Saying Goodbye

I created this blog way back in April 2006. Initially I had a gripe with the British drug regulator, the MHRA.

I was concerned because I had suffered at the hands of GlaxoSmithKline's Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US.

Over the last nine years or so I've had an online stalker who, along with his internet acquaintance, stalked me and impersonated me online, at times targeting the parents of the victims that I had wrote about.

I've been threatened with legal action by one of GlaxoSmithKline's former employees (he was employed by them at the time)

I've met with the British drug regulator on numerous occasions, those meetings turned out to be as useful as a chocolate teapot.

I've met some wonderful people on my journey, even had intimate relationships with two of those I met, one of which, I regret.

In the main, I've covered many stories about children/teenagers who have succumbed to antidepressant use. I hope I have brought their parents some peace and satisfaction with my efforts. I hope I have drawn awareness to the dangers of these mind-numbing drugs that have, for many, caused nothing but heartache.

I've been fighting almost alone for nearly nine years with the blog work, dealing with other's grief, emptiness, and sadness. It's come to a point where it has just consumed me and, to be honest, I have to change things in my life after suffering a recent loss of my own.

It's hard to put my finger on any one story I've covered on this blog. Sara Carlin springs to mind. Through her death I met two wonderful friends in Neil and Rhonda - I hope to meet them again one day.

I was immensely proud to be presented two human rights awards from the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights (CCHR), one being presented to me in the US and one here in the UK. The CCHR introduced me to some wonderful people, many of whom still keep in touch with me via social media websites.

I was also very proud when this old blog of mine went over one million visits, a quick look now shows the counter at 1,189,171. Not bad for a Brummie who was expelled from school and told, "You will never make anything of yourself Fiddaman."

I had always dreamed of seeing my name on the front cover of a book - I achieved that too with my book, 'The evidence, however, is clear: The Seroxat scandal'.

During the past nine years I've seen new blogs appear... and then disappear. It's a tough game this blogging lark, kinda takes it out of you when you are the one that people turn to because they are addicted to antidepressants or they have lost a child to antidepressants or even given birth to a child with deformities due to antidepressants. It can be a very dark, lonely place when you take on stories such as these. They sit with you forever.

I'm pretty much running on an empty tank these days and am just bamboozled by the unkind acts and hardheartedness of some people.

To be honest, I'm exhausted by it all. I never ever thought that one of my foes would turn out to be the very same person who I tried to help by highlighting their plight on this blog, on numerous occasions. That toxicity for you folks!

I'm done with opening my email each day and seeing attachments hundreds of pages long and being asked, "have you seen this?"

I'm done with staying up until the early hours of the morning helping people find justice only to have them ignore me when my efforts found them the justice they craved (money)

I'm done with reading about GlaxoSmithKline making settlements to mothers who have had the misfortune of giving birth to children with serious defects. Done with it all.

During the last three weeks I've been to hell and back, I've still got a long way to go, I'm still struggling to come to terms with the whole 'gone in the blink of an eye'.

Deal with it I will, but I cannot continue being consumed by other people's lives, it's zapping my energy and causing bad vibes. I just need to get in sync with myself and start a new journey, one that doesn't involve the loss of loved ones. Losing someone you love is quite possibly the worst feeling in the world.

I started work on a new novel yesterday, it's been therapeutic. I don't know when it will be finished, don't even know how it will end but it's fiction and I can go pretty much anywhere I want with it.

It's called "No Other Man"

One day I hope to see it published.

For now, I'm saying goodbye.

I'll leave the last words for Sara...





Bob Fiddaman

Save the Children Respond Re GSK

Following on from my previous post 'Save the Children and GSK'

In my previous post I wrote about how I had wrote Save the Children and asked them the following regarding their partnership with GlaxoSmithKline.

As I am sure you are aware GSK recently pleaded guilty and were fined over $3 billion in the US for promoting drugs to children off-label. One of these drugs, Paxil, which goes by the brand name of Seroxat here in the UK, causes suicidal thinking in children. At the time of the off-label promotion GSK knew of this particular side effect but failed to inform medicine regulators and healthcare professionals. A result of which has saw children and teenagers go on to complete suicide.

My question to Save the Children is one of ethics.

Knowing that GSK promoted a drug that could harm children (and they (GSK) knew of the potential risk but failed to warn), do you (Save the Children) believe that a partnership with GSK is morally correct?

If you believe it is, please state your reasons.

Here is their response.

It's the first time I have ever seen an organisation, outside of the pharmaceutical industry, use the words 'benefit' and 'risk'.

I'm speechless.

We are aware of the reports on the historic issues relating to Paxil. As an organisation we take our role to protect children very seriously and assess all our partnerships and collaborations very much within this context. Save the Children works to ensure that decisions around who we partner with are made with the best interests of children at the core – and this means deciding whether the impact on children we can have through our programming and advocacy funded by a donor or partner outweighs any potential risks.

