The Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) were co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and psychiatrist Thomas Szasz. Yikes, there's that word, 'psychiatrist'.
I jest.
For many years now (Over 40 in fact) the CCHR have been relentless in their campaigning to protect children (and adults) from the harms of unsafe psychiatric medications. They, just like me, have been labelled as just being a front for the Church of Scientology - this, ladies and gentlemen, is a myth, it's also a line of defence used by people, including healthcare "professionals" who cannot defend the use, or indeed safety of psychiatric medications. They are 'whacko's', 'nutjobs' and 'conspiracy theorists' are just some of the labels that have been used against the CCHR. In fact, I've been accused of being a 'smeary conspiracy theorist' and, indeed, a 'scientologist', of which I am neither.
CCHR recognise the 'normal' man or woman on the street, they also acknowledge these very same people. They don't wish to cover themselves in garlands for fighting, they do, however, applaud the work of others.
There seems to be a reluctance by the minority to praise the work of CCHR, I honestly don't know if this is due to being blind or ignorant of the facts - or maybe people just don't wish to be labelled by having their names mentioned alongside these 21st century warriors who have been kicking ass for almost 50 years now. That, by anyone's standards, is deserved of acknowledgement.
Each year the CCHR hand out awards to those who have been fighting alone in the war (because that's what it is) against the use of psychiatric medication, the incararation of patients in institutions and the use of electro compulsive therapy (ECT) to treat apparent mental disorders - I say apparent because, to date, none of these 'disorders' can be proven by modern science to treat the various forms of depressive illnesses churned out (almost on a yearly basis) by the field of psychiatry.
The work they have done, and continue to do, is quite staggering and yet the minority still try to align their fight to some sort of crusade to get people wrapped up in the whole Scientology thing.
I've known of their existence since 2011. In 2006 I created this blog and basically fought my corner and then the corners of others after I became aware that my own experience with the antidepressant, Seroxat (Paxil) paled into insignificance compared to those who had died as a result of taking these particular types of medications (SSRIs)
I've met many of the members of CCHR and have remained good friends with them over the years, be they American, Canadian or British - They are just 'normal' people with an undying passion, one of humanitarian values - one that we should all acknowledge and, maybe, learn from.
Adults, teenagers, children and infants are dying - not as a result of a 'chemical imbalance' causing an 'illness' - they are dying as a result of a drug causing a chemical imbalance - one that tips them over the edge and makes them do things they wouldn't normally do. This isn't science fiction folks, it's science-fact.
We owe a great deal to the CCHR because they have been banging the drum loudly for nigh of 50 years - they've been labelled and ridiculed for showing compassion and love for their fellow humans. Their mission was, and still is, simple - they don't wish to see any more needless deaths to these types of drugs and they lambast (rightly so) those that push these medications and treatments.
The video below is one of the most powerful I've seen, particularly if you watch it through to the end - the message really hits home. It features a mother, Celeste Steubing, who lost her son to antidepressant induced suicide. Celeste pretty much sums up how most parents (who have lost their children to antidepressant induced suicide) wish to speak out and warn others about these powerful class of drugs. The first time I saw this video I cried buckets, it's beautifully crafted and drives the message home that we, the public, are being duped. The video is, of course, from the phenomenal team of the CCHR. (Click on 'Full Screen' to embrace the message - to feel it and then to do something about it) - It's inspirational, just as the parent who features in it, just as those (CCHR) who created it. (Just take a look at all those children, folks!)
If it wasn't for the CCHR we'd all be battling our corners alone, of that I am certain.
CCHR - I salute you and will continuing holding that salute forever more.
For Jan, Marla and Brian - I shall live forever in your debt. I will embrace the love and humanity that you have embraced for all these years - you are all my heroes.
Bob Fiddaman. **For the record, I have no faith in religion. I do, however, beleive that I'm embroiled in this war because it would just be too hard to walk away, shrug my shoulders and do nothing.**
2016 was a busy year for this blog - a total of 109 posts.
This post is about some of those blogs of mine. I will start from January 2016 through to December. I will pick my fav posts, not neccesarily the most popular.
Let's take a look back...
