Elizabeth Kenny, Caught in the System

Every now and again, in life, you stumble across something that is beautiful, sad and, at the same time, profound. Sometimes, you read or hear something that makes you shout out in total agreement, particularly if that something is the very same something that you have been saying for many years.

Elizabeth Kenny - Thank you

Elizabeth Kenny is an actor, writer and activist. She is also someone that could, just possibly, save many from a life time of psychiatric drugs. Her one-woman show, 'Sick', is a true story of misdiagnosis and medication.

At 32, Elizabeth went to see her doctor because she had developed ovarian cysts. 18 months later she was spending time with level 5 patients from the psych ward where she had been admitted to.

'Sick', written by Elizabeth, in collaboration with John Kazanjian, ran for three months and sold out night after night at the  New City Theater in Seattle. There's a trailer for 'Sick' after the first video I wish to show you.

In this first video, Elizabeth talks to an audience about her experience at the hands of a psychiatrist and her subsequent journey and introduction to psychiatric drugs, namely Paxil, Celexa, Zyprexa and Lexapro.

Her delivery will captivate you and many regular readers of this blog will be, like I was, shouting in total agreement at what Elizabeth has to say.

Elizabeth Kenny, I salute you.

And here's the trailer for her one-woman show, 'Sick.'

Elizabeth's website can be found here.

Bob Fiddaman.

GSK Use Delay Tactics on Grieving Widow

Doncha just love this company?

Fined $3 billion for committing fraud in the USA, basically promoting drugs to physicians for uses in patients that should never have been prescribed those drugs in the first place.

Fined $490 million in China for bribing doctors to prescribe drugs to patients that should never have been prescribed those drugs in the first place.

Had lawyers representing them (when there really was no need to) at the inquest of 18 year-old Sara Carlin, who took her own life whilst on Paxil.

Ordered to pay compensation to the family of Lyam Kilker after a jury found that Paxil was the cause of his birth defects.

Ordered to pay compensation to the family of Donald Schell, a 60 year old man, living in Gillette, Wyoming, after a jury had found that Paxil had induced Schell's hypomania to such an extent that he killed his wife Rita, his daughter Deb and baby Alyssa and then turned the gun on himself.

Initially refused to pay Joanne Thomas, a mother from Pennsylvania, any form of compensation after she accused GSK of manufacturing a pill (Paxil) that caused birth defects in her fetus (Ryan) - they later went on to settle (Undisclosed fee) after Joanne's attorneys 'renegotiated' after two stories that broke exclusively on this blog (here and here)

Agree to pay over 800 birth defect cases where Paxil was blamed for causing a multitude of birth defects in babies and fetuses.

Agree to settle with over 3,000 claimants in the US who filed a class action lawsuit claiming that they became addicted to Paxil (source) yet refuse to settle a similar 'class action' case in the UK.

One would think that all of the above would be a major embarrassment for the British pharmaceutical giant and their American attorneys, King & Spalding. Think again.

Stewart Dolin killed himself in 2010 by jumping in front of a train in Chicago. His wife, Wendy, filed suit alleging that Paxil had caused her husband to develop akathisia, a condition that causes psychological agitation.

GSK argued that Dolin was taking the generic version of Paxil marketed and manufactured by Mylan, ergo they were not responsible for the drug inducing suicide. However, a  U.S. District Judge told Mylan that they would not have to face any trial but said Glaxo was responsible for the generic drug's design and warning label and would have to face negligence claims.

Bitter, Glaxo then went on to subpoena Wendy Dolin's cellphone and text message records, her home phone and her late husband's company phone. So far, GSK have sent more than 30 subpoenas and over 70 records requests, and shown the Dolin children their father's confidential therapy notes despite Wendy Dolin's objections. According to Wendy Dolin's motion GSK have also questioned her about romantic life since her husband's death. Quite why they have questioned her about her life after her husband's death is beyond me. It does, however, show how low GSK, and their multi-million dollar law firm that represent them, will stoop to defend yet another Paxil suicide.

If all this wasn't enough, GSK have now, it appears, twisted the knife further into the stomach of Wendy Dolin by attempting to push the trial’s start date into 2016.

