I've banged the drum enough times about the utter incompetence of Kent Woods and the MHRA - Why?
Well they are into there fourth year investigating GlaxoSmithKline despite overwhelming evidence that clearly shows how GlaxoSmithKline secretly planned to push Seroxat onto an unsuspecting public despite the myriad of side effects known to them.
Once again this post goes out to the CEO of the MHRA - Just in case he missed it first time around.
Lets go back to November 7th 2004 and show you an article from The Observer - The MHRA would have only been a year into their investigation when this was published and probably at that time thought they could push it under the carpet - little did they know that advocates such as myself, Seroxat Secrets, Charles Medawar et al would be on their case pushing them... no, demanding them for answers.
FOR YOU MR KENT WOODS:
(I have highlighted (in red) points you may wish to discuss/investigate with your colleagues)
Britain's largest drug company drew up a secret plan to double sales of the controversial anti-depressant Seroxat by marketing it as a cure for a raft of less serious mental conditions, The Observer can reveal today.
The contents of the 250-page document have alarmed health campaigners who accuse the firm, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), of putting profit before the therapeutic needs of patients by attempting to broaden the market for the drug which has been linked to a spate of suicides.
The revelation is likely to prompt further concerns about the role and influence of the pharmaceutical industry, which has come under severe scrutiny in recent months. The document is now being investigated by a parliamentary inquiry into the drugs industry.
The internal report carries a section which outlines how GSK planned to double sales of 'selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI)' - the industry term for anti-depressants - by winning the marketing war against Seroxat's chief rival, Prozac, manufactured by Eli Lilly.
Written in 1998 and subsequently updated in following years, the section is entitled: 'Towards the second billion - all SSRIs are not the same' and discusses strategies to see off the threat posed by Prozac.
The document outlined how GSK intended to market Seroxat for a range of conditions other than clinical depression. Chief among these was a condition the company identified as social anxiety disorder, although other forms of anxiety were also discussed internally.
'What this document makes clear is that a number of different forms of anxiety were being targeted in a systematic way. The thrust was to move sales beyond the $1 billion to $2 billion mark by pushing it to people who were not clinically depressed,' said Professor David Healy, a psycho-pharmacologist at Cardiff University, who has given evidence to the House of Commons Health Select Committee.
Richard Brook, chief executive of Mind, the mental health charity which submitted the document to the committee, told the MPs it was 'all about developing new conditions for that drug and demolishing the arguments of other competitors about why their drug was not any good'.
In addition the document shows GSK made a great virtue of the fact that Seroxat had a relatively short 'half-life' compared with Prozac, an argument which has subsequently proven deeply controversial.
A half-life is the scientific term for how long it takes for the concentration of a drug to drop by 50 per cent in a patient's bloodstream. The company suggested Seroxat's short half-life meant patients could come on and off the drug easily, compared with those on Prozac, even to the extent that they could take 'treatment holidays'. 'There was an argument that a short half life was really good news,' Brook said.
'But five years later, Seroxat has withdrawal issues. It's the short half life that causes the problems. The substances get into the body so quickly it causes some sort of dependency reaction. So one of the things the company was saying was a benefit was actually a problem.'
In its submission to the parliamentary committee Mind said the original trial data submitted to the UK regulators by GSK showed the claim was at best 'naive and at worst seriously misleading'. It added that 'the Seroxat file is highly illustrative of using marketing information as facts'.
Concerns about the addictive properties of Seroxat saw the government ban its prescription to people under the age of 18 last year. This followed a review which found children taking it were more likely to self-harm or commit suicide.
A spokesman for GSK said Seroxat could be marketed at new conditions only after stringent testing. 'Medical authorities around the world have required that GSK study each condition separately in order to prove benefit in each condition specifically.'
Hope this helps you Kent
Happy New Year
Fid
Zantac Lawsuit
Researching drug company and regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years
Humanist, humorist
Thursday, December 27, 2007
MHRA Just not good enough
Source: BBC News
Drug reactions 'kill thousands'
Almost 3,000 people have died in the past three years after suffering serious side-effects or allergies to their medicines, say official figures.
More than 13,000 others in the same period had an "adverse drug reaction", but survived with hospital treatment.
The statistics, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, include damage caused by "over the counter" drugs such as aspirin and ibuprofen.
Experts said that medicines could not be blamed for all the reported cases.
The figures are drawn from "yellow card" scheme, run by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) to gather reports of all adverse reactions from both clinicians and patients.
Last year, there were reports of 964 patients in the UK who died as a result of an adverse reaction, compared with more than 1,000 the previous year, and 861 in 2004.
However, there is evidence that the vast majority of adverse drug reactions are never reported to the MHRA.
Bigger problem
A study published last year suggested that 6.5% of all patients admitted to hospital had experienced a reaction, and that in four out of five cases, the medicines they were taking were to blame.
This adds up to as much as 250,000 cases a year - and an annual cost of £466 million to the NHS.
The MHRA has urged patients to join doctors in reporting drug reactions to them via the NHS Direct phone line.
While in some cases a deadly side-effect or allergy could not have been predicted, Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson has conceded that some cases should have been avoided.
"We have to become better at learning from these mistakes," he told a conference last month.
However, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a "full investigation" into the issue.
MP Norman Lamb said: "This is a dangerously escalating problem, which is putting lives at risk and placing a big cost burden on the NHS."
While many of the cases involve drugs commonly prescribed by GPs and in hospitals, such as the blood-thinning drug warfarin and diuretics, a list of common culprits includes some which can be bought without prescription in any high street chemist.
These include aspirin, and the anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen, both of which can cause gastric bleeding if taken in high doses over longer periods.
Dr June Raine, the Director of Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines at the MHRA said that every medicine carried some risk of side-effects.
"Our role is to ensure that the benefits of medication outweigh the risks. "It is important to note that a report of an adverse drug reaction does not necessarily prove that it was caused by the drug.
"Other factors such as underlying disease or other medicines may contribute to suspected adverse reactions."
Dr June Raine eh? Sounds like a stuck record!
Drug reactions 'kill thousands'
Almost 3,000 people have died in the past three years after suffering serious side-effects or allergies to their medicines, say official figures.
More than 13,000 others in the same period had an "adverse drug reaction", but survived with hospital treatment.
The statistics, obtained by the Liberal Democrats, include damage caused by "over the counter" drugs such as aspirin and ibuprofen.
Experts said that medicines could not be blamed for all the reported cases.
The figures are drawn from "yellow card" scheme, run by the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Authority (MHRA) to gather reports of all adverse reactions from both clinicians and patients.
Last year, there were reports of 964 patients in the UK who died as a result of an adverse reaction, compared with more than 1,000 the previous year, and 861 in 2004.
However, there is evidence that the vast majority of adverse drug reactions are never reported to the MHRA.
Bigger problem
A study published last year suggested that 6.5% of all patients admitted to hospital had experienced a reaction, and that in four out of five cases, the medicines they were taking were to blame.
This adds up to as much as 250,000 cases a year - and an annual cost of £466 million to the NHS.
The MHRA has urged patients to join doctors in reporting drug reactions to them via the NHS Direct phone line.
While in some cases a deadly side-effect or allergy could not have been predicted, Chief Medical Officer Sir Liam Donaldson has conceded that some cases should have been avoided.
"We have to become better at learning from these mistakes," he told a conference last month.
However, the Liberal Democrats are calling for a "full investigation" into the issue.
MP Norman Lamb said: "This is a dangerously escalating problem, which is putting lives at risk and placing a big cost burden on the NHS."
While many of the cases involve drugs commonly prescribed by GPs and in hospitals, such as the blood-thinning drug warfarin and diuretics, a list of common culprits includes some which can be bought without prescription in any high street chemist.
These include aspirin, and the anti-inflammatory drug ibuprofen, both of which can cause gastric bleeding if taken in high doses over longer periods.
Dr June Raine, the Director of Vigilance and Risk Management of Medicines at the MHRA said that every medicine carried some risk of side-effects.
"Our role is to ensure that the benefits of medication outweigh the risks. "It is important to note that a report of an adverse drug reaction does not necessarily prove that it was caused by the drug.
"Other factors such as underlying disease or other medicines may contribute to suspected adverse reactions."
Dr June Raine eh? Sounds like a stuck record!
Wednesday, December 26, 2007
A threat... it seems?
Dunno who the smart arse is. I do wish people would be more open with whom they are and not post anonymously. Time of posting ties in with a poster from Australia according to my webstats.
Lemme know who you are... if you have the bollocks
The link in the message takes you to a picture/painting of some sort.
Tuesday, December 25, 2007
I want to help the MHRA...
...Investigate GlaxoSmithKline. Call it a Christmas present if you will. They (MHRA) have been investigating GlaxoSmithKline now for 4 years so I think they need a little help.
This post goes out to Kent Woods, I shall be emailing him and others to point him in the direction of the documents that should help them come to a decision.
Firstly, we have a document that shows what GSK really think about Seroxat for children.
FOR YOU MR WOODS - HERE
Next up an article that shows GSK Sales Reps whom were told NOT to Divulge Seroxat Data
FOR YOU MR WOODS - HERE
If this hasn't whet your appetite Mr Woods then perhaps the following may help?
Here we have an article that shows how GlaxoSmithKline staff were told not to publicise ineffectiveness of its drug.
Or maybe GlaxoSmithKline's release studies showing suicide and hostility may help speed up the MHRA investigation?
FOR YOU MR WOODS - HERE
Your counterparts in the USA, the FDA, have warned about the dangers of withdrawal on Seroxat - maybe YOU should warn members of the British public Mr Woods? You are after all supposed to safeguard the public from these types of things aren't you?
Maybe, you didn't see the Panorama specials on GlaxoSmithKline concealing data Mr Woods, or maybe you did but just plain refused to accept that one of the MHRA's funders could do such a thing? Maybe the fact that you have two ex GlaxoSmithKline employees sitting on the MHRA is enough to make you believe that YOU are right and the public outcry is nothing more than scaremongering by investigative journalist Shelly Jofre? Here's a brief summary for you to read Mr Woods.
You getting all this Kent?
Am I being helpful Kent?
Maybe you would like to take some of Charles Medawars comments on board Mr Woods? I particularly liked his 'What they have done is just despicable' comment - Do you have anything to add Mr Woods?
Maybe you would like to see how GSK paid a Dr to promote Seroxat Mr Woods? You come down pretty hard of fake drugs being sold don't you Kent? Why don't you come down on GlaxoSmithKline for selling this drug - it clearly does not mention the host of side-effects one can get whilst on it now does it Kent? Do you believe Martin Keller was right? Take a look HERE and let me know Kent.
I hope these documents and articles may help you progress your investigation into GlaxoSmithKline Kent. If I can be of more assistance please do not hesitate to ask. I have no affiliations with GlaxoSmithKline and will not hide anything from you.
Meantime, I wish all at the MHRA a very merry Christmas... especially you Mr Woods
Finally Kent, I'd like you to take a good, long hard look at the following video - it's only 4 minutes long (approx) - I'm sure you can find time, it has after all taken you four years to get where you are in the current GlaxoSmithKline investigation. Take a look Kent.
This post goes out to Kent Woods, I shall be emailing him and others to point him in the direction of the documents that should help them come to a decision.
Firstly, we have a document that shows what GSK really think about Seroxat for children.
FOR YOU MR WOODS - HERE
Next up an article that shows GSK Sales Reps whom were told NOT to Divulge Seroxat Data
FOR YOU MR WOODS - HERE
If this hasn't whet your appetite Mr Woods then perhaps the following may help?
Here we have an article that shows how GlaxoSmithKline staff were told not to publicise ineffectiveness of its drug.