January 2016 Is Contraceptive Pill, Rigevidon, Safe?
How the MHRA, despite having reports of Rigevidon causing fatal blood clots, continue to claim in the national media that it is safe.
April 2016 10 Years of Blogging - Q&A With Neil Carlin
On April 6 my blog was 10 years old. Quite apt, then, that I publish a Q&A with Neil Carlin. His daughter, Sara, put my blog on the map when I had, some years previous, wrote about her Paxil induced suicide.
May 2016
The month of May was taken up with a series of posts entitled "The Homicide Files" and centred around previously unseen documents obtained by Andrew Thibault under the Freedom of Information Act. All are equally jaw-dropping.
Ricky Williams, according to Wikipedia, is a retired American football running back who played twelve seasons in the National Football League (NFL) and one season in the Canadian Football League (CFL).
Back then he was famous and used to be paid by GlaxoSmithKline to promote Paxil. I reached out to him on Twitter, surprisingly he replied. This is the outcome of those exchanges with me. July 2016 Sierre Bus Crash Revisited
More on the Paxil induced homicide of 28 passengers, 22 of them were children.
August 2016 Glaxo's Beef With David Healy Part II
My coverage of the Dolin v GSK (Paxil suicide) trial has been extensive. This particular post of mine shows how GSK chose to target one of Dolin's expert witnesses, David Healy.
September 2016 EXCLUSIVE: Dr Ian Hudson: In Defence of the Suicide Pill
Ian Hudson is the current CEO for the Britih drug regulatory agency, the MHRA. Before joining the MHRA he was head of World Safety for GSK (Then SmithKline Beecham) - The video deposition by Hudson in this blog post had been elusive for many years, however, I manged to obtain a copy - it's mind-blowing.
November 2016 Prozac - Benefits Vs Risks - MHRA Correspondence
The MHRA claim they have found one apparent benefit for Prozac, this, according to the MHRA, is one of the reasons why they granted it a licence - they seemingly dismiss all the side effects reported. December 2016 The Mechanics of the MHRA
More evasiveness from the MHRA. They have promised to answer my next series of questions within 20 working days of this particular blog post.
2017
I'm travelling by land, air and sea - I shall be in the company of a pint-sized beauty.
Happy New Year folks!
This one goes out to GSK and their attorneys. Interpret it as you wish.
GlaxoSmithKline - The company that keeps on giving.
Glaxo have been dealth yet another blow in the Paxil suicide case filed by Wendy Dolin over 5 years ago.
To date Glaxo have made endless requests that have been denied by the Judge, they have tried to get expert witnesses barred from giving evidence and even wanted to hold their own kangaroo court for one of Dolin's witnesses, David Healy - once again they were denied.
Their latest attempt is, or was, a wonderful attempt at skullduggery. It defies belief that they would try to even go down this particular route but, I guess, they have exhausted every possible line of trickery and manipulation so one final attempt before trial commences shouldn't really come as a surprise to those who know exactly how Glaxo and their highly paid law team, King & Spalding, like to operate.
Some time ago Glaxo were informed by the Judge that they should not try to blind the jury in this case with irrelevant documents. The jury just need to know the facts and endless documents would just confuse them. So, what did Glaxo do on the back of this request from the Judge? Well, they submitted a 170 page exhibit list with roughly 1,500 proposed defense trial exhibits - so, no attempt at burying the jury in paper, right? (See Judge Backs Widow's Objection To GSK Trial Documents)
The documents are hundreds of pages long and, according to Dolin, if printed out would fill more than 20 bankers’boxes.
Wendy Dolin, through her law team, Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC, objected to the mountain of paperwork and the Judge, U.S. District Judge William T. Hart, has sustained her objections, leaving Glaxo and King & Spalding with their tails between their legs and having to spend Christmas with the knowledge that they cannot dupe the Judge or jury in this case.
Better luck next time folks (I'm sure there will be another Paxil related suicide case to defend)
Furthermore, GSK objected to evidence being presented to the jury by Dolin, namely, correspondence between Glaxo and the FDA. The Judge denied them this and many other objections they had filed regarding Dolin's evidence to be presented - (Boo-hoo)
The antics of Glaxo and their crispy white shirts has prompted yet another ditty from yours truly. I hope Glaxo and King & Spalding enjoy this latest offering.