Law 360 (Subscription) are reporting that GSK's attorneys, King & Spalding, have told an Illinois federal judge that they don't have time to prepare, this, despite the case being filed over four years ago. King & Spalding are claiming that they are working on two other cases and don't have time to prepare themselves for the Dolin case.

I can't quite get to grips with GSK's apparent disdain for Wendy Dolin nor the lack of respect they are clearly not showing regarding the memory of Stewart Dolin.

I've gone on record many times stating that I do not like GSK or their attorneys, King & Spalding. I do not like the way they operate nor do I like what they each try to suppress regarding items of discovery (You really do need to read the Joanne Thomas articles to see exactly what they try to suppress)

As for GSK trying to blame Mylan, well, that doesn't really surprise me. Mylan sold Paxil under a generic name and Glaxo conveniently forgot to tell them about warning potential patients that Paxil may cause suicide. It's akin to a car salesperson selling you a car and failing to mention that the brakes don't work!

A pretty decent analogy given that earlier this year it was revealed that General Motors Co.'s emails with King & Spalding LLP and other outside counsel show the automaker engaged in a "massive cover-up" to hide its deadly ignition switch defect. (Source)

Wendy Dolin is represented by Michael L. Baum, Bijan Esfandiari, Frances M. Phares and R. Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC and Joshua Weisberg and Lindsey Epstein of Rapoport Law Offices PC.

GSK is represented by Alan S. Gilbert and Melissa A. Economy of Dentons and Andrew T. Bayman, Todd P. Davis and Christopher R. Benson of King & Spalding LLP.

Bob Fiddaman.

Antidepressant Suicide Link in the News Again

First, three short summaries with links to the original sources.



COMPLETED SUICIDE: Andrew Farrow, 48-year-old, of Festival Close, Devizes, UK.

"A report from his GP stated he had been on anti-depressants for two weeks before he died as ongoing difficulties with his paralysis had made him feel depressed and hopeless.

"On the day of this death he requested a hospital stay again but it was decided that it was not required at that time and for treatment to continue at home. He was told that his request would be discussed at case review meeting later that day.

"He agreed to a medication review and a second visit later the same day.

"It was on this second visit that Mr Farrow’s body was found on the evening of July 7. When police entered his flat vodka bottles and tablet packets were found."

Swindon Advertiser - 15 April 2015

--

SUICIDE ATTEMPT: Australian actress, Paula Duncan, 43

"A few days later she began taking antidepressants, and it was during this time Duncan reveals she attempted to take her own life, with daughter Jessica finding her after a suicide attempt."

Daily Mail - 20 April 2015

--

COMPLETED SUICIDE: Jeff Klein, 24, USA

"Jeff wondered if antidepressants might ease the anxiety he felt over quitting his job. A local psychiatrist recklessly prescribed one after a single, 45 minute session, and, eight days after taking his first pill, Jeff told us he was having suicidal thoughts. Two months later, after two additional antidepressants had been prescribed, Jeff was gone.

"A bright and vibrant young man with a loving family, a close circle of friends, and a passion for sports and politics fell prey to job-related situational anxiety. He was then put over the edge by his body's catastrophic chemical reaction to the introduction of an antidepressant. The enormity and unnecessary nature of our loss is beyond description."

The Journal News - April 23, 2015

--

When I read stories like this my immediate reaction is one of two things.

1. The medication induced the suicide attempt
2. No efficacy was shown in the medication.

I'm trying desperately hard to come up with a third point because the first two would suggest that these drugs shouldn't be on the market!


Perversely, when stories like this appear we get more calls for better mental health care - when in actual fact, it could be argued that it was the 'care' that put the above in situations where they attempted or completed suicide.

There's really nothing more to add.

For balance, I'll leave the last word to Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey.

Bob Fiddaman

Psychiatry Taking the Biscuit

I've been itching to blog about this since I first read it earlier today. I thought I'd dip it in some warm tea first, digest it, then indulge myself. Hey, if the pro-antidepressant brigade can take the biscuit then why can't I?

The article, penned by Daily Mail Health correspondent, Jenny Hope, tries to offer balance in as much as we see one psychiatrist, Dr. David Healy, make claims that depression is not caused by low serotonin levels and most drugs used to treat it are based on a myth, while other psychiatrists, quoted in the article, um, basically agree with him yet make outlandish statements regarding the efficacy of antidepressants.

You confused? I certainly was after reading it.

