MHRA Decline to Meet With Human Rights Movement

What is the difference between the British drug regulator, the MHRA, and the human rights movement, the CCHR?

Well, in short, the MHRA claim to protect us from unsafe drugs but...they fail on a grand scale whereas the CCHR continue to fight the corner of the small person on the street, trying to protect the health of the public by raising issues and questions to officialdom.

For those that don't know, MHRA stands for the Medicines Healthcare and products Regulatory Agency. Their job is to monitor the medicines the British public take. They are an agency that is fully funded by the pharmaceutical industry. Their Chief Executive is Dr Ian Hudson, a former World Safety Officer for GlaxoSmithKline [then SmithKline Beecham]

The CCHR stands for the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights. They have many purposes, two of which is to flag growing concerns regarding psychiatric drugs and those that prescribe them. They are a non-profit, non-political, non-religious mental health watchdog. Their UK's Executive Director is Brian Daniels who has no links to the pharmaceutical industry.

Back in July 2013 Brian, representing the CCHR, wrote to June Raine of the MHRA. He had previously wrote to the MHRA some months earlier but they had failed to respond.

The CCHR were concerned about the growing list of antidepressant 'adverse incidents' in the UK and proposed a meeting with the MHRA for an 'open debate'.

The CCHR even offered a database... "A set of data has been compiled consisting of 1637 incidents involving antidepressants. It has been made available on a web site www.antidepaware.co.uk. It came to the attention of this organisation as it aligned with documents gathered over decades regarding this category of drug and the adverse drug reactions."

Here's the letter in full.

The MHRA [eventually] replied in their usual classic fashion. They declined to meet with the CCHR citing the previous correspondence they had sent to the CCHR.

I've saw the correspondence, in fact, I have an uncanny ability to predict any correspondence from the MHRA when the subject of antidepressants are concerned... move over Doris Stokes. [1]

Here's the MHRA's bog-standard response they sent to the CCHR... they have sent me the same in the past.

So, 10 years ago, write the MHRA, an 'expert' working group published its findings regarding the balance and risks of SSRi antidepressant use. The 'experts', in relation to suicidal behaviour in adults, concluded that there was a modest increase in the risk of suicidal thoughts and self-harm for SSRis compared to placebo. They added that the MHRA follow up all cases of suicide that are reported to them. Reports can only be sent to them via their yellow card reporting system. 

I don't know about you but if I wanted to learn more about the quality of food served at a restaurant I'd ask a customer and not someone paid by the restaurant manager.

Ben Scott, who wrote the reply to the CCHR, lists himself as the MHRA's 'Customer Services Manager'.

Customer Services?

Nice job Ben. It must have taken you all of three minutes to copy and paste that to the CCHR. I wonder if MHRA clerical staff are given a typing test for such positions. I wonder if Ben, when filling out his application form for the customer services manager position, wrote, "I can type 40 words per minute". I bet my left nut it was met with senior management rolling around the floor laughing. "HAHAHA, guffaw, titter, this Ben chap seems to think we actually type our responses to customers, HAHAHAHAH, has he not heard of our standard stonewalling template?"

I don't mean to have a pop at Ben Scott here, he's probably a decent sort who believes he's working for an agency that really have their finger on the pulse of dangerous medications...even if that finger hasn't been lifted since 2004.

I've had many public spats with the MHRA. I've had meetings with them, I've been labelled by them, I think the term was  "loose cannon". Yeh, I'm a loose cannon, I fire when I need to fire and not when someone tells me to, least of all some lickspittle agency that bends over in front of the pharmaceutical industry merely to 'take one for the team'.

Men, women and children are killing themselves whilst taking antidepressant medication. It's no cause for concern for the MHRA because their 'experts' told us 10 years ago that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Here's what Facebook looked like 10 years ago.

Facebook, unlike the MHRA, have changed. Many, if not all of their changes, have come as a result of listening to what the customer wants.

The MHRA, have remained in the same position regarding their stance on the safety of antidepressants, it's a position highlighted in the following picture...

Take a good look at the picture. It shows two things. It highlights how the MHRA like to bury their head in the sand, at the same time sticking their ass in the air so the Pharmafia can politely butt-fuck them when they step out of line. [Ooops, there's the loose cannon in me rearing its wayward head]

If using profanity is what it takes for this agency to sit up and take notice about the huge SSRi problem then swear I shall.

I ceased communication with the MHRA a few years ago. I have, since, sent them a few minor requests. I publicly noted my reasons for severing my ties with them in my book.

The MHRA will not meet with the CCHR because they don't want the cold, hard facts thrown at them. They don't want to have to go back to the issue of the safety and efficacy of antidepressants because by doing so it will highlight just how utterly incompetent they are as an agency. They don't want their 2008 investigation into GSK rehashed because it embarrasses them greatly. In brief, the MHRA carried out a four year investigation. The investigation  focused on whether GSK had failed to inform the MHRA of information it had on the safety of Seroxat in under 18’s in a timely manner. Despite finding that GSK HAD been slow in releasing this information, the MHRA decided not to prosecute them. Instead they opted to send them a letter asking them not to be naughty again. [GSK really took heed of that 2008 warning huh?]

In the words of Charles Medawar, "They [MHRA] have failed and they have failed miserably"

Bob Fiddaman

[1] Doris May Fisher Stokes, born Doris Sutton, was a British spiritualist and psychic medium.