Just a quick one - I will be writing more about this in the future.
A petition is now online regarding the British drug regulatory agency, the MHRA.
In a nutshell, those who have created the petition, want to see the financial ties the MHRA have with the pharmaceutical industry to end.
I could think of a lot more to add but it will have to wait for a future post.
Meantime, here is the head of the MHRA, Dr Ian Hudson, being depositioned by attorneys. It came at a time when Hudson was Head of World Safety for SmithKline Beecham, better known today as GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)
In the video you will see how Hudson completely dismisses and evades the questioning regarding the propensity of Paxil (known as Seroxat in the UK) to cause suicide.
During the time the deposition was taken, it is alleged that company officials at SKB already knew about the Paxil suicide link.
For more information, including news that this petition has the backing of Leah Wood (Daughter of Rolling Stones, Ronnie Wood) please visit the very active Facebook Group - Reform The MHRA.
Steph Gatchell is a name I stumbled upon by accident. She was being interviewed by Shelley Jofre for a documentary regarding GlaxoSmithKline's infamous antidepressant, Seroxat (known as Paxil in the US)
At the age of 16 Steph's daughter, Sharise, was having problems dealing with what most girls her age deal with - her periods, in as much that they hadn't started yet. She was also sweating excessively. Steph took her to see a consultant whereupon he prescribed Sharise Seroxat.
Within days of starting Seroxat Steph noticed a change in Sharise, She became more confident, yet with the confidence came aggression. Sometime later Steph learned that Sharise had begun self-harming. Seroxat was stopped and the self-harming stopped.
In 2003, unbeknown to Steph, Sharise had gone back to see her Dr where once again she was prescribed Seroxat. A short time later, Steph had returned from a holiday and found Sharise hanging from the loft hatch of the family home..
At this time there were no warnings about prescribing Seroxat to teenagers and adolescents. This, despite the manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, knowing for many years that Seroxat can induce suicide.
Two weeks after the death of Sharise, the Britih drug regulator, The MHRA, released information to Dr's and the public that Seroxat should not be recommended to adolescents and children. It is believed that the MHRA had also known about the Seroxat/Suicide link for a considerable amount of time and had they have released this information sooner then Sharise would probably still be alive today.
I've never met Stephany but we have corresponded many times.
Steph is part of my 10 year journey with regard to my writing of this blog.
Sharise is too.
The story of Sharise is also in my book, 'The evidence, however, is clear, the Seroxat scandal'.
Bob Fiddaman.
Here's Steph's Q&A.
Sharise
Name: Stephanie Gatchell Location: Ireland
Q: Steph, this may be a difficult question, so forgive me if it's painful for you. What is your fondest memory of Sharise?
A: My fondest memory of Sharise is not a particular event or something...it's the memory of her gentle, serene soul...her beautiful, delicate hands. Perhaps because I'm reminded of that, every time I look at my grand daughter's little hands.
Q: What do you say to people who believe that antidepressants are safe and effective?
A: I get very frustrated and impatient with people who still believe those lies.Then I remember that, I was once the same. It never occurred to me to do research either until it was too late. I'd say, STOP trusting blindly, or you'll live to regret it! Question EVERYTHING! The entire alopathic system of treating symptoms and not looking for the root cause is flawed, and will never ever makes any sense or heal anyone. There is a very cruel and sobering process of natural selection in progress...You don't stay vigilant, you'll learn the hard way! Q: What advice would you give to Coroners faced with suspected suicides of teenagers?
A: .I'd ask Coroners to be honest... to be brave..to network with others of your profession country wide? To share notes and raise awareness on a large scale for more impact.
Q: Have you ever considered writing a book about your journey?