Or maybe GlaxoSmithKline's release studies showing suicide and hostility may help speed up the MHRA investigation?
FOR YOU MR WOODS - HERE
Your counterparts in the USA, the FDA, have warned about the dangers of withdrawal on Seroxat - maybe YOU should warn members of the British public Mr Woods? You are after all supposed to safeguard the public from these types of things aren't you?
Maybe, you didn't see the Panorama specials on GlaxoSmithKline concealing data Mr Woods, or maybe you did but just plain refused to accept that one of the MHRA's funders could do such a thing? Maybe the fact that you have two ex GlaxoSmithKline employees sitting on the MHRA is enough to make you believe that YOU are right and the public outcry is nothing more than scaremongering by investigative journalist Shelly Jofre? Here's a brief summary for you to read Mr Woods.
You getting all this Kent?
Am I being helpful Kent?
Maybe you would like to take some of Charles Medawars comments on board Mr Woods? I particularly liked his 'What they have done is just despicable' comment - Do you have anything to add Mr Woods?
Maybe you would like to see how GSK paid a Dr to promote Seroxat Mr Woods? You come down pretty hard of fake drugs being sold don't you Kent? Why don't you come down on GlaxoSmithKline for selling this drug - it clearly does not mention the host of side-effects one can get whilst on it now does it Kent? Do you believe Martin Keller was right? Take a look HERE and let me know Kent.
I hope these documents and articles may help you progress your investigation into GlaxoSmithKline Kent. If I can be of more assistance please do not hesitate to ask. I have no affiliations with GlaxoSmithKline and will not hide anything from you.
Meantime, I wish all at the MHRA a very merry Christmas... especially you Mr Woods
Finally Kent, I'd like you to take a good, long hard look at the following video - it's only 4 minutes long (approx) - I'm sure you can find time, it has after all taken you four years to get where you are in the current GlaxoSmithKline investigation. Take a look Kent.
Saturday, December 22, 2007
Aropax Hell Part II
It seems the word is spreading throughout Australia.
This is an account taken from the firesnake website, I urge yo to visit, the guy has obviously done his homework when it comes to Paxil 329 study.
I've republished it here in its entirety, hope the author does not mind.
----
Yes, Aropax kills. In this second part of 'Aropax Hell' we touch on the behind the scenes documentation and "The" memo - "it would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine" - that exposed GSK's intention to place the money before the box - as it were. A concerted plan to educate sales rep's from wavering under the strain of humane thoughts was launched. We know it's the fourth most addictive drug on the planet. And we pay good money, for a drug that makes well subjects anxious and depressed to the point of suicide, and has no effect upon depression at all.
Justifiably, criminal charges followed. It is plain Paroxetine must be considered carefully. European Paroxetine Q&A here.
Why was it reviewed? What are concerns? What's the evidence?
We touch on Study 329 which produced the very data GSK decided to hide. Self harm, highly addictive and non-efficacy: things look bad for paroxetine. Problems continue to unfold and GSK released studies "showing suicide, hostility, etc". It's clear that the jury verdict [original document] holding GSK 80% liable for the murder-suicide case of Donald Schell was reported widely and led to the BBC Panorama investigation - which actually continues in court today [timeline]. The argument over addiction or discontinuation semantics proceeds splendidly with the courts eventually catching on to the shortfalls of addiction definitions.
For those involved on the inside, it's a bizarre ride. Aside from the raft of personality fragmentation even modest struggles with paroxetine induce, it is clear this induces suicide and self sabotage in previously stable or asymptomatic persons. We can see a gradual "chronology of admission" as GSK confirms dangers effect all ages and quietly reveal it's a major risk during pregnancy. At last after more time - and possibly energy - than earning a PhD, GSK admit what we wanted: paroxetine is an absolute tragedy regardless of age, and kills without compunction. Thankfully, the FDA agree.
Annoying the FDA is kinda silly and when Eliot Spitzer was given the run around by GSK over paroxetines inefficacy, one imagines his blood boiled. Ultimately, Spitzer lodged a class action [original PDF] on behalf of New York residents deceived by GSK. The FDA succeeded in agitating for close reviews of paroxetines trials: the famous and detailed Article 31. This episode includes more out-takes of Dr. Alistair Benbow lying heroically as authours drag his name through mud [2]. GSK itself continually releases token "warnings" and basks in the credit-for-responsibility spotlight.
Firesnake also looks closely at SSRI induced aggression, depression per se, what we know of Donald Schell, his mood swings, prior medication, SSRI blood levels and time needed to observe any effect of any SSRI - no matter how inefficacious. Paroxetine may be a useless SSRI, but an SSRI it is. Did Schell kill and suicide as a direct result of paroxetine? Or, did justice really catch up with GSK due to illegal business practices and appalling ethics, revealed in so much damning documentation? If the latter, legal purists may find this challenging, but none can deny paroxetine was going to kill, did kill thousands of others, destroyed lives, families, careers and if not for dedicated advocates, we may never know. Firesnake considers the only conclusion possible, and reflects upon "justice" - no matter how it comes.
Australians must be proactive. Ethnocentric, we are blind to global dynamics and receive a filtered trickle of data. I myself have brilliant colleagues, who still, in blind error and with no small amount of defensive, guilt-in-hindsight-arrogance, insist paroxetine's safe. Why? They are busy, prone to follow "best practice" over evidence based practices, meet the needs of pestering patients, staff, colleagues, employers, registrars, ethics committees and of course, the drug companies that paid for their beach front property with decades of obscene perks. And let's not forget because the company blurb says so - and to ever admit the reality is to invite litigation.
If your GP, psychiatrist or gym instructor prescribes or recommends Aropax, take your business - and life quality - elsewhere; that person is genuinely mistaken.
Our TGA is silent, yet vocal on Straterra - the type of medication one leap up from SSRI's targeting norepinephrine also. Read the documentation, find your own answers. Never use paroxetine - but it is your choice.
This is an account taken from the firesnake website, I urge yo to visit, the guy has obviously done his homework when it comes to Paxil 329 study.
I've republished it here in its entirety, hope the author does not mind.
----
Yes, Aropax kills. In this second part of 'Aropax Hell' we touch on the behind the scenes documentation and "The" memo - "it would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of paroxetine" - that exposed GSK's intention to place the money before the box - as it were. A concerted plan to educate sales rep's from wavering under the strain of humane thoughts was launched. We know it's the fourth most addictive drug on the planet. And we pay good money, for a drug that makes well subjects anxious and depressed to the point of suicide, and has no effect upon depression at all.
Justifiably, criminal charges followed. It is plain Paroxetine must be considered carefully. European Paroxetine Q&A here.
Why was it reviewed? What are concerns? What's the evidence?
We touch on Study 329 which produced the very data GSK decided to hide. Self harm, highly addictive and non-efficacy: things look bad for paroxetine. Problems continue to unfold and GSK released studies "showing suicide, hostility, etc". It's clear that the jury verdict [original document] holding GSK 80% liable for the murder-suicide case of Donald Schell was reported widely and led to the BBC Panorama investigation - which actually continues in court today [timeline]. The argument over addiction or discontinuation semantics proceeds splendidly with the courts eventually catching on to the shortfalls of addiction definitions.
For those involved on the inside, it's a bizarre ride. Aside from the raft of personality fragmentation even modest struggles with paroxetine induce, it is clear this induces suicide and self sabotage in previously stable or asymptomatic persons. We can see a gradual "chronology of admission" as GSK confirms dangers effect all ages and quietly reveal it's a major risk during pregnancy. At last after more time - and possibly energy - than earning a PhD, GSK admit what we wanted: paroxetine is an absolute tragedy regardless of age, and kills without compunction. Thankfully, the FDA agree.
Annoying the FDA is kinda silly and when Eliot Spitzer was given the run around by GSK over paroxetines inefficacy, one imagines his blood boiled. Ultimately, Spitzer lodged a class action [original PDF] on behalf of New York residents deceived by GSK. The FDA succeeded in agitating for close reviews of paroxetines trials: the famous and detailed Article 31. This episode includes more out-takes of Dr. Alistair Benbow lying heroically as authours drag his name through mud [2]. GSK itself continually releases token "warnings" and basks in the credit-for-responsibility spotlight.
Firesnake also looks closely at SSRI induced aggression, depression per se, what we know of Donald Schell, his mood swings, prior medication, SSRI blood levels and time needed to observe any effect of any SSRI - no matter how inefficacious. Paroxetine may be a useless SSRI, but an SSRI it is. Did Schell kill and suicide as a direct result of paroxetine? Or, did justice really catch up with GSK due to illegal business practices and appalling ethics, revealed in so much damning documentation? If the latter, legal purists may find this challenging, but none can deny paroxetine was going to kill, did kill thousands of others, destroyed lives, families, careers and if not for dedicated advocates, we may never know. Firesnake considers the only conclusion possible, and reflects upon "justice" - no matter how it comes.
Australians must be proactive. Ethnocentric, we are blind to global dynamics and receive a filtered trickle of data. I myself have brilliant colleagues, who still, in blind error and with no small amount of defensive, guilt-in-hindsight-arrogance, insist paroxetine's safe. Why? They are busy, prone to follow "best practice" over evidence based practices, meet the needs of pestering patients, staff, colleagues, employers, registrars, ethics committees and of course, the drug companies that paid for their beach front property with decades of obscene perks. And let's not forget because the company blurb says so - and to ever admit the reality is to invite litigation.
If your GP, psychiatrist or gym instructor prescribes or recommends Aropax, take your business - and life quality - elsewhere; that person is genuinely mistaken.
Our TGA is silent, yet vocal on Straterra - the type of medication one leap up from SSRI's targeting norepinephrine also. Read the documentation, find your own answers. Never use paroxetine - but it is your choice.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
GlaxoSmithKline – Big pharma, big risks
Source: Ethical Corporation
Some fantastic bullshit quotes from GSK here. I've added my own comments in blue after each paragraph.
Fid
GlaxoSmithKline – Big pharma, big risks
Drug firms are opening up to address public distrust, says GlaxoSmithKline’s head of corporate communications (1)
Excuse me! Did I read that correctly? Drug firms are opening up? Opening up surely means they've been shut doesn't it? What's this, GlaxoSmithKline admitting that they have been less than transparent? Surely not!
For drug maker GlaxoSmithKline, 2007 has been a year of severe ill health followed by mild recovery. The firm’s share price crashed to a two-year low in May after its second biggest selling drug, diabetes treatment Avandia, was linked to increased risks of heart attacks. Since the scare, sales of the drug have slumped 50 per cent in the US and 40 per cent worldwide. Avandia last year racked up sales of £1.6 billion. (2)
2007 a year of severe health because more and more resources are available. JP Garnier must rue the day the internet was invented. All praise Bill Gates.
Nice to see GSK hit where it hurts (in the pocket) - £1.6 billion for Avandia sales. GSK Accounts Dept must have had such a wonderful time counting the pennies, hope they washed the blood off their hands after!
There was better news for GSK last month when the US Food and Drug Administration ruled, as expected, that the company must slap a “black box” warning on the drug, but did not ban it. The decision backed up GSK’s claim that the original study linking Avandia to a 43 per cent increase in risk of heart attacks was misleading. But another study, published in September, supported these findings. GSK maintains that “meta-analysis”, looking at a large body of historical clinical data, has found no clear evidence of a link. (3)
The FDA should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Even with a 50% drop in sales Avandia could still earn GSK £800M - Who fund the FDA ladies & gentlemen? Pharma that's who! No conflict of interest with the FDA's descision then huh?
Look at paragraph (1) again then the bottom of paragraph (3) - You see people - GSK are already shutting its doors after stating in the opening paragraph that they would be opening them! Avandia causes heart attacks, it's been proven but GSK want to have the last say on the matter, probably to protect the 50% of sales that haven't yet been affected by Avandiagate.
