals or patients as to what specific medicines or interventions they should prescribe or take".

I replied to Dr Manning and he responded with which was to be his last email to me.

I asked: Do you not feel, as a doctor, you should warn patients that the Patient Information leaflet in certain drugs does not tell the whole story of side effects?

He replied, Whilst in practice, I was meticulous in this regard. Primhe cannot do everything and I am confident that there are more than enough people (including yourself) and other organisations tackling this issue.

I guess that's a fair comment - Set up a charity to help people with mental health problems yet leave it to the layman to warn those same patients of the serious adverse effects certain antidepressants can cause. Do you wish Dr Manning was your GP folks?

It seems those that DO NOT speak out against SSRi's constantly bang the same drum, always asking 'What other alternative is there'? Dr Manning was no exception.

Just because there is one remedy, that for all intents and purposes is causing great distress amongst thousands of patients, DOES NOT mean that it is ok to continue taking it because no other remedy seems to have been scientifically proven to help depressives. I find this attitude ignorant and it smacks of burying ones head in the sand regarding the problems patients are having to endure at the hands of these drugs.

Dr Manning continued with his 'pro ssri stance' by informing me that he had personally witnessed people, who as a direct result of various programmes and articles had stopped taking vital medications causing them serious adverse effects and in two cases suicide.

I assume that he is referring to Panorama here. I cannot recall Panorama ever telling anyone to suddenly stop taking their medication. I have not come across any article that suggests that either.

Dr Manning further wrote, "I have learned that everyone on this plant has agendas of one sort or another and I make it my general habit to be very sceptical of any single lobbying voice, however well motivated".

I pointed out that he only needed to type the word 'Seroxat' into Google to see there were many lobbying voices speaking out against this drug - his reply? "It's ok, I know you are not alone. Perhaps I'll start a website for those who feel they are helped by their SSRI...or would you just call them deluded? (I met two yesterday)".

Whilst Amelia Mustafa, Dr Chris Manning and Jim Thomson robustly deny they promote any pharmaceutical product, it seems they do a great job in defending them, which pretty much amounts to the same thing don't you think?

Dr Manning is what his titles says, he is a doctor, one that is in a position to offer advice to patients suffering from withdrawal from Seroxat. With comments like 'Perhaps I'll start a website for those who feel they are helped by their SSRi', it seems Dr Manning has made his mind up that SSRi's are beneficial. Hardly surprising seeing as Primhe receive funding from Pharma who manufacture antidepressants.

Or am I just being cynical?

As always, I offer Dr Manning the chance to reply via the comments section on this blog.

He hasn't replied via email

You can read more about Dr Manning, Amelia Mustafa and Jim Thomson HERE, HERE. Or just pop over to Seroxat Secrets where the research into mental health charities and funding has proved to be very popular with Seroxat Secrets readers... including Jim Thomson

Bob

Coming Soon...

... My correspondence with Jim Thomson, former CEO of Depression Alliance - the third and final health charity advocate who decided to cut off communications with me. I don't think any of the regular readers on here will be surprised by his attitude and use of words.

Keep em peeled


Bob

Latest news from blogs

Seroxat Secrets ploughs deeper into patient support groups, in particular Jim Thomson who is mentioned numerous times within the pages of Seroxat Sufferers.

A new forum has been set up over at the Seroxat Weblog. It's a UK based forum to enable British users of 5 or more years on Seroxat (Paroxetine/Paxil) to share their story of withdrawal symptoms, organ damage (with particular emphasis on liver problems), neurological difficulties or side effects of any kind.

Over at Clinical Psychology there is a post about Pharmaceutical Companies, money and Psychiatrists.

Furious Seasons has an interesting post on the Treatment Advocacy Center (TAC). Furious Seasons kindly offers you the email addresses of the TAC. Read the article then email them

Health Care Renewal is banging the drum loudly about conflicts of interests regarding research on occupational hearing loss carried out by Prof William W Clark of the Department of Otolaryngology of the Washington University School of Medicine.

Dr Aubrey Blumsohn links the whole Martin Keller affair to two cases he is investigating over at the Scientific Misconduct Blog. The case of David Kern will be of particular interest to students at Brown University and residents of Rhode Island who regularly visit this site.


If you get the chance please visit these sites. These are people who are pissed off and are doing something about it.

Fid