A: .I did once yes. When I was trying to make sense of everything, trying to comprehend what had happened. I felt like I was going insane. I did write notes on paper randomly whenever I felt the need. It provided some relief. I still have those notes in a suitcase, with everything else. It's one I don't open ever...deliberately. I'm too much of a coward. Why poke myself in the open wound in my heart that is barely scarred over...why? Do you ever see me post personal things on Facebook? You won't. It's just not me. I wish I was different. Q: Have you at any point corresponded with Seroxat manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, with regard to Sharises' Seroxat induced suicide or have they ever apologised for the role Seroxat played in Sharises' induced suicide? Also, have the British drug regulator, the MHRA ever apologised to you regarding the amount of time it took them to issues warnings about Seroxat induced suicides in children and adolescents?
A: .No, I haven't. I've always known that they would never ever admit anything for fear of being sued. So I never expected an apology at all, ever.
The MHRA never apologised either, and I was there in their office with Janice. (Seroxat User Group Founder)
Q: If you could ask GSK's Andrew Witty three questions what would they be?
A: 1. Explain to me, how one accepts a knighthood, whilst knowing very well that the company you run is corrupt to the core? Kills thousands and harms countless people and children? How?
2. I assume you have children of your own? How then could you allow and do what you did?
3. I'm trying to make sense of your mind...are you psychopathic or a sociopath?
Q: If you could ask the MHRA's Ian Hudson three questions what would they be?
A: Mr. Hudson, anyone who has a sincere interest in protecting the public (and his own extended family) would realise that what is absolutely crucial is the removal of Big Pharma's funding to the MHRA. It should be entirely funded by the government. Why have you done to change this corrupt system? Or is that fat pay cheque just too important?
Q: You have met many fellow advocates on your journey, many of whom who have suffered personal tragedies with regard to antidepressant induced death. How has this helped you and do you still keep in contact with this network of fellow advocates?
A: Ooh..words can't express how much talking to other parents have helped me. Especially in the early days. I'll always be in contact will all of them.
Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years’ time?
A: .In 10 years time, I hope to be still here. In this dimension protecting my grand children, for heavens alone know what they'll have to face then. I failed to protect my own gentle child..please let me not fail again.
Q: Finally Steph, some personal questions... 1. What book are you currently reading?
A: At the moment I'm not reading any book. I'm spending all my free time obsessively watching videos on YouTube. In particular Dr. R.E. Tent's. I find his work fascinating and educational. Ignorance isn't bliss. It's death. 2. What was the last CD you listened to (in full)?
A: That would be Queen. Sharise liked Queen. The only band from my era that seemed to appeal to her. She said she liked them because they seemed to have so much fun.
3. What is the best movie you have seen this year?
A: .It's weird but I can't recall any movie that really impressed or lingered recently. That may be because we take the kids to the cinema most of the time.We prefer documentaries on TV.
4. What country would you most like to visit?
A: The Maldives. The sight of crystal clear turquoise water does something to my soul.
5. If you had the choice of being either a defense or prosecution lawyer, which would you choose and why?
A: A defense lawyer. I'd never take a case I didn't believe in.To help, and protect.
Video shows Glaxo and MHRA Spokespersons playing down the suicide link in Seroxat in adolescents and children. The investigation mentioned in the clip below finished after 5 years. Glaxo were not fined nor were any criminal proceedings brought against them.
Continuing with the Q&A's from people that have played a role in my life for the past ten years or so that I've been writing this blog... Intelligence: the ability to acquire and apply knowledge and skills.
Matthew (Matt) Holford is an unsung hero, of mine at least. Much of Matt's interaction with the British drug regulator, the MHRA, is legendary. It stemmed from a visit to his Dr and being prescribed Prozac - it wasn't for him so he decided to write to the regulator because he had some pertinent questions that he needed answers to.
Matt's blog, 'It's Quite An Experience', features much of his correspondence with the MHRA and although Matt doesn't blog any more it's well worth the read, if only to see how Matt rattled the MHRA so much that they labelled him 'vexatious' - ie; they believed Matt was causing or tending to cause annoyance, frustration, or worry.
It was one simple question that they could not, and still cannot, answer - What are the benefits of Prozac? - a question that they have since answered (for me) that it "can" improve symptoms of depression by raising the level of the neurotransmitter, serotonin, in the brain. ((Notice their use of the word 'can')
It's laughable when you see that Matt was just trying to get answers to straight forward questions regarding the safety and efficacy of a product that the MHRA had granted a licence to.