Let me spell it out for GSK - THERE IS A HIGH RISK OF HEART ATTACKS IF YOU TAKE AVANDIA
GSK’s losses over Avandia show the high stakes that research-based pharmaceutical firms take on when developing drugs. Vice-president for corporate communications Duncan Learmouth admits this is hard to explain to the public, saying: “We feel like we are shouting in a storm.” His concern is that big pharma is too often associated with big risks, such as health scares. “There’s a danger in the media overplaying the risk side without balancing it with the benefit, and oversimplifying what is a very complicated situation of giving a drug to someone,” he says. (4)
Oh look at Duncan Learmouth patronising the public. 'Hard to explain to the public'? What is hard about it? Are GSK some form of extra terrestrial intelligence that us mere mortals (public) are not yet ready for? Mr Learmouth, you are a pious pillock. You don't give the public the credit they richly deserve. Isn't it members of the public that are giving your employers such a hard time right now?
Learmouth doesn't stop at the public, he even has a go at the press for overplaying the risk side without balancing the benefit. Tell you what Mr Learmouth, lets say we get together, just the two of us, we can play russian roulette - one bullet, six chambers - you up for it - hey the benefits far outweigh the risks doncha think? Failing that we could always find a member of your family or a close friend who has diabetes. Maybe you would like to offer them Avandia? Hey, the benefits far outweigh the risks wouldn't you say?
Despite concerns about how product risks will be interpreted by the public, Learmouth expects pharma to become ever more transparent. Two years ago GSK decided to publish data on clinical trials online, although he admits the register could be more user-friendly. The decision came after damaging claims that it had concealed clinical trial results from the general public in the case of anti-depressant Seroxat. (5)
Is Learmouth taking the piss here? Ever more transparent? When have GSK EVER been transparent? They even lied about the Vitamin C content in their Ribena for fucksake! And what about the Paxil 329 study - how was that being transparent? They might argue that they have learned from their mistakes - thing is... they have NEVER admitted to their mistakes. Maybe then the 'public' may take them seriously when they tell us that they are going to be transparent. Do they even know the meaning of the fucking word? Maybe they have the same guidelines as the MHRA when it comes to transparency because they are about as transparent as a scene from a Hammer Horror film featuring Jack the Ripper on the streets of London!
The firm denies that it “improperly” withheld data from Seroxat clinical trials of the 1990s and says that it filed all information with regulators. Learmouth says it is wrong to judge the case by today’s standards of corporate transparency: “Before it was not that there was some conspiracy to hide this information, it was just never done.” (6)
Oh puhlease, you are beginning to sound like that other GSK mouthpiece, Ali Benbow. YOU DID NOT.... I REPEAT... YOU DID NOT file ALL information with the regulators. PAXIL STUDY 329 Mr Learmouth. Your company has settled out of court on numerous occasions regarding your defective product, admittedly, your team of lawyers have persuaded the prosecution to accept gagging orders. Clever... so clever. There will come a day where GSK stumble across some stubborn individual who will not bow down to the money you wave at them. There is no conspiracy - there is only fact!
Similarly, GSK has “recognised the need for much stronger policies” on using ghostwriters in preparing end of trial papers, says Learmouth. He admits that the old practice of using PR agencies to write papers today “does not really pass the smell test”. These days a report’s lead author, a physician, must have written the most significant part of a paper. GSK employees and other outsiders involved must also be named in the paper, and their affiliation noted. (7)
The smell test? HAHAHA now there's a new one from GSK. What is a smell test? The smell test failed when you hired Martin Keller to write his bollocks about the safety of Paxil - did he write it? The only smell coming from that particular test was bullshit Mr Learmouth. Would you be making such comments if Keller had been allowed to get away with it? I doubt it.
An area where GSK is improving its reputation is expanding access to medicines for patients in developing countries. The firm has a malaria vaccine that is about to go into the final phase of clinical trial, which has been part funded by the Gates Foundation. If all goes to plan, the vaccine could hit the market by 2010, says Learmouth. (8)
Developing countries huh? Would these be the same developing countries GSK charged excessive prices for Aids drugs to the detriment of South Africans with HIV/Aids and in violation of the Competition Act? Didn't GSK drop their legal effort to prevent South Africa from importing cheaper anti-AIDS drugs and other medicines?
Don't throw the developing countries line at us Mr Learmouth. We know from your history how you treat developing countries. This IS NOT about helping the ill, it's about making money so please cut the crap!
Next year should see GSK launch a combination vaccine, Globorix, for illnesses that mainly kill children in Africa such as diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. The company has spent $400 million developing the drug, despite expecting little return on this investment. Globorix will be a tiered-priced product, meaning its price will vary depending on governments’ ability to pay. (9)
And how big is GSK's gun going to be when they ask each indivdual government? They remind me of Spielberg's character Indianna Jones, you all know the scene, he takes a sip of his cocktail only to find out that it is poison - he is however given hope, the villain has the antedote and is prepared to give it to Indianna Jones.... for a rather huge diamond. How big does the diamond have to be for GSK before they give this new combination vaccine to some poor African child?
The company’s efforts to improve access to medicines have won two cheers of support from Oxfam. Policy adviser Helena Vines Fiestas says of the company’s work on access: “GSK is probably the leading company within the sector. But it still falls far short of a desirable position.” She welcomes GSK’s current work on developing 11 new drugs predominantly aimed at patients in poor countries, saying: “This number is high for the industry.” (10)
Oxfam are a charity - who on earth are they to pass comment on how 'wonderful' GSK are? Wait am minute... Do they recieve funding from GSK? I wonder if Helena Vines from Oxfam knows about the following GSK misdameanours? HERE
Critics have sounded the death knell for big pharma because of the lack of new drugs in their research pipelines. Learmouth disagrees. “Because the risk is high and probability is low, chance plays a big part in whether a company can discover a new class of drugs,” he says. “You have to be a certain size to play the odds of that.” (11)
'Risk is high and probabilty low' - maybe you should stick that on Seroxat patient information leaflets!
Despite its recent travails, GSK has the resources to keep playing those odds – for the potential benefit of patients in developed and developing markets alike. (12)
Hmmm, I beg to differ. People have had enough of the lies. The stench eminating from within GSK is overpowering so much so that it can even be smelled outside the offices of the FDA in America and the MHRA in England!
Rant over
Fid
Some fantastic bullshit quotes from GSK here. I've added my own comments in blue after each paragraph.
Fid
GlaxoSmithKline – Big pharma, big risks
Drug firms are opening up to address public distrust, says GlaxoSmithKline’s head of corporate communications (1)
Excuse me! Did I read that correctly? Drug firms are opening up? Opening up surely means they've been shut doesn't it? What's this, GlaxoSmithKline admitting that they have been less than transparent? Surely not!
For drug maker GlaxoSmithKline, 2007 has been a year of severe ill health followed by mild recovery. The firm’s share price crashed to a two-year low in May after its second biggest selling drug, diabetes treatment Avandia, was linked to increased risks of heart attacks. Since the scare, sales of the drug have slumped 50 per cent in the US and 40 per cent worldwide. Avandia last year racked up sales of £1.6 billion. (2)
2007 a year of severe health because more and more resources are available. JP Garnier must rue the day the internet was invented. All praise Bill Gates.
Nice to see GSK hit where it hurts (in the pocket) - £1.6 billion for Avandia sales. GSK Accounts Dept must have had such a wonderful time counting the pennies, hope they washed the blood off their hands after!
There was better news for GSK last month when the US Food and Drug Administration ruled, as expected, that the company must slap a “black box” warning on the drug, but did not ban it. The decision backed up GSK’s claim that the original study linking Avandia to a 43 per cent increase in risk of heart attacks was misleading. But another study, published in September, supported these findings. GSK maintains that “meta-analysis”, looking at a large body of historical clinical data, has found no clear evidence of a link. (3)
The FDA should be utterly ashamed of themselves. Even with a 50% drop in sales Avandia could still earn GSK £800M - Who fund the FDA ladies & gentlemen? Pharma that's who! No conflict of interest with the FDA's descision then huh?
Look at paragraph (1) again then the bottom of paragraph (3) - You see people - GSK are already shutting its doors after stating in the opening paragraph that they would be opening them! Avandia causes heart attacks, it's been proven but GSK want to have the last say on the matter, probably to protect the 50% of sales that haven't yet been affected by Avandiagate.
Let me spell it out for GSK - THERE IS A HIGH RISK OF HEART ATTACKS IF YOU TAKE AVANDIA
GSK’s losses over Avandia show the high stakes that research-based pharmaceutical firms take on when developing drugs. Vice-president for corporate communications Duncan Learmouth admits this is hard to explain to the public, saying: “We feel like we are shouting in a storm.” His concern is that big pharma is too often associated with big risks, such as health scares. “There’s a danger in the media overplaying the risk side without balancing it with the benefit, and oversimplifying what is a very complicated situation of giving a drug to someone,” he says. (4)
Oh look at Duncan Learmouth patronising the public. 'Hard to explain to the public'? What is hard about it? Are GSK some form of extra terrestrial intelligence that us mere mortals (public) are not yet ready for? Mr Learmouth, you are a pious pillock. You don't give the public the credit they richly deserve. Isn't it members of the public that are giving your employers such a hard time right now?
Learmouth doesn't stop at the public, he even has a go at the press for overplaying the risk side without balancing the benefit. Tell you what Mr Learmouth, lets say we get together, just the two of us, we can play russian roulette - one bullet, six chambers - you up for it - hey the benefits far outweigh the risks doncha think? Failing that we could always find a member of your family or a close friend who has diabetes. Maybe you would like to offer them Avandia? Hey, the benefits far outweigh the risks wouldn't you say?
Despite concerns about how product risks will be interpreted by the public, Learmouth expects pharma to become ever more transparent. Two years ago GSK decided to publish data on clinical trials online, although he admits the register could be more user-friendly. The decision came after damaging claims that it had concealed clinical trial results from the general public in the case of anti-depressant Seroxat. (5)
Is Learmouth taking the piss here? Ever more transparent? When have GSK EVER been transparent? They even lied about the Vitamin C content in their Ribena for fucksake! And what about the Paxil 329 study - how was that being transparent? They might argue that they have learned from their mistakes - thing is... they have NEVER admitted to their mistakes. Maybe then the 'public' may take them seriously when they tell us that they are going to be transparent. Do they even know the meaning of the fucking word? Maybe they have the same guidelines as the MHRA when it comes to transparency because they are about as transparent as a scene from a Hammer Horror film featuring Jack the Ripper on the streets of London!
The firm denies that it “improperly” withheld data from Seroxat clinical trials of the 1990s and says that it filed all information with regulators. Learmouth says it is wrong to judge the case by today’s standards of corporate transparency: “Before it was not that there was some conspiracy to hide this information, it was just never done.” (6)
Oh puhlease, you are beginning to sound like that other GSK mouthpiece, Ali Benbow. YOU DID NOT.... I REPEAT... YOU DID NOT file ALL information with the regulators. PAXIL STUDY 329 Mr Learmouth. Your company has settled out of court on numerous occasions regarding your defective product, admittedly, your team of lawyers have persuaded the prosecution to accept gagging orders. Clever... so clever. There will come a day where GSK stumble across some stubborn individual who will not bow down to the money you wave at them. There is no conspiracy - there is only fact!