In fact the professionals offered a chance to rebut Dr. Healy's claims, namely Professor Sir Simon Weasly, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Professor David Taylor, Director of Pharmacy and Pathology and Head of Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Academic Group, King’s Health Partners, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, actually make the article more entertaining with their blinkered views without actually offering any scientific evidence. NHS Choices and Dr Paul Keedwell, Consultant Psychiatrist and Specialist in Mood Disorder, also add input.

So, here's the crux of the article. Healy has claimed that the belief that the most popular antidepressant drugs raise serotonin levels in the brain is nothing more than a myth, adding, that they took off because of the idea that SSRIs restored serotonin levels to normal, ‘a notion that later transmuted into the idea that they remedied a chemical imbalance’.

So, all pretty standard stuff and nothing that we (who move in these circles) haven't heard before.

Here's where it gets interesting.

Weasly: "Antidepressants are helpful in depression, together with psychological treatments, is established. How they do this is not."

So, he is saying that, yes, antidepressants work but he, or anyone else for that matter, don't know why or how.

Weasly continues with, "Most researchers have long since moved on from the old serotonin model."

Great stuff Mr. Weasly but it would have been nice if this statement was followed up with an explanation as to what the current model is...if indeed there is one?

Next we have a spokesperson for NHS Choices chip in. They claim, "It would be too simplistic to say that depression and related mental health conditions are caused by low serotonin levels, but a rise in serotonin levels can improve symptoms."

So, NHS Choices are agreeing with Healy then?

I'm not so sure. Here's what they say about bipolar disorder, "Bipolar disorder is widely believed to be the result of chemical imbalances in the brain. The chemicals responsible for controlling the brain's functions are called neurotransmitters and include noradrenaline, serotonin and dopamine. If there is an imbalance in the levels of one or more neurotransmitters, a person may develop some symptoms of bipolar disorder."

Here's what they say about trichotillomania (hair pulling)

"As trichotillomania involves compulsive behaviour, some experts think it's closely related to obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). OCD tends to run in families. It's thought to be caused by both biological and environmental factors, which may lead to a chemical imbalance in the brain. Neurotransmitters are chemicals that send messages from your brain to your nervous system. If something goes wrong with the way neurotransmitters work, it can cause problems, such as compulsive and repetitive behaviours."

Just two examples, both of which are not backed up with any scientific evidence whatsoever. In fact the evidence they run with is the classic line, "...is widely believed to be the result of..."

So, NHS Choices are, it seems, basing their evidence on some sort of faith? Exactly who are those believers and when and where did this belief originate from?

Healy offers the answer, and I concur. "...the misconception that low levels of serotonin were responsible for depression had become established fact." He suggested that the success of so-called SSRI drugs – which include Prozac and Seroxat – was based on the ‘marketing of a myth’.

Next, and somewhat absurdly, we see  David Taylor, Director of Pharmacy and Pathology and Head of Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Academic Group, King’s Health Partners, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, offer his opinion. (Because that's all it is)

"Professor Healy makes a forceful but poorly supported argument against something which doesn't and has never really existed: the idea that SSRIs ‘correct’ an ‘imbalance’ of serotonin in the brain."

What?

So, let me get this straight. For years psychiatrists have been telling patients, adults, children and children's parents, that their depression is caused by a chemical imbalance yet Taylor claims that they haven't?

**Insert canned laughter here**

It's one thing to spin a lie but another to claim that the lie never existed. In any event, who made David Taylor the spokesperson for the whole of the psychiatry profession?

Like Weasly, Taylor follows up his statement with, "Researchers and psychiatrists alike know that SSRIs are effective in a number of disorders but no one is sure exactly how they work."

Guinea pig trials anyone?

If you don't know how a drug works then you won't know if that drug is causing an adverse event or not, right? You can, and more often than not you do, blame it on the condition, which, according to Weasly and Taylor, has nothing to do with a chemical imbalance.

Honestly, it would be easier to do the Rubik's cube behind my back then make heads or tails out of what Weasly and Taylor are saying here.

Finally, we have a sinister warning from Dr Paul Keedwell, Consultant Psychiatrist and Specialist in Mood Disorder.

"In the real world of the clinic, SSRIs are undeniably effective in treating individuals with major depression.