I miss Matt, his wit, wisdom and use of colourful language both on his blog and in his correspondence with the MHRA was refreshing. For too long the MHRA were defending their corner and people (patients) were accepting what they had to say. Matt, along with the inimitable Charles Medawar (Social Audit) changed all of that.
For this reason alone, we should all feel indebted to Matt Holford - his exchanges with the British drug regulator highlighted just how incompetent they were and, to some, still are.
Holford, to me at least, is a legend.
Bob Fiddaman.
--
Full Name: Matthew Holford Age: 49 Location: Peterborough
Q: Tell me about your experience with SSRIs
A: My direct experience is limited... I had cause to visit my GP and asked him to prescribe something for anxiety/depression. I don't know why, because I knew what the issue was, and I knew that no chemical could deal with it. I took two or three, came to my senses, and binned the rest.
However, my indirect experience is well-documented (not least, on your blog!). My encounters with the MHRA, and my "reading around the subject" have enabled me to see the bigger picture, as it were.
Q: Do you believe that people who are depressed have a disease of the brain?
A: No. Depression is a phenomenon caused by what might be described as a "double bind"... conflicting or contradictory signals, which are electrical, rather than chemical. We've all experienced this phenomenon, whereby we are placed in a situation where we are required to act other than in accordance with our best interests - the bully's ultimatum of "give me your dinner money, or I'll hit you," is an obvious example. On the one hand we don't wish to be hit or give over our cash, and on the other we have the ideal scenario of keeping our cash and not getting hit, but the bully's options are the only ones being offered us. Resolve one of those contradictory signals, and the depression is lifted - most people hand over their cash, even though that is not a long term solution.
Q; Your interaction with the British Medicines Regulator is legendary, Matt. For the benefit of the readers, can you tell me why you, a; first started corresponding with them and b; why you ceased communications with them?
A: Yow, that's a challenge! I think this is how it panned out: I was prescribed fluoxetine (generic Prozac), and I wanted to find out how it was that the MHRA thought that this stuff worked. So, I asked a bunch of questions, which led me inexorably towards their approval process (benefit/risk analysis, and all that). Along the way, I came across any number of horror stories - the Panorama documentary, Keller, personal experiences by patients such as yourself - but I was determined to make my own mind up, which the MHRA did for me, with its evasion, stonewalling and superior attitude. Nobody who is acting in bone fide acts in that way.
And that's how it ended: I refused to go round in circles as they continued to tell me that SSRIs had "benefited millions of people around the world," without offering any evidence to support that claim, and without acknowledging that their claim was not true for me, personally.
Q: Who, in your opinion, should be held responsible when someone dies as an adverse reaction to a prescription drug?
A: Everybody! Everybody knows that it's a lie - at least everybody who's taken these things and either a) had no beneficial reaction; or b) had an adverse reaction AND fails to make this experience public - and I'm not talking about making a crappy AER. It must also be true that the manufacturers and the regulators know. In short, nobody who has ever come into contact with these things can claim to come to the table with clean hands.
Q: Would you like to see the MHRA disbanded, if so, who or what would you put in their place?
A: The MHRA is not fit for purpose - that much is clear. The problem is that in order to regulate, one must understand what it is that one is regulating, or else the industry would run rings around you. That's a double bind, right there! Because the only people who know how the thing works are the industry, which is why the MHRA is well-staffed with people who have worked in the industry, and will probably work there, again.
In answer to your question: one needs people who know how things operate on a detailed level, but who have absolutely no connection with the industry, thereby avoiding the need to do the bidding of the industry that one anticipates will re-employ one. Good luck finding these people!
Q: Would you recommend writing a blog or public diary to people who had suffered severed antidepressant withdrawal events?
A: Absolutely. The level of support out there is truly impressive... Ad hoc support networks have developed on the internet in a way that no public health service can ever hope to emulate. Quite apart from that, as I discovered, there is a therapeutic benefit to be derived from setting one's thoughts down in writing - one clarifies one's position, and begins to move on.
Q: What do you say to people who believe that antidepressants are safe and effective?
A: Have you ever taken them?
Q: If you could ask GSK's Andrew Witty three questions what would they be?