Similarly, GSK has “recognised the need for much stronger policies” on using ghostwriters in preparing end of trial papers, says Learmouth. He admits that the old practice of using PR agencies to write papers today “does not really pass the smell test”. These days a report’s lead author, a physician, must have written the most significant part of a paper. GSK employees and other outsiders involved must also be named in the paper, and their affiliation noted. (7)
The smell test? HAHAHA now there's a new one from GSK. What is a smell test? The smell test failed when you hired Martin Keller to write his bollocks about the safety of Paxil - did he write it? The only smell coming from that particular test was bullshit Mr Learmouth. Would you be making such comments if Keller had been allowed to get away with it? I doubt it.
An area where GSK is improving its reputation is expanding access to medicines for patients in developing countries. The firm has a malaria vaccine that is about to go into the final phase of clinical trial, which has been part funded by the Gates Foundation. If all goes to plan, the vaccine could hit the market by 2010, says Learmouth. (8)
Developing countries huh? Would these be the same developing countries GSK charged excessive prices for Aids drugs to the detriment of South Africans with HIV/Aids and in violation of the Competition Act? Didn't GSK drop their legal effort to prevent South Africa from importing cheaper anti-AIDS drugs and other medicines?
Don't throw the developing countries line at us Mr Learmouth. We know from your history how you treat developing countries. This IS NOT about helping the ill, it's about making money so please cut the crap!
Next year should see GSK launch a combination vaccine, Globorix, for illnesses that mainly kill children in Africa such as diphtheria, tetanus and whooping cough. The company has spent $400 million developing the drug, despite expecting little return on this investment. Globorix will be a tiered-priced product, meaning its price will vary depending on governments’ ability to pay. (9)
And how big is GSK's gun going to be when they ask each indivdual government? They remind me of Spielberg's character Indianna Jones, you all know the scene, he takes a sip of his cocktail only to find out that it is poison - he is however given hope, the villain has the antedote and is prepared to give it to Indianna Jones.... for a rather huge diamond. How big does the diamond have to be for GSK before they give this new combination vaccine to some poor African child?
The company’s efforts to improve access to medicines have won two cheers of support from Oxfam. Policy adviser Helena Vines Fiestas says of the company’s work on access: “GSK is probably the leading company within the sector. But it still falls far short of a desirable position.” She welcomes GSK’s current work on developing 11 new drugs predominantly aimed at patients in poor countries, saying: “This number is high for the industry.” (10)
Oxfam are a charity - who on earth are they to pass comment on how 'wonderful' GSK are? Wait am minute... Do they recieve funding from GSK? I wonder if Helena Vines from Oxfam knows about the following GSK misdameanours? HERE
Critics have sounded the death knell for big pharma because of the lack of new drugs in their research pipelines. Learmouth disagrees. “Because the risk is high and probability is low, chance plays a big part in whether a company can discover a new class of drugs,” he says. “You have to be a certain size to play the odds of that.” (11)
'Risk is high and probabilty low' - maybe you should stick that on Seroxat patient information leaflets!
Despite its recent travails, GSK has the resources to keep playing those odds – for the potential benefit of patients in developed and developing markets alike. (12)
Hmmm, I beg to differ. People have had enough of the lies. The stench eminating from within GSK is overpowering so much so that it can even be smelled outside the offices of the FDA in America and the MHRA in England!
Rant over
Fid
Monday, December 17, 2007
Oakes and McCafferty Smith Kline Beecham
I was copied in on Matthew Holford's latest email to the 'usual suspects'.
It deserves a wider audience.
Fid
From: Matthew Holford
To: johnsona@parliament.uk ; alasdair.breckenridge@mhra.gsi.gov.uk ; kent.woods@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Shailesh Vara
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: Efficacy of Paroxetine in the Treatment of Adolescent Major Depression: A Randomized, Controlled Trials
Gentlemen,
There's that word, again: efficacy! Could you explain to me how it is that two SKB employees have their names on this (toilet) paper? That's Oakes and McCafferty, to save you looking. http://www.jaacap.com/pt/re/jaacap/abstract.00004583-200107000-00010.htm;jsessionid=Hl8WfvyFqqHnXGPWJHX1mFJfl4mCnQQL8TYQg5LLc7vxfrRD2fh2!1219373867!181195629!8091!-1
Is this a joke? I've got the MHRA telling me that it relies on peer-reviewed papers, (when making marketing authorization assessments), which appear to be written by the very same fucking people who make the snake oil remedies.
The MHRA also tells me that this is a satisfactory alternative to troubling themselves to establish what "efficacy" means, in the context of any given drug (there's that "taken on trust" nonsense, again). We already know that this paper was written by Sally Laden, a ghostwriter, in collusion (I don't think that's too strong a word) with McCafferty. That the other charlatans and snake oil salesmen had the audacity to enter it on their CVs is still a mystery to me.
Arse:elbow. Do you note the difference? "Elbow" is the primary criteria, which has to outweigh "arse". OK? These are your rules, not mine.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
Read more of Matt's correspondence with the MHRA here
It deserves a wider audience.
Fid
From: Matthew Holford
To: johnsona@parliament.uk ; alasdair.breckenridge@mhra.gsi.gov.uk ; kent.woods@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: Shailesh Vara
Sent: Monday, December 17, 2007 5:00 AM
Subject: Efficacy of Paroxetine in the Treatment of Adolescent Major Depression: A Randomized, Controlled Trials
Gentlemen,
There's that word, again: efficacy! Could you explain to me how it is that two SKB employees have their names on this (toilet) paper? That's Oakes and McCafferty, to save you looking. http://www.jaacap.com/pt/re/jaacap/abstract.00004583-200107000-00010.htm;jsessionid=Hl8WfvyFqqHnXGPWJHX1mFJfl4mCnQQL8TYQg5LLc7vxfrRD2fh2!1219373867!181195629!8091!-1
Is this a joke? I've got the MHRA telling me that it relies on peer-reviewed papers, (when making marketing authorization assessments), which appear to be written by the very same fucking people who make the snake oil remedies.
The MHRA also tells me that this is a satisfactory alternative to troubling themselves to establish what "efficacy" means, in the context of any given drug (there's that "taken on trust" nonsense, again). We already know that this paper was written by Sally Laden, a ghostwriter, in collusion (I don't think that's too strong a word) with McCafferty. That the other charlatans and snake oil salesmen had the audacity to enter it on their CVs is still a mystery to me.
Arse:elbow. Do you note the difference? "Elbow" is the primary criteria, which has to outweigh "arse". OK? These are your rules, not mine.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
Read more of Matt's correspondence with the MHRA here
Friday, December 14, 2007
LIAR LIAR YOUR PANTS ARE ON FIRE! ALI BENBOW GSK
Dr Benbow defended the use of the drug, (Seroxat) saying: "Anybody who suffers side effects of any sort I feel every sympathy for, but that does have to be balanced by the enormous benefit that is seen by many millions of patients around the world. He said that the company took every single safety report seriously but that based on the data available to him, he was "absolutely certain" that Seroxat was not addictive.
GSK European Promotion of Medicines Code of Practice 2nd Edition 2007.
Page 6: (Clause 4 - 4.10) "It must not be stated that a product has no side-effects, toxic hazards or risks of addiction or dependency."
So IS Benbow a liar after all?
Make your own minds up
GSK European Promotion of Medicines Code of Practice 2nd Edition 2007.
Page 6: (Clause 4 - 4.10) "It must not be stated that a product has no side-effects, toxic hazards or risks of addiction or dependency."
So IS Benbow a liar after all?
Make your own minds up
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Christmas Greetings from depressioNet Australia
Oh you can tell Christmas is just around the corner eh?
Your inbox cluttered with Christmas greetings from internet sites you are subscribed to etc.
Was totally surprised to find a Christmas greeting from depressioNet Australia in my inbox, particularly as I earlier this year exposed them for having tires to Pharma, Wyeth in particular as they fund depressioNet with a massive $50,000.
I tried to raise public awareness about Aropax by adding a post to their forum last year - alas it didn't get past the moderator. I also awarded depressioNET, along with www.everybody.co.nz, the Seroxat Sufferers Dumbass Award.
You know what you can do with your Christmas greetings doncha?
Your inbox cluttered with Christmas greetings from internet sites you are subscribed to etc.
Was totally surprised to find a Christmas greeting from depressioNet Australia in my inbox, particularly as I earlier this year exposed them for having tires to Pharma, Wyeth in particular as they fund depressioNet with a massive $50,000.
I tried to raise public awareness about Aropax by adding a post to their forum last year - alas it didn't get past the moderator. I also awarded depressioNET, along with www.everybody.co.nz, the Seroxat Sufferers Dumbass Award.
You know what you can do with your Christmas greetings doncha?
Remember when two school girls busted GSK?
Remember the Ribena debacle?
GSK marketed cartons of Ribena stating it was full of Vitamin C. Two school girls from New Zealand did a science project and found that it WAS NOT full of Vitamin C.
GSK admitted to misleading consumers, they had no choice really.
They rode the storm and it was quickly brushed under the carpet.
Interesting discussion here (pop up video)
Fid
GSK marketed cartons of Ribena stating it was full of Vitamin C. Two school girls from New Zealand did a science project and found that it WAS NOT full of Vitamin C.
GSK admitted to misleading consumers, they had no choice really.
They rode the storm and it was quickly brushed under the carpet.
Interesting discussion here (pop up video)
Fid
Wednesday, December 12, 2007
MHRA bust - Let's all rejoice!
MHRA have recently found that samples of OSAS (Intensive Body Lotion with Aloe Vera), an unlicensed product, have tested positive for variable amounts of Betamethasone dipropionate - a type of medicine called a corticosteroid. The product also contains Clotrimazole which is used in anti-fungal medications.
Busting yet more internet sites and small shops I see. What about busting GSK you incompetent bunch of pillocks!
HERE IS THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE BEEN SITTING ON FOR 4 YEARS!
In case you missed it - here it is again!
And again
Or maybe the CEO of the MHRA, Prof. Kent Woods, is too stubborn to admit that he got it wrong when I sent him the papers nearly two years ago!
Dear Mr Woods,
As you are probably aware a recent previously sealed court document was opened in the United States which is damning for Glaxo SmithKline.
It clearly shows that they witheld vital information during the clinical trials for Seroxat.With the evidence attached to this email I would like to know if you still stand by your original letter to me.
Mr R. Fiddaman
His reply...
Dear Mr Fiddaman
I have already given you a full account of the Agency's position in this matter and there is nothing to add to it.
Prof. Kent Woods Chief Executive MHRA
One can almost assume by his outlandish statement that he has already made his mind up about the current GSK investigation!
C'mon Kent where are your balls? Admit you were wrong to dismiss the papers I sent you.
What are you hiding Kent?
Who or what are you protecting?
Talk to me Kent
Drop me an email... you have my address.
Fid
Busting yet more internet sites and small shops I see. What about busting GSK you incompetent bunch of pillocks!
HERE IS THE EVIDENCE YOU HAVE BEEN SITTING ON FOR 4 YEARS!
In case you missed it - here it is again!
And again
Or maybe the CEO of the MHRA, Prof. Kent Woods, is too stubborn to admit that he got it wrong when I sent him the papers nearly two years ago!
Dear Mr Woods,
As you are probably aware a recent previously sealed court document was opened in the United States which is damning for Glaxo SmithKline.
It clearly shows that they witheld vital information during the clinical trials for Seroxat.With the evidence attached to this email I would like to know if you still stand by your original letter to me.
Mr R. Fiddaman
His reply...
Dear Mr Fiddaman
I have already given you a full account of the Agency's position in this matter and there is nothing to add to it.
Prof. Kent Woods Chief Executive MHRA
One can almost assume by his outlandish statement that he has already made his mind up about the current GSK investigation!
C'mon Kent where are your balls? Admit you were wrong to dismiss the papers I sent you.
What are you hiding Kent?
Who or what are you protecting?
Talk to me Kent
Drop me an email... you have my address.