"They have become the first line treatment of choice because they have fewer troublesome side-effects than their predecessors, and are safer in overdose.

"David Healy has previously claimed that SSRIs cause dependence or provoke suicide. In so doing he has risked deterring individuals with severe depression from getting the help they need and this latest article just adds to this problem.

"The risk of suicide from untreated depression is much greater than the risk of treating it with antidepressants, and yes, this includes SSRIs."

So, in essence, Weasly, Taylor and Keedwell, don't know what causes depression but they know it isn't a chemical imbalance. They are all for prescribing SSRi's because, well, because they apparently have fewer side effects than the older types of antidepressants and are safer in overdose (apparently).

Yet neither Weasly, Taylor or, indeed, Keedwell know how SSRi's work. So, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, they are suggesting that you and I take a drug that will alter the thoughts in your brain - they can't tell you how or why these drugs do it though.

Keedwell further criticises Healy for speaking out, claiming that Healy is deterring individuals with severe depression from getting the help they need.

Naughty Irishman - Last time I looked, he wasn't outside any pharmacy pointing a gun at people who were walking out with their pills to alter the chemical imbalance that they haven't got. Remember, we have to believe that the diagnosis of their 'illness' is based on a faith... it is widely believed, but we don't know by whom.

It's all about informed consent and, judging by the reaction of Messrs. Weasly, Taylor and Keedwell, it would seem that the only information they want you to believe is the information that they give you, which basically amounts to having no scientific evidence to back up their claims.

Doncha just love the wonderful world of psychiatry.


Bob Fiddaman.

Pfizer in Denial About Zoloft Birth Defects

So, multi-billion dollar making pharmaceutical company, Pfizer, are in court. They are (as expected) denying the link between their antidepressant drug, their multi-billion selling blockbuster Zoloft (Sertraline) and birth defects.

Are we surprised at their denial or surprised that Zoloft can cause birth defects?

Well, neither really.

So here's the case.

Logyn Pesante, (11) from California, was born with multiple heart defects, the most serious being transposition of the great arteries. In a nutshell, transposition of the great arteries occurs when the two main arteries going out of the heart (the pulmonary artery and the aorta) are switched in position, or “transposed”.Since his birth Logyn has undergone 25 procedures and six operations and has a pacemaker. The brave 11 year-old has also had to undergo three open-heart surgeries to address his multiple defects.

His mother, Kristyn Pesante, took Zoloft during the first trimester of her pregnancy and her attorney, Joseph Zonies of the Colorado law firm Reilly Pozner LLP, is claiming that birth defects and fetal deaths, reported by patients to Pfizer as early as 1991 should have seen Pfizer change its label on Zoloft or, at the very least, communicate these adverse events to physicians.

Pfizer's attorneys, Paul Weiss Rifkind Wharton & Garrison LLP. are arguing that that there is no evidence to prove Zoloft causes birth defects. This, despite the adverse events reported to them by patients and also a study published in the New England Journal of Medicine in 2007 which found that pregnant women taking Zoloft faced double the risk of having a child with a birth defect.

More damning, for Pfizer at least, is a document submitted as evidence by Pesante's attorneys that shows a May 2014 internal report at Pfizer sees them admit that women taking Zoloft (sertraline) had an increased risk of having babies with heart defects. The document, Pfizer claim, has been taken out of context. Pfizer claim that, “Plaintiffs have taken a single statement in one document, summarizing the results of a few studies, out of context.”

Robert Cabera, a doctor at a University of Texas institute, has been called as an expert witness for Pesante and told jurors that his review of research on babies born with medical issues convinced him that Zoloft was clearly “a risk factor for birth defects, especially heart defects.”

I'll leave the last words with Beth Wilkinson, (Pictured) one of the lawyers representing Pfizer.

"None of the mother’s doctors had identified Zoloft as the cause of her son’s birth defects and experts say its impossible to know exactly what causes such problems.

“Sometimes, bad things happen to good people,”

Hmmm.

The case is Pesante v. Pfizer Inc., 1222-CCO-2441, Missouri Circuit Court, 22nd Judicial District (St. Louis).

Sources:

Pfizer Accused of Knowing Zoloft Posed Birth-Defect Risk

St. Louis jury hears nation's first suit claiming Zoloft caused birth defects


Bob Fiddaman.

2 year-old Arianah and GSK's Zofran

What is Zofran?