A: I'm not sure I'd want to sully myself, to be honest, but here goes... If you discovered that it had miraculously slipped your attention that one of your Company's drugs was a fraud, what would you do about it? When will GSK appoint a compliance professional to the role of CEO, as opposed to somebody who has a background in marketing? Given that you claim that your products are excellent, why do you find it necessary to pay Key Opinion Leaders to endorse them?
Q: If you could ask the MHRA's Ian Hudson three questions what would they be?
A: Now, here, I'm absolutely sure that I wouldn't sully myself!
Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years time?
A: Still trying to read minds!
Q: Finally, Matt,, some personal questions...
1. What book are you currently reading?
A: Some GCSE textbook, to assist my daughter's study - I haven't read for recreation in years! 2. What was the last CD you listened to (in full)?
A: Probably Damien Rice's "My Favourite Faded Fantasy".
3. What is the best movie you have seen this year?
A: Miss Peregrine's School for Peculiar Children was quite jolly! Seeing Samuel L Jackson going into contortions, when he clearly wanted to call everybody motherfuckers, was a treat!
4. What country would you most like to visit?
A: Madagascar.
5. If you had the choice of being either a defence or prosecution lawyer, which would you choose and why?
A: I don't think I'd want to do either job - there would always be instances where one simply didn't believe what one's client was saying, and that would be tough, for me.
Back in April this year my blog reached a milestone. It was the ten year anniversary of when I first launched this blog and as part of its 10 year birthday I decided to run a series of Q&A's with fellow advocates and people who have been part of my 10 year journey. Previous Q&A's can be seen at the foot of Kristina's (Pictured above) Q&A session.
I first became aware of Kristina after I had read the history surrounding her daughter, Natalie, whom at the age of 19 took her life, shortly after her dosage of Zoloft was increased over the telephone by her prescribing physician. Kristina has wrote a two part series for David Healy's blog, RxISK. Kristina's two accounts of her daughter were beautifully written, so much so that it prompted me to leave a message in the comment section of RxISK commending her on her excellent writing skills. (Natalie's Story can be read here & here.)
Some months later I opened my email and saw a message in my inbox from Kristina. I knew straight away who she was as her two accounts about Natalie's prescribed death had penciled her name into my subconscious. I am a fan of writers, those who have the ability to paint pictures with words. Kristina has this ability. This prompted me to ask Kristina to write a guest post for my blog, a post which has attracted over 3,000 views to date and one which has been 'liked' and shared on Facebook hundreds of times. See - Guest Post: Let's Bring Akathisia Out of the Darkness.
Today sees the birthday of her daughter, Natalie, she would have been 23. I feel it's fitting to publish Kristina's Q&A today, much of which will astound you if you are unfamiliar with the background of Natalie's treatment by apparent health care 'professionals'.
Pay particular attention to Kristina's explanation of the state of Virginia's negligence laws - I must admit, these laws are absurd given the number of deaths by prescription drugs throughout America these days.
Also, you HAVE to see Kristina's outstanding delivery to members of an FDA Advisory Panel, a delivery that left FDA employees stunned into complete and utter silence - link to the footage is within Kristina's answers below.
We shall be meeting in person soon and both heading off to Chicago for a showdown with a major pharmaceutical company. We're also going to be sharing stories over a pint or two in her hometown of Virginia, hopefully not in a jazz bar though. More on that in a future post.
Anyway, here's Kristina's Q&A. Bob Fiddaman.
--
Full Name: Kristina Kaiser Gehrki Age: 51 Location: Fairfax, Virginia
Natalie
Q: Kristina, Natalie would have been 23 today (Dec 8, 2016), this may be a difficult question, so forgive me if it's painful for you. What is your fondest memory of Natalie?
A: There are so many fond memories it is difficult to choose just one. Natalie was a petite girl with a super-sized laugh and witty sense of humor. Overall, my fondest memory is simply hearing the beautiful sound of my daughter's laughter. It is something I dearly miss.