Fid
Tuesday, December 11, 2007
This is How GSK Marketed Aropax in Australia
The child is smiling
and so it seems...
is the mother.
Here are some other people...
Who never smiled.
Adverse Reaction
Paxil
2006-05-04
New Jersey
Teen Becomes Psychotic
---
Suicide
Paxil
2003-10-23
California
Singer Elliott Smith Stabs Self Twice
---
Murder-Suicide
Paxil
1999-11-07
Virginia
Man Kills Wife & Himself: Lawsuit
---
Felony
Paxil
2001-11-27
Texas
Woman Keeps Girl in Chains
---
Robbery
Paxil
2003-08-01
Canada
Man Robs Congregation Waving Sword
---
Arson & Vandalism
Paxil
2002-04-13
Michigan
15-year-old Sets Fire & Vandalizes School
---
Murder Attempt
Paxil
2002-07-05
Canada
16-year-old Attacks A Family
---
Murder
Paxil
2002-08-27
Montana
Mom Murders Her Two Children
---
Injury to Child
Paxil
2002-09-24
New York
12-Year-Old Driven Insane By Medicine
---
Road Rage
Paxil
2002-10-23
Wales
Student Deliberately Crashes Car into Building
---
Plane Crash
Paxil
2003-01-25
Alaska
Pilot on Medication: Six Dead
---
Murder
Paxil
2003-01-23
Colorado
Grandmother Shakes Baby
---
Murder
Paxil
2002-03-02
Wisconsin
Former Corrections Officer Murders Girlfriend
---
Suicide
Paxil
2003-03-12
England
Coroner Calls for Drug to be Withdrawn
---
Suicide
Paxil
2006-03-17
England
18 Year Old Girl Dies; Mother Campaigns
---
Police Called
Paxil
2003-04-05
California
Wife Worries her Husband Is Going Insane on Medication
---
Injury to Child
Paxil
2003-04-06
New Jersey
14 Year Old Girl Becomes Suicidal & Violent
---
Murder
Paxil
2003-04-13
Indiana
Man Murders Two
---
Suicide
Paxil
2003-02-08
South Carolina
Public Safety Director Commits Suicide
---
Murder
Paxil
2003-05-22
Pennsylvania
Young Woman Murders Two People
---
Self-Mutilation
Paxil
2003-06-12
England
Woman Performs Self-Mutilation While on Medication
---
Murder Attempt/Suicide
Paxil
2001-06-20
Texas
Man Attempts Murder & Kills Self
---
Violent Behavior
Paxil
2003-06-18
England
Woman Attacks Acquaintance
---
Stabbing
Paxil
2003-06-30
New Jersey
Postpartum Depression: Wife Stabs Husband
---
Violence/Bizarre
Paxil
2006-08-26
England
Neighbor Runs Amok: Tries to Set Police on Fire
---
Suicide Attempt
Paxil
2001-05-15
New Jersey
14 Year Old Girl Attempts Suicide
---
Suicide by Cop
Paxil
2003-08-07
Colorado
Woman Attacks Police: Is Killed by Them
---
Suicide
Paxil
2003-10-04
England
Teacher Sets Herself on Fire
---
Plane Crash
Paxil
2003-11-19
Florida
Two Dead in Plane Crash
---
Murder
Paxil
2003-12-04
Texas
Man [66 Years Old] Murders Wife
---
Terrorist Threat
Paxil
2004-01-09
California
Woman Charged with Terrorist Threat
---
Murder
Paxil
2004-03-10
Florida
Mother Kills her 4 Year Old Twin Sons
---
Suicide
Paxil
2004-05-09
Massachusetts
Young Man's Dose Increased Prior to his Suicide
---
Suicide
Paxil
2006-06-29
Ohio
19 Year Old Commits Suicide After Drastic Behavioral Change
---
Murder
Paxil
2004-06-26
Tennessee
Deputy Shoots Young Man
---
Child Endangerment & Suicide Attempt
Paxil
2004-07-03
New York
Mother Turns Gas On While Children are Near
---
Murder-Suicide
Paxil
2004-08-26
Michigan
Postpartum Depression: Mother Murders Baby & Self
---
Murder Plans
Paxil
2004-09-12
Florida
15 Year Old Girl Plans to Kill Mother, Brother & Self
---
Violence
Paxil
2004-09-20
Missouri
Man Pulls Gun on 3 People
---
Suicide
Paxil
2003-07-23
New York
20 Year Old Jumps from 24th Floor
---
Workplace Violence/Murder
Paxil
2004-09-23
Utah
Employee Kills Supervisor
---
Kidnapping/Assault
Paxil
2004-09-30
Ohio
Man Kidnaps Wife: Sprays Acid in her Face
---
Violence
Paxil
2004-10-23
Washington DC
10 Year Old Has Violent Incidents at School
---
Violent Behavioral Change
Paxil
2006-01-25
England
Diplomat Cleared of Drinking Charges
---
Murder
Paxil
2004-11-16
New Jersey
Blind Man Kills Ex-Girlfriend
---
Road Rage Murder
Paxil
2004-11-24
Oklahoma
64 Year Old Man Kills One in Road Rage Incident
---
Murder
Paxil
2005-01-11
England
16 Year Old Girl Commits Murder: Kills Self in Prison
---
Suicide Attempt & Self-Mutilation
Paxil
2005-01-16
Texas
16 Year Old Girl Self Mutilates: Also Attempts Suicide
---
Murder
Paxil
1999-10-16
California
Woman Serial Killer was on Paxil at Time of Murders
---
Suicide & Suicide Attempt
Paxil
2000-02-02
Utah
Father Kills Self on Paxil: Daughter Attempt Suicide on Paxil
---
Murder Attempts
Paxil
2005-02-09
South Carolina
Deputy Deliberately Crashes Car into House of Estranged Wife
---
Murder
Paxil
2004-09-29
North Carolina
Man Murders Estranged Wife
---
Murder-Suicide
Paxil
2005-02-26
New Hampshire
Mother Kills 6 Year Old Daughter & Self
---
Murder
Paxil
2005-03-02
California
16 Year Old Kills his 17 Year Old Brother
---
Suicide
Paxil
2005-04-09
Virginia
14 Year Old Girl Kills Self
---
Murder
Paxil
2005-04-26
New York
Man Kills Wife & Daughter: Attempts to Kill Another Daughter
---
Murder-Suicide
Paxil
2005-05-11
Colorado
Mother Kills 2 Sons & Self
---
Suicide
Paxil
2005-06-06
Texas
Prominent Journalist Kills Self
---
Birth Defect
Paxil
2006-07-28
Texas
Lawsuit Filed on Behalf of Child Born with Heart Defects
---
Suicide
Paxil
2005-11-28
Tennessee
20 Year Old Shoots Self
---
Stand-Off with Police
Paxil
2005-07-31
Pennsylvania
Woman Has 6 Hour Stand-Off with Police
---
Road Rage-Murder
Paxil
2005-08-05
Massachusetts
Man Shoots Father Holding Child
---
Arson & Child Endangerment
Paxil
2005-08-12
Illinois
Mother Set House on Fire with 6 Year Old Son Inside
---
Adverse Reaction
Paxil
2005-08-25
England
Victory for 'Drug Battle' Man
---
Murder
Paxil
2005-10-18
England
Man Sentenced to Life After Brutal Murder
---
Murder
Paxil
2005-10-18
California
Man Kills Police Officer
---
Violence & Suicide Attempt
Paxil
1999-01-05
Michigan
11 Year Old Boy is Violent & Suicidal on Paxil
---
Violence & Suicidal Thoughts
Paxil
2004-02-01
Maryland
Man Has Severe Reaction to Paxil
---
Suicide Attempt & Rages
Paxil
2002-03-18
Pennsylvania
9 Year Old Girl Becomes Worse on Meds
---
Suicide
Paxil
2003-12-05
Rhode Island
22 Year Old Woman Kills Self
---
Murder
Paxil
2000-03-06
California
15 Year Old Stabs his Grandmother
---
Suicide Attempt
Paxil
2003-04-18
U.S.A.
Man Attempts Suicide
---
Suicide
Paxil
2003-09-02
U.S.A.
Woman Hangs Self
---
Suicide
Paxil
2004-09-13
U.S.A.
Man Never Diagnosed with Depression Kills Self
---
Suicide
Paxil
2006-05-17
Iowa
Drake Freshman Hangs Himself
---
Air Rage
Paxil
2006-01-17
England
Diplomat Goes Berserk on Plane
---
Violence
Paxil
2006-09-12
Global
Violence Risk Twice as Likely Among Paxil Users as Among Placebo
---
Suicide
Paxil
2004-02-09
Idaho
12 Year Old Girl Commits Suicide
---
Child Endangerment
Paxil
2006-09-14
Ohio
Mother Drugs her Children
---
Suicide; Police Stand-Off
Paxil
2006-10-12
Connecticut
Suicide of Police Sgt After Stand-Off with Fellow Officers
---
Murder
Paxil
2005-09-27
Canada
Father Murders Epileptic Son
---
Murder-Suicide
Paxil
2005-05-01
Australia
Man Kills Policeman & Self
---
Murder
Paxil
2001-04-11
Kentucky
Man Kills Four: Wife, her Two Children & Mother
---
Violence
Paxil
2000-02-29
Massachusetts
Man Assaults Family with Handgun & Knife
---
Air Rage
Paxil
2001-08-16
Florida
Man Becomes Violent at Airport
---
Murder Attempt
Paxil
1999-08-17
South Carolina
Man Set Girlfriend on Fire
---
Suicide
Paxil
1998-01-22
Florida
Woman Kills Self: Was Not Depressed
---
Suicide
Paxil
2006-09-25
California
Teen-Age Girl Commits Suicide
---
Murder
Paxil
2000-06-16
Washington
Man Murders 70 Year Old Woman
---
Murder
Paxil
2000-04-18
Tennessee
15 Year Old Kills his Father
---
Suicide Attempt
Paxil
2001-07-01
Florida
Woman Attempts Suicide on Paxil
---
Suicide
Paxil
2001-06-24
California
Woman Film Maker Commits Suicide
---
Stand-Off with Police
Paxil
2001-02-06
Washington
Man Dies in Stand-Off with Police
---
Stabbing
Paxil
2007-01-23
New York
College Student Faces Up to 4 Years in Prison
---
Suicide
Paxil
2006-12-13
U.S.A.
40 Year Old Husband & Father Kills Self
---
Personality Change
Paxil
2002-09-15
U.S.A.
Woman Becomes Totally Different Person on Paxil
---
Violence
Paxil
2003-12-15
Ohio
Husband Threatens Wife with Knife
---
Murder
Paxil
1997-10-31
New Jersey
15 Year Old Boy Kills 11 Year Old Boy Who Was Selling Cookies Door-To-Door
---
Robbery/Shooting
Paxil
1996-02-28
New York
11 Year Old Goes On Robbery & Shooting Spree
---
Child Endangerment
Paxil
2007-02-09
Massachusetts
Mother Of 4 Year Old Who Died of Drugs Overdose Was On Paxil
---
Suicide
Paxil
2001-04-15
Connecticut
Woman Sues Over Death of Husband
---
Bizarre Behavior
Paxil
2007-02-20
California
Pop Star Britney Spears Exhibits Bizarre Behavior on Paxil
---
Murder
Paxil
1995-03-11
Illinois
14 Year Old Kills his Mother
---
Murder
Paxil
1998-05-17
Virginia
Postpartum Depression: Mother Kills her Baby
---
Murder
Paxil
1999-05-11
Florida
Woman Kills her Sister: Injures her Father
---
Road Rage
Paxil
2000-06-24
Nevada
Man Engages in Road Rage & Bizarre Behavior on Paxil
---
Rage
Paxil
1997-09-13
U.S.A.