We consider carefully the risks associated with partnering with pharmaceutical companies and in the case of GSK our belief is that the risks are outweighed by the benefits of this partnership, in helping us achieve our ambitions for children. The focus of the GSK-Save the Children partnership is to help save a million children’s lives in the developing world.

Make of that what you will.

Save The Children can be emailed here.

Bob Fiddaman.

Save the Children and GSK

This is another of those posts that has taken a while to construct. My personal life took a kick in the gonads recently and I've been mulling over where I go from here. Do I continue down the path that I've been walking since the conception of this blog or do I change and write that fictional novel I've been meaning to write for some years now?**

Do I continue to answer emails from people who want my help or do I just give it all up and ignore them all? There's times when I feel deflated, none more so than this period in my life. It's a period where you truly find out who your close friends are and whether or not you are made of steel, as many think to seem bloggers who go up against the likes of GSK, are. Truth is, I'm just like you, I'm human. I feel pain and every single human emotion that others feel. There's some people who go through life seeking revenge, these people just cannot operate without feeling revenge, they spoil the life of others and see it as Karma, when in actual fact it serves only to make them feel better because their current lives are blighted by an inability to move on and let go of the past. Ironically, both individuals have suffered loss so know what it feels like, their goal, it appears, was to inflict that pain upon someone else by colluding together to throw a spanner in the works of something that was quite beautiful.

The whole experience has left me feeling somewhat broken, so both individuals should take a bow at this point - Job done. Ironically they both share the same letter in their first names. They know who they are - I just hope now that they feel a sense of satisfaction and are able to move on with their lives, just as I am trying to do... I digress.

Corresponding with Save the Children has been difficult but it's kept me focused on what needs to be done (in this instance anyhow). Both they and GSK have been working together since 2005 on a number of public health projects, including GSK’s initiative to reinvest 20% of the profits it makes in least-developed-countries back into community programmes to strengthen healthcare infrastructure, primarily through the training of community health workers. Their current partnership, to help save the lives of one million children, builds on this existing partnership and will help them achieve their ambitions for children.

You can see my dilemma here. On one hand I applaud the efforts of Save the Children for taking measures to help children, on the other I feel that partnering with GSK is morally wrong.

In an email to Save the Children I asked if it were GSK who approached them or if it was they who approached GSK.

Here's the reply...

Save the Children and GSK have actually been working together since 2005, which began with a community health and well-being programme called ‘PHASE’ – Personal Hygiene and Sanitation Education. Save the Children approached GSK to explore their potential support for our health programmes . Our global partnership with GSK was further developed and formalised in 2012, when the CEO of Save the Children was invited to speak as part of a GSK leadership conference. The discussions that took place at this event initiated the process to explore a more ambitious partnership between both organisations.

With this admission, I wrote back to Save the Children with the following...

As I am sure you are aware GSK recently pleaded guilty and were fined over $3 billion in the US for promoting drugs to children off-label. One of these drugs, Paxil, which goes by the brand name of Seroxat here in the UK, causes suicidal thinking in children. At the time of the off-label promotion GSK knew of this particular side effect but failed to inform medicine regulators and healthcare professionals. A result of which has saw children and teenagers go on to complete suicide.

My question to Save the Children is one of ethics.

Knowing that GSK promoted a drug that could harm children (and they (GSK) knew of the potential risk but failed to warn), do you (Save the Children) believe that a partnership with GSK is morally correct?

If you believe it is, please state your reasons.

I thought by asking them a direct question would, at the very least, tap in to their conscience, assuming they had one.

Stay tuned for their response.


Footnote


To me, at least, it's about giving children a voice. This vulnerable population, at times, need someone to speak up on their behalf. I'm not, or have I ever, professed to be a martyr. When I see the likes of GSK teaming up with an organisation who have children's best interests at heart it makes my blood boil for two reasons.

1. GSK have an abhorrent history regarding Paxil and children.

2. Save the Children would have already done their homework yet chose the unmoral path.

The picture that accompanies this article reads, "Don't Believe Everything You Think" ~ a valuable parable when trying to make the correct choices in life. I'm at the stage of letting go of believing everything I think, to go down that path is destructive. Save the Children, on the other hand, have evidence that their partners, GSK, were up to no good... yet they still wish to remain partners.

I'll never quite understand relationships.

**For what it's worth, I'm going to continue writing, albeit with my foot off the gas for a while. I need to make changes in my life ~ writing a fictional novel is just the start of that change.

Bob Fiddaman.

Key Expert To Give Evidence Against Zoloft (Birth Defects)

A group action seems to be in full flight against in the United States whereby hundreds of mothers are claiming that Zoloft (sold and marketed by Pfizer) caused birth defects in their children.