Natalie often used humor to spotlight the cruel ironies of the world. My fondest specific memory is a letter to the editor she wrote our local paper, the Washington Post. Natalie was sixteen at that time, and the U.S. planned to execute a man whose IQ was so low he was legally “mentally retarded.” Natalie shared her death penalty views and pointed out the absurdity of killing a person who was “mentally retarded.” She said the execution clearly reflected the lowest IQ’s— that of the politicians who made this decision.
I still have her letter and reading it encourages me as I advocate for fully Informed Consent. Informed Consent is a fundamental human right. Consumers have a right to know what they are consuming, whether it’s a genetically-modified tomato or a Black Box drug that can cause violent death. Fully Informed Consent should be provided by prescribing doctors and by pharmacies. It is critical and something we, unfortunately, never received.
Q: What do you say to people who believe that antidepressants are safe and effective?
A: I have several family members who work in the health care field. I am not anti-drug, I am simply pro-information. The fact is “antidepressant” drugs are neither safe nor effective for children. This has, belatedly, been reported in scholarly journals and by some of the few remaining independent journalists. My daughter was prescribed SSRI drugs (Prozac and Zoloft) not for depression but for what the doctor labeled “OCD-like symptoms.” Natalie didn’t receive a specific diagnosis; she was assigned a rather ambiguous billable code that enables doctors to collect insurance money. We asked for a specific diagnosis many times and our questions were often met with excuses. The intense anxiety (Akathisia), confusion, memory loss, change of gait, nausea, etc., Natalie experienced after consuming the products were not presenting symptoms: They were adverse drug reactions.
I’ve learned a lot about unethical pharmaceutical marketing tactics and FDA failures since my daughter’s death. Unfortunately, like many parents who unwittingly gave their children dangerous, ineffective drugs, I learned too many facts far too late, despite that I asked all the right questions I knew to ask. Ironically, my academic and professional background is in communication and marketing. Before Natalie’s death, I presented conference workshops regarding how to communicate crisis and risk. I share this information only to stress that if this tragedy can happen to us, it can happen to anyone. And when I say “tragedy” I am not speaking only of Natalie’s akathisia-induced death. Rather, Natalie was poisoned for many years. Even when she stopped taking the drugs, many of the adverse drug side effects were still present. We simply didn’t recognize then what was happening nor why.
It is difficult if not impossible to recognize signs of adverse drug reactions when consumers are intentionally left in the dark. Several internal memos from Eli Lily (Prozac), Pfizer (Zoloft) and GlaxoSmithKline (Paxil) show these companies knew their respective products were dangerous and no more effective than a sugar pill. The FDA also appears to have known about these risks long before my daughter was ever conceived and before the Black Box warning. Natalie was first prescribed Prozac prior to the Black Box warning. The FDA warning came out while she was taking the drug, but the doctor never informed us. Years later when she was prescribed Zoloft, the doctor assured us "Zoloft is a different drug than Prozac.” This doctor communicated nothing at all about the existence of a Black Box warning. The pharmacy never communicated it. While I believe Black Box warnings have saved lives, I also have spoken to many parents who stated their doctors actively discounted the Black Box warning, claiming the warning is overblown and unnecessary. One doctor dismissed it by telling the parent, whose son later died an SSRI-induced death, “Don’t worry. The FDA puts that label on everything.”
Q: What advice would you give to Coroners faced with suspected suicides of teenagers?
A: It seems many coroners don’t speak for the dead. Too often they seem to protect fellow doctors and the pharmaceutical companies by failing to recognize and/or report adverse drug reactions associated with polypharmacy and metabolism. My daughter died a horrifically violent death one day after first taking 200 mg. of Zoloft, a dose prescribed over the phone, by a doctor who never physically saw Natalie. The doctor never informed me that she had directed such an increase.
After Natalie died, I asked the coroner for blood samples because I wanted my daughter's blood tested for metabolism. The coroner rather casually declared she might not have enough of my child’s blood left after she was done conducting the state’s tests. The state of Virginia would not test for metabolism when I requested it. I was able to obtain a small sample of Natalie's blood which was sent to an independent lab. The results showed Natalie was not a very effective metabolizer of SSRI drugs.
Q: What advice would you give to parents whose children/teenagers are on antidepressant medication?