Report of Rage with Paxil: People's Pharmacy
---
Suicide
Paxil
2007-04-25
Georgia
Antidepressant Dose Doubled: Man Jumps in Front of Train
---
Alcohol Abuse
Paxil
2007-05-01
Global
Alcohol Abuse is Listed as an Adverse Reaction to Paxil in the Insert
---
Workplace Violence
Paxil
2001-10-12
North Carolina
Man Holds Three Fellow Employees Hostage at Duke University
---
Suicide
Paxil
1999-04-01
Utah
17 Year Old Jumps From Freeway Bridge
---
Suicide
Paxil
2007-06-13
Indiana
14 Year Old Commits Suicide
---
Suicides
Paxil
2007-06-28
Japan
Number of Suicide Cases Reported to Health Minister Increases for Those on Paxil
---
Suicide
Paxil
2007-07-06
England
Young Woman Kills Self
---
Suicide
Paxil
2007-07-30
Michigan
Farmer in Ill Health Shoots Self
---
Snorting Paxil
Paxil
2000-03-21
New York
College Students Snort Paxil
---
Suicide
Paxil
2001-11-15
England
19 Year Old Commits Suicide
---
Suicide
Paxil
2004-11-07
England
18 Year Old Begins Self-Mutilation on Paxil: Kills Self
---
Violence
Paxil
2004-11-07
Global
One Out of Five Paxil Users Surveyed by "Mind" reported Violent Behaviors
---
Hostility
Paxil
2006-09-11
Global
Paxil Users Twice as Likely as Placebo Users to Have "Hostility Event"
---
Suicide
Paxil
2007-10-02
New Zealand
Coroner Recommends Warnings For SSRIs
---
Reckless Driving
Paxil
2007-10-05
Vermont
Man Flips Car Twice: Drives Away: Also Involved Alcohol
---
Bizarre Behavior
Paxil
2007-10-07
California
Child With Asperger's Syndrome Becomes Unmanageable on Paxil
---
Murder
Paxil
2006-09-24
Pennsylvania
Man Shoots Wife
---
Murder
Paxil
2001-01-19
Utah
Man Stabs to Death his Estranged Wife
---
Murder-Suicide
Paxil
2007-11-07
Montana
Man Shoots Wife & Self: Erratic Use of Paxil
---
Murder
Paxil
2007-12-05
North Carolina
Man Shoots Wife & Then Neighbor in Middle of Night
---
Source: SSRi Stories
I have already given you a full account of the Agency's position in this matter and there is nothing to add to it.
Prof. Kent Woods
Chief Executive
MHRA
Responding to an email I sent him with an attachment showing a previously sealed court document that clearly showed that GSK witheld vital information during the clinical trials for Seroxat.
We have been asked by the regulatory authorities to provide all our information related to suicides and I can tell you the data that we provide to them clearly shows no link between Seroxat and an increased risk of suicide – no link.
Dr ALISTAIR BENBOW
Head of European Clinical Psychiatry
GlaxoSmithKline
APA Report Rips Pharma a New One!
A task force of the American Psychological Association (APA) recently published a report that listed more than half a dozen ways the pharmaceutical industry exerts "enormous financial and political influence" that enables it to "assume a significant role in directing medical treatment, clinical research, and physician education" (see "Corporate Funding and Conflicts of Interest - A Primer for Psychologists").
Read John Mack's excellent piece over at Pharma Marketing Blog
Read John Mack's excellent piece over at Pharma Marketing Blog
Monday, December 10, 2007
Abolish Suicide-Causing Anti-Depressants
Petition online:
My name is Camille Milke, My daughter's name is Sarina Angel, I lost her to Suicide 26 days ago. She was a victim of Suicide-Causing Anti-Depressants and I have formed a Coalition to ban such killers. My 21 year old, 95 lb daughter was prescribed an arsenal of six different prescriptions, all within a one month period of time and all by the same doctor. I am lobbying to put into place a Federal Law that will Abolish Suicide-Causing Anti-Depressants. I need Advocates to join me in my Lobbying Efforts. My Mission is for the World to hear Sarinas Voice; for she is no longer with me to speak. But she will be heard, through me, her Mother. For I live with her inside me and I will live out loud, her voice will be heard. My Crusade is to Abolish Suicide Causing AntiDepressants. There is strength in numbers, I need the support of those who hold this issue close to their hearts; to assure that other parents and their children live a happy life without pain and without suicide. My Campaign is to pass a Bill which will ultimately become Sarina's Law. PLEASE, PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND PASS IT ON TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, ASK THEM TO DO THE SAME AND SO ON AND SO ON...
SIGN HERE
My name is Camille Milke, My daughter's name is Sarina Angel, I lost her to Suicide 26 days ago. She was a victim of Suicide-Causing Anti-Depressants and I have formed a Coalition to ban such killers. My 21 year old, 95 lb daughter was prescribed an arsenal of six different prescriptions, all within a one month period of time and all by the same doctor. I am lobbying to put into place a Federal Law that will Abolish Suicide-Causing Anti-Depressants. I need Advocates to join me in my Lobbying Efforts. My Mission is for the World to hear Sarinas Voice; for she is no longer with me to speak. But she will be heard, through me, her Mother. For I live with her inside me and I will live out loud, her voice will be heard. My Crusade is to Abolish Suicide Causing AntiDepressants. There is strength in numbers, I need the support of those who hold this issue close to their hearts; to assure that other parents and their children live a happy life without pain and without suicide. My Campaign is to pass a Bill which will ultimately become Sarina's Law. PLEASE, PLEASE SIGN THIS PETITION AND PASS IT ON TO EVERYONE IN YOUR ADDRESS BOOK, ASK THEM TO DO THE SAME AND SO ON AND SO ON...
SIGN HERE
THE SEROXAT/GSK/MHRA VIDEOS
The following videos can be found on youtube.com
**Jledji
*Crystaldove
All other videos created by dixiefid64
Saturday, December 08, 2007
SSRi's and the Scientology label
OK, it's about time this was brought to the surface.
It seems anyone who dares to speak out against SSRi's are labelled a Scientologist. My beleif and a beleif of many others is that this is yet antother defelction tactic used by Pharma.
Scientology isn't a mainstream religion so I guess it's an easy target for people to ridicule. Nutters, a cult, off their heads, brainwashed are just a few of the tags thrown around when Hubbard or Scientology is mentioned.
Tom Cruise, John Travolta, nutters?
Scientology speak out against SSRi's, in my book that can only be a good thing. The Catholic church should be speaking out too and even Islam. They have the clout so why not use it.
I'm not a Scientologist, even though I have been accused of being one. They get a bad rap but you don't see them knocking on your door asking you to buy magazines professing to tell you the truth do you?
First rule of defence is to discredit.
The Scientology tag is thrown around way too much for my liking, an easy target you see and one that I am utterly convinced Pharma are behind.
Isn't the 'auditing' Scientologists do a form of clearing those demons that bring you down (depression) - It's no wonder they are bad mouthed by Pharma and it's supporters. They are quite literally taking away the chance for Pharma to make big bucks from patients popping pills (addictive ones at that)
I'm not a religious person - spiritual maybe. I have no God, no beleif system, no faith.
If Scientologists bang the drum about the dangers of SSRi's then, for me, they are far from 'nutters'
The 'nutters' are the ones who actually beleive that Pharmaceutical Companies have the patients health at heart.
Fid
It seems anyone who dares to speak out against SSRi's are labelled a Scientologist. My beleif and a beleif of many others is that this is yet antother defelction tactic used by Pharma.
Scientology isn't a mainstream religion so I guess it's an easy target for people to ridicule. Nutters, a cult, off their heads, brainwashed are just a few of the tags thrown around when Hubbard or Scientology is mentioned.
Tom Cruise, John Travolta, nutters?
Scientology speak out against SSRi's, in my book that can only be a good thing. The Catholic church should be speaking out too and even Islam. They have the clout so why not use it.
I'm not a Scientologist, even though I have been accused of being one. They get a bad rap but you don't see them knocking on your door asking you to buy magazines professing to tell you the truth do you?
First rule of defence is to discredit.
The Scientology tag is thrown around way too much for my liking, an easy target you see and one that I am utterly convinced Pharma are behind.
Isn't the 'auditing' Scientologists do a form of clearing those demons that bring you down (depression) - It's no wonder they are bad mouthed by Pharma and it's supporters. They are quite literally taking away the chance for Pharma to make big bucks from patients popping pills (addictive ones at that)
I'm not a religious person - spiritual maybe. I have no God, no beleif system, no faith.
If Scientologists bang the drum about the dangers of SSRi's then, for me, they are far from 'nutters'
The 'nutters' are the ones who actually beleive that Pharmaceutical Companies have the patients health at heart.
Fid
Stout Out at Glaxo, But Viehbacher Re-Ups
Source: The Wall Street Journal Online
When is $4 million not enough? When you’re David Stout, president of pharmaceuticals at GlaxoSmithKline, apparently.
Stout, as loyal Health Blog Readers will recall, recently lost The GlaxoSmithKline CEO Derby to Andrew Witty, who has been president of European pharmaceuticals for the company.
A few days ago, we noted that Glaxo had reportedly offered Stout (pictured) and Chris Viehbacher (another horse in the Derby, and current president of U.S. pharmaceuticals) £2 million retention packages (or about four-million dollars for American Stout) and seats on the board if they’d stick around. The figure, unconfirmed by the company, came from the Times of London.
In a hot-off-the-press release, Glaxo just said Viehbacher took the deal and that he’ll be named an executive director, as will Witty. Stout, who is in his mid-50s, will leave the company in February, according to the release. Glaxo didn’t say where Stout’s headed.
Update: Dow Jones Newswires notes comments by Nomura Code analyst Paul Diggle, who calls Stout’s departure “a pity, but not a surprise.” Diggle adds: “Stout was very much ‘JP’s man’ and having been beaten to the top job by Witty his future role was unclear.”
When is $4 million not enough? When you’re David Stout, president of pharmaceuticals at GlaxoSmithKline, apparently.
Stout, as loyal Health Blog Readers will recall, recently lost The GlaxoSmithKline CEO Derby to Andrew Witty, who has been president of European pharmaceuticals for the company.
A few days ago, we noted that Glaxo had reportedly offered Stout (pictured) and Chris Viehbacher (another horse in the Derby, and current president of U.S. pharmaceuticals) £2 million retention packages (or about four-million dollars for American Stout) and seats on the board if they’d stick around. The figure, unconfirmed by the company, came from the Times of London.
In a hot-off-the-press release, Glaxo just said Viehbacher took the deal and that he’ll be named an executive director, as will Witty. Stout, who is in his mid-50s, will leave the company in February, according to the release. Glaxo didn’t say where Stout’s headed.
Update: Dow Jones Newswires notes comments by Nomura Code analyst Paul Diggle, who calls Stout’s departure “a pity, but not a surprise.” Diggle adds: “Stout was very much ‘JP’s man’ and having been beaten to the top job by Witty his future role was unclear.”
GlaxoSmithKline - The caring company?
Pharmagiles has an excellent post that you all should read. I suspect GSK employees and lawyers who frequent this blog will also want to read it.
It seems a GSK employee has taken a leaf out of JP Garniers book. She wrote to GSK HR Dept and sent a copy to Pharmagiles.
GSK's response to one of its own employees will not come as a shock to you.
Read full post here
Fid
It seems a GSK employee has taken a leaf out of JP Garniers book. She wrote to GSK HR Dept and sent a copy to Pharmagiles.
GSK's response to one of its own employees will not come as a shock to you.
Read full post here
Fid
Friday, December 07, 2007
School Shootings and Antidepressants
Are there any school shootings/slayings that have occured where the killer wasn't on antidepressant medication?