Zofran (Ondansetron) is the brand name of a drug marketed and manufactured by global pharmaceutical giants GlaxoSmithKline. It is used, primarily, for the prevention of nausea and vomiting following surgery and for cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy or radiation.

Off -Label Uses

It is also used “off-label” as a treatment for morning sickness in pregnant women, although it has never been approved for use in pregnant women.

Who is Arianah?

Arianah Reisen is a 2 year-old girl who was born with two “hole in the heart” defects. Her heart has enlarged to twice its normal size. She is scheduled to undergo open heart surgery next month. Her mother, Kylee Riesen, believes that Arianah’s condition was caused by the anti-nausea drug Zofran that she took during her pregnancy.

Why are GlaxoSmithKline being sued?

It is alleged that GlaxoSmithKline became aware of the Zofran birth defect risk in the 1990's but failed to warn expectant mothers and/or their doctors.

Can an anti-nausea drug really cause heart defects?

GlaxoSmithKline will argue that there is no proof that Zofran can or has caused birth defects but evidence suggests otherwise. They will also deny that they promoted its use "off-label."

Evidence - Zofran heart defects

At a 2013 meeting of the International Society of Pharmcoepidemiology, Jon T. Anderson, a researcher at the Copenhagen University Hospital, reported the results of a study of more than 900,000 births in Denmark. The report highlighted that women who took Zofran during the first trimester had a two- to four-fold increased risk of cardiac septal defects.

A 2013 study funded by the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, found that Zofran increased the risk of cleft palate by nearly two-and-a-half times.

A 2014 Swedish study, published in Reproductive Toxicology, found a more than 60% increase in risk of cardiovascular defects and a two-fold (double) increased risk of cardiac septal defects.

Evidence of GlaxoSmithKline promoting drugs for "off-label" use

"GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs." (Source)

One of those prescription drugs was Zofran. In short, GSK:

• marketed Zofran as a safe and effective treatment for morning sickness, despite the fact that it had not been approved for use in pregnant women.
• produced marketing materials that contained unsubstantiated or false claims of Zofran’s safety as a treatment for morning sickness.
• paid physicians kickbacks to prescribe Zofran to pregnant women suffering from morning sickness.

Why did GlaxoSmithKline conceal this information from doctors and patients?

Anyone want to hazard a guess?


Fiddy Rant

I've been blogging about GlaxoSmithKline since 2006. I even wrote a book about them (The evidence, however, is clear, the Seroxat scandal). During my time writing about them they have threatened to sue me for defamation (or libel - I can't remember what terminology their British lawyers used) They failed in that attempt to suppress my opinion.

I have a passion for justice, especially where it involves children, infants and fetuses harmed or killed by drugs manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. I strongly believe that GlaxoSmithKline are in the business of putting profit ahead of patient care, be that with antidepressant drugs they market and manufacture, (Paxil, Wellbutrin) or be that with their diabetes drug, Avandia or, as is in this case, an anti-nausea drug, Zofran, they market and manufacture.

I don't like GlaxoSmithKline, particularly their CEO, Andrew Witty. I don't like their American lawyers that defend them in cases, nor do I like their British lawyers who defend them in litigation in the UK. It has occurred to me during the past 9 years or so of writing this blog that it takes a person with a blackened heart to defend a company that is corrupt to the core (That's my opinion and it's not aimed at any particular law firm who defend GSK)

Ideally, I would love to see executives of GlaxoSmithKline behind bars for the crimes that they have committed. It's the executives who make the decisions that are fed down to the managers, who in turn feed that information to the GSK reps. This is normally the crux of any litigation brought against GSK. Their executives deny promoting the use of unsafe, untested drugs, the managers deny, the reps deny. Evidence used in these types of cases will show that they are lying...this is the evidence that the Judge, 9 times out of 10, seals away from the public. It's a real beef of mine.

I am aware that litigation is all about reaching settlements between both parties, I just wish Judges involved in these types of cases would allow the evidence to go public once these cases have been settled. It's almost like they (Judges) offer GSK some sort of consolation prize when they are forced to settle cases.