Initially U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe of the Eastern District of Pennsylvania barred the testimony of the group's previous expert,Dr. Anick Bérard, citing several problems with her research.

Plaintiffs sought a new expert and Pfizer objected, claiming that plaintiffs had plenty of time to put in place a reliable expert and bringing a new one forward was merely down to Bérard's testimony being dismissed.

Judge Cynthia Rufe ruled in favour of the plaintiffs and they can now move ahead in their case against Pfizer where they allege that Zoloft (Sertraline) caused a number of heart defects in their children.

Pfizer remains confident that there is no reliable scientific evidence demonstrating that Zoloft causes the injuries alleged by the plaintiffs.

Full story here (subscription only)

Bob Fiddaman

ADHD - Market Challenge - Unknown Etiology

A market report carried out by TechNavio analysts predict that the Global ADHD Drugs market will grow at a rate of 5.33 percent over the period 2013-2018.

The 80 page report, if you are financially well off, costs a staggering $2,500 to purchase. The report covers...

The present scenario and the growth prospects of the Global ADHD Drugs market for the period 2014-2018. To calculate the market size, the report considers the revenue generated from the sales of various therapies used in the treatment of ADHD, which include:

Stimulants

Non-stimulants

TechNavio's report, the Global ADHD Drugs Market 2014-2018, has been prepared based on an in-depth market analysis with inputs from industry experts. The report covers the Americas, and the EMEA and APAC regions; it also covers the Global ADHD Drugs market landscape and its growth prospects in the coming years. The report also includes a discussion of the key vendors operating in this market.

Interestingly, one of the main market challenges the report found was...wait for it... are you ready yet?

Unknown Etiology

In other words, those manufacturing the drugs to treat ADHD don't actually know the causes of ADHD.

To combat this (small flaw) the Pharmafia (that's pharmaceutical companies and medicine regulators combined) will use various marketing strategies to say how bad ADHD can be if not treated... and actually skip the fact that they, themselves, do not know the etiology of it.

The report suggests that the Pharmafia must "increase the awareness" so expect a lot of pseudo-science over the coming years folks.

Drugs discussed in the report include Strattera, Concerta/Ritalin, Focalin, Intuniv and Vyvanse/Elvanse/ Venvanse.

The key vendors, according to the report, are Eli Lilly, Janssen, Novartis and Shire.

Between now and 2018 it appears that the goal is to not only target children who have a brain disease but adults too.

A brief abstract of the report reads...

ADHD is a psychiatric disorder, which is mostly found in children. However, adults have also been reported to be diagnosed with ADHD. The patients with ADHD suffer from several problems including hyperactivity, impulsiveness, and lack of focus and concentration. The causes of ADHD are not known. It is believed to be linked with genetic and environmental causes. However, it has been reported to be related with the decrease in the extraneuronal levels of norepinephrine and dopamine. In addition, the patients have an abnormality in the brain structure. It is more prevalent in boys than girls. The management of ADHD is done by counseling, medications, and lifestyle changes.

Notice how the causes of ADHD are played down and followed with the standard Pharmafia scaremongering line... "It is believed to be linked with genetic and environmental causes. However, it has been reported to be related with the decrease in the extraneuronal levels of norepinephrine and dopamine. In addition, the patients have an abnormality in the brain structure."

What you, as a prospective consumer, need to take from this are two key words...

1. Believed
2. Reported

In other words, the Pharmafia "believe" in a theory because it, coincidentally, means they will be able to treat a population based on this theory.

It has been "reported" basically means that the Pharmafia have cherry-picked reports, once again to suit their own agenda (selling drugs)

They did this with SSRi's when they were first launched. Back then we were told that SSRi's such as Prozac and Paxil could correct a chemical imbalance... (the cause of the anxiety and depression we were feeling)

When this theory was proven to be incorrect one would have thought that trading standards would have slammed the Pharmafia for selling products on a lie. However, the Pharmafia still had the luxury of tweaking their wording.

Look at any SSRi on the market today and you will see a key line...

"It is thought"

So, "it is thought" that anxiety and depression are caused by a chemical imbalance. It still gives us the message that they are right and we have something abnormal with us.

And that's exactly how they want it to remain folks.

If you want an alternative treatment for your child then read Psychiatric Medication or Play Therapy?

If you are an adult who has been diagnosed with ADHD and, as a result, you have been offered medication to control it then... well, you are grown up enough to know that the Pharmafia just want your money and want you hooked on their wares.

Some of the side effects of the drugs mentioned in the report are pretty severe - Pharmafia will play those down too.

In a nutshell, before you decide to go down the road of drugging yourself...or your children, do your homework.

Don't believe me? When diagnosed answer your doctor with a two-worded question and watch his face.

The 40 second video perfectly shows this.

Bob Fiddaman.