Just a thought
Fid
Just a thought
Fid
Dumbass Award goes to...
Yup, Google Avnosense join the host of others on here for acting rather strange by disabling the ads on Furious Seasons and cancelling the account. Their reasons? Well apparently they want to 'protect' their advertisers.
Furious Seasons is basically a site that speaks out against Pharma et al. Google AdSense obviously don't like the content of the site... or is it one of their major advertisers who don't like its content?
Full story here
Google AdSense you are a dumbass
Thursday, December 06, 2007
Omaha Shootings... Antidepressants to blame?
Last night in Omaha, Nebraska, 19-year-old Robert Hawkins killed himself and eight other people with an assault rifle. Do we blame the gun laws in America for not being stringent enough or is there another underlying problem that the mainstream press seem to merely graze over when reporting murders of this kind?
Hawkins was fired from his job at a McDonald's this week and had recently broken up with a girlfriend. She said he phoned her at about 1 pm. Wednesday, telling her he had left a note.
In the note, which was turned over to authorities, Hawkins wrote that he was "sorry for everything" and would not be a burden on his family anymore. He eerily added, "Now I'll be famous."
The press have only touched on the fact that Hawkins was on antidepressants, as yet I don't know what specific antidepressants he was on. Obviously, as in all these types of killings there are other mitigating circumstances but one thing they all seem to have in common is that the killer/s is either on or has a history of antidepressant use.
Sceptics, Pharmaceutical Companies and in general those who have a conflict of interest with Pharma, ie funded mental health charities and the MHRA, would simply brush aside this common link, touting the conspiracy theory or Scientologist label at anyone who suggested that the actual antidepressant may have been the cause of tipping the killer over the edge. One cannot argue that there is a history here of young adult males, who are on antidepressant medication, who suddenly turn from placid characters into homicidal maniacs.
Pharma et al have a strong case in as much as the killer/s maybe had a history of abuse or been arrested for various crimes – an unstable upbringing etc.
Hawkins was fired from his job at McDonalds – Would this make him want to kill himself and eight others?
He had recently broke up with his girlfriend – Maybe this would want to make him go out and commit this heinous crime?
Let's put ourselves in his shoes.
Have you ever been fired from a job?
Did this make you want to go out, obtain an assault rifle and gun down innocent bystanders before turning the gun on yourself?
I'm sure the majority of readers on here have broke up with past girlfriends/boyfriends – yeh its tough, heart wrenching even... but enough to make you want to go out and murder and commit suicide?
Hawkins isn't the first person to have lost his job nor the first to have lost his girlfriend. He also isn't the first to be on antidepressant medication who has murdered.
Before I turn your attention to a list from Ssri Stories website I'd like you to ask yourselves whether this is merely coincidental or if Pharma et al do indeed have a cause for argument.
In 2005 Newstarget.com reported that Eli Lilly had full knowledge of a 1200% increase in suicide risk for takers of their Prozac drug, a popular anti-depressant SSRI medication.
In 2006, the same website reported the results of a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry showing that teens taking antidepressant drugs are more likely to commit suicide (and to be "successful" at completing the act).
On September 11, 2006, newstarget.com reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and violent behavior yet again.
The very next day, they published a report about the anti-depressant drug Seroxat doubling the risk of violent behavior.
In April of this year, they also reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and the Virginia Tech shooting.
Seroxat Secrets also has wrote about the history of school shootings here
SSRI drugs, such as Seroxat have never been safety approved by the FDA or MHRA for use on children or teens. How then do our children get their hands on these kind of drugs? More importantly, why are they given these types of drugs?
How? They go to see their GP who either does not know about the dangers or has been wined and dined by pharmaceutical reps to 'push' the drug.
Why? Because Pharmaceutical Company employ and train reps. Brainwashing them in what they are doing is perfectly legal. Morals is a word that you won't find touted by any pharmaceutical rep. How could they possibly know the meaning of the word?
As I sit and type this draft there are thousands of pharmaceutical reps selling their wares to gullible health centres and family practitioners. With each sale comes blood money that is their commission. We all have a right to make money but who do we hear banging the drum loudly when fake drugs are being sold via the Internet? Who can quickly shut down a website selling fake Viagra tablets, obesity tablets or hair loss tablets? Prof. Kent Woods, CEO of the MHRA here in the UK takes the plaudits for acting quickly in shutting these sites down, saving Pharma millions of pounds in the process. Why isn't he quick off the rails when it comes to cracking the whip when it comes to antidepressant use in young adults here in the UK? Why? Because the sites he chooses to close down don't fund the MHRA. Pharma DO!
As the CEO of the MHRA he surely has input into the current 4 year investigation into GlaxoSmithKline regarding them not providing data that showed Seroxat should NEVER be prescribed to minors. 4 years! 48 months! 1,460 days! 35,063 hours! 2,103,795 minutes! 126,227,704 seconds! How much longer do they need? As each minute passes by another child pops a pill, another prescription is wrote, another chance that a child will lose their innocence of childhood.
Mark my words. It won't be long before the UK has its own school massacre and this won't be solely down to guns spilling into the country, it will be because the MHRA weren't quick enough to act – then the questions will be asked, then Prof. Kent Woods will hang his head in shame at his incompetence.
This government need a severe, short, sharp shock to kick them into action and disband the MHRA. I fear it will come in the form of innocent children losing their lives to someone on antidepressant medication.
Fid
Hawkins was fired from his job at a McDonald's this week and had recently broken up with a girlfriend. She said he phoned her at about 1 pm. Wednesday, telling her he had left a note.
In the note, which was turned over to authorities, Hawkins wrote that he was "sorry for everything" and would not be a burden on his family anymore. He eerily added, "Now I'll be famous."
The press have only touched on the fact that Hawkins was on antidepressants, as yet I don't know what specific antidepressants he was on. Obviously, as in all these types of killings there are other mitigating circumstances but one thing they all seem to have in common is that the killer/s is either on or has a history of antidepressant use.
Sceptics, Pharmaceutical Companies and in general those who have a conflict of interest with Pharma, ie funded mental health charities and the MHRA, would simply brush aside this common link, touting the conspiracy theory or Scientologist label at anyone who suggested that the actual antidepressant may have been the cause of tipping the killer over the edge. One cannot argue that there is a history here of young adult males, who are on antidepressant medication, who suddenly turn from placid characters into homicidal maniacs.
Pharma et al have a strong case in as much as the killer/s maybe had a history of abuse or been arrested for various crimes – an unstable upbringing etc.
Hawkins was fired from his job at McDonalds – Would this make him want to kill himself and eight others?
He had recently broke up with his girlfriend – Maybe this would want to make him go out and commit this heinous crime?
Let's put ourselves in his shoes.
Have you ever been fired from a job?
Did this make you want to go out, obtain an assault rifle and gun down innocent bystanders before turning the gun on yourself?
I'm sure the majority of readers on here have broke up with past girlfriends/boyfriends – yeh its tough, heart wrenching even... but enough to make you want to go out and murder and commit suicide?
Hawkins isn't the first person to have lost his job nor the first to have lost his girlfriend. He also isn't the first to be on antidepressant medication who has murdered.
Before I turn your attention to a list from Ssri Stories website I'd like you to ask yourselves whether this is merely coincidental or if Pharma et al do indeed have a cause for argument.
In 2005 Newstarget.com reported that Eli Lilly had full knowledge of a 1200% increase in suicide risk for takers of their Prozac drug, a popular anti-depressant SSRI medication.
In 2006, the same website reported the results of a study published in the Archives of General Psychiatry showing that teens taking antidepressant drugs are more likely to commit suicide (and to be "successful" at completing the act).
On September 11, 2006, newstarget.com reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and violent behavior yet again.
The very next day, they published a report about the anti-depressant drug Seroxat doubling the risk of violent behavior.
In April of this year, they also reported on the link between antidepressant drugs and the Virginia Tech shooting.
Seroxat Secrets also has wrote about the history of school shootings here
SSRI drugs, such as Seroxat have never been safety approved by the FDA or MHRA for use on children or teens. How then do our children get their hands on these kind of drugs? More importantly, why are they given these types of drugs?
How? They go to see their GP who either does not know about the dangers or has been wined and dined by pharmaceutical reps to 'push' the drug.
Why? Because Pharmaceutical Company employ and train reps. Brainwashing them in what they are doing is perfectly legal. Morals is a word that you won't find touted by any pharmaceutical rep. How could they possibly know the meaning of the word?
As I sit and type this draft there are thousands of pharmaceutical reps selling their wares to gullible health centres and family practitioners. With each sale comes blood money that is their commission. We all have a right to make money but who do we hear banging the drum loudly when fake drugs are being sold via the Internet? Who can quickly shut down a website selling fake Viagra tablets, obesity tablets or hair loss tablets? Prof. Kent Woods, CEO of the MHRA here in the UK takes the plaudits for acting quickly in shutting these sites down, saving Pharma millions of pounds in the process. Why isn't he quick off the rails when it comes to cracking the whip when it comes to antidepressant use in young adults here in the UK? Why? Because the sites he chooses to close down don't fund the MHRA. Pharma DO!
As the CEO of the MHRA he surely has input into the current 4 year investigation into GlaxoSmithKline regarding them not providing data that showed Seroxat should NEVER be prescribed to minors. 4 years! 48 months! 1,460 days! 35,063 hours! 2,103,795 minutes! 126,227,704 seconds! How much longer do they need? As each minute passes by another child pops a pill, another prescription is wrote, another chance that a child will lose their innocence of childhood.
Mark my words. It won't be long before the UK has its own school massacre and this won't be solely down to guns spilling into the country, it will be because the MHRA weren't quick enough to act – then the questions will be asked, then Prof. Kent Woods will hang his head in shame at his incompetence.
This government need a severe, short, sharp shock to kick them into action and disband the MHRA. I fear it will come in the form of innocent children losing their lives to someone on antidepressant medication.
Fid
Wednesday, December 05, 2007
What is the benefit of Seroxat, gentlemen?
Matthew Holford goes Gung-ho on the MHRA
I was copied in on one of Matthew's emails to the MHRA. So good that I asked him if I could publish it on here. Matt has also done a little background synopsis for you all. His email backs the MHRA into a corner - much like his Freedom of Information requests to them. They won't respond to him anymore - I don't think they liked the questions he was asking... either that or they didn't like to give him answers as it would have shown them up for the incompetent bunch of prats that they so obviously are.
Here is Matt's rant:
With luck, I have managed to convey at least several years' worth of invective into these few short paras. I would have liked to think that the MHRA had been so wrapped up in it's science, that it had lost sight of the fact that it was serving (British) humanity. But it's been told that there is a problem, here, and it has the arrogance to either not respond, at all, or to respond by saying that there isn't a problem, or that the problem is acceptable, given the benefits. What benefits? Come on, don't stammer, boy! What benefits?
The fact is, I gave the MHRA ample opportunity to demonstrate to me, in as much detail as it felt inclined to go into, just how efficient it was; just how determined to do the job right it was. It chose instead to evade, and to eventually abandon the discussion, having apparently never intended to reach any kind of resolution, or understanding, between us. Why would that be? Because I'm a stupid guy, who doesn't understand how excellent the Worshipful Company is? That must be the case - I'll go back to being a dumbass, then, which requires that I ask lots of really detailed questions, such that I can understand that which is so complex that the MHRA can't be bothered to explain it to me.