This one is for Glaxo and lawyers representing them. I hope the images of Arianah Reisen play havoc with your sleep patterns... although I doubt very much that any human suffering conjures up any form of emotion in you. Zofran has made GSK an obscene amount of money. Meantime, children, such as two year-old Arianah Reisen, have to go through life by laying down on operating tables having their hearts worked on by heart specialists - all because GSK wanted to make a profit. It's utterly shameful and it warrants a form of justice, not just compensatory payment, it warrants jail time for all of those involved in the suppression of Zofran causing harm to babies. That, however, is down to the man, or woman, who holds the gavel.

Rant over. Here's two year-old Arianah Reisen.







For more information on the birth defects caused by Zofran and to see if you, or someone you know, has a potential claim, visit the Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC Zofran page, HERE.

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC are the good guys. They've won many cases against GSK in the past and genuinely have their client's interest at heart (Pardon the pun)


Bob Fiddaman.

Is This The World That We Created?

       An article in the Wall Street Journal from Feb this year was recently brought to my attention. The article in question reports on how psychiatric drugs are now being given to infants and toddlers in unprecedented numbers.

       The article refers to an analysis of 2013 IMS Data. (the world’s leading health information and analytics company) The WSJ writes...

"An analysis of 2013 IMS Data, found that over 274,000 infants (0-1 year olds) and some 370,000 toddlers (1-3 years age) in the U.S. were on anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs. This report also found over 1,400 infants were on ADHD drugs."

       I find this report quite alarming given that the majority of these class of drugs have never been proven to work in these age groups. More alarming, for me at least, is the fact that parents are allowing their children to take these mind altering drugs. Okay, look, I understand how difficult it can be if your child is acting up or crying all the time, I'm a father of three myself so I kinda know the score. But I cannot for the life of me think why any parent would allow these dangerous and addictive mind altering drugs to be taken by these little vulnerable people.

       Let just look at the paragraph again.

       "274,000 infants (0-1 year-olds) were on anti-anxiety and antidepressant drugs."

       Now imagine London's iconic Wembley Stadium being filled three times by 0-1 year-olds. The photo below really shows you the scope of this problem. Put a 0-1 year-old on each of the red seats, give them each a diagnosis (a guess at what's wrong with them) them - treat them with powerful drugs purely based on that guess. Remove the 0-1 year-olds from each of the seats then fill the stadium again with other 0-1 year-olds - same process - have a man in a white coat diagnose them (guessing what is wrong with them) allow the same man in white coat to prescribe them mind-altering drugs. Repeat the process a third time.

The modern world

       Now, here's the hypocrisy of it all. If we substituted the 0-1 year-olds for psychiatrists and we put a giant screen in the middle of the pitch with a slide show of a bunch of symptoms, the psychiatrists would diagnose and offer not only different illnesses but they would treat with different drugs too.

       It's not science, it's purely profit driven and pimped by these idiotic bufoons in white coats who think they know how the brain works, when in actual fact they just don't have a clue.

       "No conferring please, just write down what you believe the patient has then write down, once again with no conferring, how you would treat that illness."

       Oh, by the way, here's what they mean when they say 0-1 year old's

Estimated age - between 0 - 1 years old

       Who in their right mind would prescribe drugs to such a bundle of joy as the one above? Moreover, what parent, of sound mind, would agree to such lunacy?

       What are medicine regulators doing about this? Well, in a nutshell, nothing. They claim that there are warnings on the drugs that state that they are not recommended for children - maybe so, but the word 'recommended' means jack-shit, even if you stick the word 'not' in front of it.

       Will we see top executives of pharmaceutical companies speaking out about this lunacy? Of course not - these same executives have, in the past, devised clever marketing schemes to target this very same age-group.

       So, what can be done? Do we just shrug our shoulders and do nothing and continue to post photographs of fluffy bunnies on Facebook or do we actually reach out to help these kids?

       It's pretty shameful that so many kids are being diagnosed and treated with this vast cocktail of mind-bending addictive medications. It's pretty shameful that parents could neglect their own flesh and blood in such a manner and that the adults who look after the health and safety of consumers who take these drugs (FDA, MHRA, TGA etc) sit back and do nothing.

       As for the pharmaceutical executives who have, in the past, told their reps to promote these drugs to this vulnerable age group, fucking shame on you.

       Shame on us all for standing back and getting on with our own lives when these kids are targeted by the maniacs in white coats.

       Here's the full WSJ article

Bob Fiddaman.