The email, below, is for every person who ever tried to understand what was happening to them, as they flailed around, seeking answers, only to be told that the hot poker that was being stuffed up their arse was actually for their own benefit, and not for the gratification of the stuffer. Professors Woods and Breckenridge, you are shit, in my opinion. You are shit, because you won't listen, and you won't explain. You are shit, because you believe that people don't deserve your time. You are shit, because you believe that all of that is completely normal, and appropriate. Well, welcome to my world.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Holford
To: kent.woods@mhra.gsi.gov.uk ; alasdair.breckenridge@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: johnsona@parliament.uk ; Shailesh Vara
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: I think you need to understand something, although I'm not quite sure what that thing is...
Gentlemen, You would have to care to read this:
http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2007/12/schizophrenics-at-highly-elevated.html
and then you may understand how very angry we are. This is not just about the drugs, although, you can take your snake oil remedies and your quackery, and stick it up the hole in your culture. Do you understand? Your smug denials, and your claims that "everything is OK, really," go way beyond arrogance. The only reason that I can think of, for you not comprehending that something is wrong (and something is wrong, because many people have told you so), and responding accordingly, is because you are motivated to ignore the signs. Are you being paid to do this, or are you just incompetent? Either way, you appear to have lost every last vestige of humanity that was ever granted to you.
What is the benefit of Seroxat, gentlemen? I already know the answer to this question, so there is no need to respond, but I suggest that you establish the benefit for yourself. Because you have refused to do your jobs, we have had to fill the gaps, and the sheer number of gaps appears to demonstrate just how badly you've done your jobs. I should congratulate you for managing to convince anybody that you are expert.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
PS Please note that this message is essentially for the benefit of those blind copied on it, rather than you.
You can read more of Matt's correspondence with the MHRA on his excellent blog, 'It's Quite An Experience'
I was copied in on one of Matthew's emails to the MHRA. So good that I asked him if I could publish it on here. Matt has also done a little background synopsis for you all. His email backs the MHRA into a corner - much like his Freedom of Information requests to them. They won't respond to him anymore - I don't think they liked the questions he was asking... either that or they didn't like to give him answers as it would have shown them up for the incompetent bunch of prats that they so obviously are.
Here is Matt's rant:
With luck, I have managed to convey at least several years' worth of invective into these few short paras. I would have liked to think that the MHRA had been so wrapped up in it's science, that it had lost sight of the fact that it was serving (British) humanity. But it's been told that there is a problem, here, and it has the arrogance to either not respond, at all, or to respond by saying that there isn't a problem, or that the problem is acceptable, given the benefits. What benefits? Come on, don't stammer, boy! What benefits?
The fact is, I gave the MHRA ample opportunity to demonstrate to me, in as much detail as it felt inclined to go into, just how efficient it was; just how determined to do the job right it was. It chose instead to evade, and to eventually abandon the discussion, having apparently never intended to reach any kind of resolution, or understanding, between us. Why would that be? Because I'm a stupid guy, who doesn't understand how excellent the Worshipful Company is? That must be the case - I'll go back to being a dumbass, then, which requires that I ask lots of really detailed questions, such that I can understand that which is so complex that the MHRA can't be bothered to explain it to me.
The email, below, is for every person who ever tried to understand what was happening to them, as they flailed around, seeking answers, only to be told that the hot poker that was being stuffed up their arse was actually for their own benefit, and not for the gratification of the stuffer. Professors Woods and Breckenridge, you are shit, in my opinion. You are shit, because you won't listen, and you won't explain. You are shit, because you believe that people don't deserve your time. You are shit, because you believe that all of that is completely normal, and appropriate. Well, welcome to my world.
Matt
----- Original Message -----
From: Matthew Holford
To: kent.woods@mhra.gsi.gov.uk ; alasdair.breckenridge@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Cc: johnsona@parliament.uk ; Shailesh Vara
Sent: Wednesday, December 05, 2007 12:49 PM
Subject: I think you need to understand something, although I'm not quite sure what that thing is...
Gentlemen, You would have to care to read this:
http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2007/12/schizophrenics-at-highly-elevated.html
and then you may understand how very angry we are. This is not just about the drugs, although, you can take your snake oil remedies and your quackery, and stick it up the hole in your culture. Do you understand? Your smug denials, and your claims that "everything is OK, really," go way beyond arrogance. The only reason that I can think of, for you not comprehending that something is wrong (and something is wrong, because many people have told you so), and responding accordingly, is because you are motivated to ignore the signs. Are you being paid to do this, or are you just incompetent? Either way, you appear to have lost every last vestige of humanity that was ever granted to you.
What is the benefit of Seroxat, gentlemen? I already know the answer to this question, so there is no need to respond, but I suggest that you establish the benefit for yourself. Because you have refused to do your jobs, we have had to fill the gaps, and the sheer number of gaps appears to demonstrate just how badly you've done your jobs. I should congratulate you for managing to convince anybody that you are expert.
Best regards
Matthew Holford
PS Please note that this message is essentially for the benefit of those blind copied on it, rather than you.
You can read more of Matt's correspondence with the MHRA on his excellent blog, 'It's Quite An Experience'
PM’s drugs vow (MHRA Investigation into GSK)
Source: The Hunts Post
DRUGS giant GlaxoSmithKline will be prosecuted if an investigation finds the company withheld information that the drug Seroxat has a higher suicide risk for under 18s.
This promise was made by Gordon Brown on Thursday at a Downing Street meeting with a campaigner from Huntingdon.
Janice Simmons, founder of the Seroxat User Group, wants to see the drug banned and patients trying to come off it given more help.
The PM stressed the investigation by the Department of Health, which has been going on for four years, was a serious inquiry.
The drugs company denies the allegation, saying Seroxat was never licensed for children.
Mrs Simmons told The Hunts Post: "Mr Brown said doctors were required to monitor patients once they are prescribed anti-depressants, but I told him that many GPs do not know what they are monitoring for. They don't understand the danger points."
Mrs Simmons, 58, from Great Stukeley, met Mr Brown along with the Huntingdon MP Jonathan Djanogly and Dr Paul Duckett from Manchester University.
She set up her group in 2002 after discovering her second husband, Jon, was addicted to anti-depressants.
INFORMATION: You can visit the website www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk
DRUGS giant GlaxoSmithKline will be prosecuted if an investigation finds the company withheld information that the drug Seroxat has a higher suicide risk for under 18s.
This promise was made by Gordon Brown on Thursday at a Downing Street meeting with a campaigner from Huntingdon.
Janice Simmons, founder of the Seroxat User Group, wants to see the drug banned and patients trying to come off it given more help.
The PM stressed the investigation by the Department of Health, which has been going on for four years, was a serious inquiry.
The drugs company denies the allegation, saying Seroxat was never licensed for children.
Mrs Simmons told The Hunts Post: "Mr Brown said doctors were required to monitor patients once they are prescribed anti-depressants, but I told him that many GPs do not know what they are monitoring for. They don't understand the danger points."
Mrs Simmons, 58, from Great Stukeley, met Mr Brown along with the Huntingdon MP Jonathan Djanogly and Dr Paul Duckett from Manchester University.
She set up her group in 2002 after discovering her second husband, Jon, was addicted to anti-depressants.
INFORMATION: You can visit the website www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk
More on GSK's $4 million 'consolation' prizes
Have you ever witnessed anything so obscene as the 'runner-up' awards for those who missed out on the chief executive's office?
Maybe GSK didn't want those that failed to be so disappointed that they would speak out publically against them?
I loved the statement from Mary Anne Rhyne, a GSK spokeswoman at Research Triangle Park, said the company had no comment.
Mary Anne Rhyne.... hmmm
The same Mary Anne Rhyne who was vocal with her opinion on Seroxat:
If ‘discontinuation reactions’ occur in patients stopping [Paxil], the majority will experience symptoms that are mild to moderate in intensity, and are usually limited to two weeks.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 2005
These problems [’discontinuation reactions’] are just the body’s adjustment when you stop taking medicines. It takes more than that to be addictive.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 8/21/2002
Obviously doctors are very busy people, and their day is packed with patients. The question is how do doctors get information about medicines and new research into treatments and disease, and one of the easiest ways is this kind of presentation [”dine and dash”]. We think this is a benefit to both physicians and patients.”
Mary Ann Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson
We follow the law, and we follow government guidelines.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 8/26/2005
You can experience symptoms, as you can with other SSRIs and as you can with other kinds of medicines as well.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 12/13/2003
And what about David Stout, one of the runners-up, has he ever been vocal about Seroxat?
Let's see:
GlaxoSmithKline is proud to offer physicians Paxil CR the latest treatment advance in the SSRI class.
David Stout President, US Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline 4/19/2002
GSK strongly stands behind the safety and efficacy of Paxil. Physician organizations, like the American Psychiatric Association, have stated that antidepressants are not habit-forming.
David Stout President of U.S. Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline
Experts including the FDA and leading physician and mental health organizations agree that antidepressant medications like Paxil are non-habit-forming.
David Stout President US Pharmaceuticals GlaxoSmithKline 10/10/2002
or what about the other runner-up, Christopher Viehbacher?
I think if, if we’ve been guilty of anything over the past few years, perhaps, um, emphasizing entertainment over education, um, we know that’s what patients really want.
Christopher Viehbacher GlaxoSmithKline U.S. President 8/16/05
My wife thinks J.P. [Garnier] is the best thing since sliced bread.
Christopher Viehbacher GlaxoSmithKline U.S. President 7/21/03
Ah well, they didn't get the top job... that went to Andrew 'not so' Witty. Makes you wonder why GSK would want to give them such a huge windfall for failure though.
Fid
Maybe GSK didn't want those that failed to be so disappointed that they would speak out publically against them?
I loved the statement from Mary Anne Rhyne, a GSK spokeswoman at Research Triangle Park, said the company had no comment.
Mary Anne Rhyne.... hmmm
The same Mary Anne Rhyne who was vocal with her opinion on Seroxat:
If ‘discontinuation reactions’ occur in patients stopping [Paxil], the majority will experience symptoms that are mild to moderate in intensity, and are usually limited to two weeks.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 2005
These problems [’discontinuation reactions’] are just the body’s adjustment when you stop taking medicines. It takes more than that to be addictive.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 8/21/2002
Obviously doctors are very busy people, and their day is packed with patients. The question is how do doctors get information about medicines and new research into treatments and disease, and one of the easiest ways is this kind of presentation [”dine and dash”]. We think this is a benefit to both physicians and patients.”
Mary Ann Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson
We follow the law, and we follow government guidelines.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 8/26/2005
You can experience symptoms, as you can with other SSRIs and as you can with other kinds of medicines as well.
Mary Anne Rhyne GlaxoSmithKline spokesperson 12/13/2003
And what about David Stout, one of the runners-up, has he ever been vocal about Seroxat?
Let's see:
GlaxoSmithKline is proud to offer physicians Paxil CR the latest treatment advance in the SSRI class.
David Stout President, US Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline 4/19/2002
GSK strongly stands behind the safety and efficacy of Paxil. Physician organizations, like the American Psychiatric Association, have stated that antidepressants are not habit-forming.
David Stout President of U.S. Pharmaceuticals, GlaxoSmithKline
Experts including the FDA and leading physician and mental health organizations agree that antidepressant medications like Paxil are non-habit-forming.
David Stout President US Pharmaceuticals GlaxoSmithKline 10/10/2002
or what about the other runner-up, Christopher Viehbacher?
I think if, if we’ve been guilty of anything over the past few years, perhaps, um, emphasizing entertainment over education, um, we know that’s what patients really want.
Christopher Viehbacher GlaxoSmithKline U.S. President 8/16/05
My wife thinks J.P. [Garnier] is the best thing since sliced bread.
Christopher Viehbacher GlaxoSmithKline U.S. President 7/21/03
Ah well, they didn't get the top job... that went to Andrew 'not so' Witty. Makes you wonder why GSK would want to give them such a huge windfall for failure though.
Fid
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.