A: I’ve previously stated it seems our society has gone from one in which “Mother knows best” to “Mother knows nothing.” I believe “modern medicine,” the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industries and government regulators have helped create this paradigm shift. My first advice to mothers is, "Don't be intimidated and coerced. Take back your motherly instinct and parental power. Recognize that it is you who knows your child best. Follow your gut instinct."
My second piece of advice is do not believe the “chemical imbalance” theory, and that so-called “antidepressant” drugs are a safe and effective treatment for children. I now have to live the rest of my days missing my child and feeling profound guilt for having believed such fallacies.
My third piece of advice to parents is to reflect on your child’s presenting symptoms vs. your child’s current symptoms. It is sometimes easy to forget what your child was like before the drugging began, particularly when these adverse drug reactions create more desperation to help your child. Doctors, many of whom are also duped, may convince parents that they are doing a great job parenting because they are actively “treating” their child. My daughter’s personality changed dramatically after consuming these drugs. They robbed Natalie of her soul, her spirit and, in the end, took her very life. It was a slow, painful death.
Lastly, I'd like to encourage parents not to buy into the medicalization of anxiety, sadness and worries. Try safer, more effective ways to reduce such feeling such as exercise, diet, art therapy, etc.
Q: You are in the process of writing a book, can you, without giving too much away, tell me a little bit about the whole process of book writing, and in particular, the difficulties you face as a parent who has lost a child.
A: The book has some similarities to the Diary of Anne Frank, considering it is Natalie, herself, speaking from the dead. She was an intelligent, prolific writer who kept a diary of sorts. You can see some of Natalie's writing in the documentary “Letters From GenerationRx.” She documented many adverse drug reactions without ever knowing she was experiencing and documenting them. She believed what the doctors repeatedly declared: that her physical and mental suffering was a sign of a disease and not signs of drug toxicity. Drug-induced psychosis and akathisia causes extreme anxiety and fear. I’m amazed Natalie did as well as she did for as long as she did considering that, as her side effects worsened, doctors routinely increased the offending drug.
The book is quite difficult for me to write and compile because it requires a careful review of Natalie’s medical records and diaries. These records clearly highlight signs of drug toxicity, yet the doctors repeatedly failed to recognize this reality. I should also add that the psychiatrist responsible for the ultimately fatal 200 mg of Zoloft did not provide us with Natalie’s complete medical records. This psychiatrist stalled, giving us only a few records at a time. Finally, the doctor called and left a voice mail message—a message I still have. She claims an “office flood” destroyed Natalie’s remaining medical records.
Q: You and I have briefly discussed the state of Virginia negligence laws. For the benefit of the readers, can you explain in laypersons terms how difficult it is for residents of Virginia to file suit for negligence?
A: This is an unbelievable injustice and one I learned about only after Natalie's death. Virginia is one of only three states in the U.S. that has an archaic law called contributory negligence. It requires a jury to find the defendant 100% responsible for the outcome or the victim gets nothing. In cases such as Natalie’s it means we must prove her death was 100% the result of the doctor’s negligence and/or the product manufacturer. Given that the general public does not want to believe the truth surrounding SSRI-induced “suicide,” it is extremely difficult to meet the Virginia requirements and also challenging to find attorneys who will take these cases. If I were a doctor, I’d choose to practice medicine in Virginia. And I do mean “practice” in the true sense of the word…
For more information about the contributory negligence law, see: Link.
Q: Would you recommend blogging to parents, or anyone for that matter, who had lost someone dear to them through antidepressant-induced suicide?
A: Bob, I don’t know enough about this to answer here.
Q: Back in September you kindly wrote a guest post for my blog, entitled, 'Let's Bring Akathisia Out of the Darkness.' The post featured a letter you wrote to Christine Moutier, Chief Medical Officer of the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) - Can you tell me what feedback, if any, you have had from the letter you sent them?
A: The American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP) takes a lot of money from the pharmaceutical companies, and their board of directors contains several people with direct ties to the pharmaceutical industry. These incestuous relationships remind me of the FDA’s revolving-door employment agency. AFSP has never responded to my letter in which I requested they help increase akathisia awareness and reduce drug-induced “suicides.” I put the word “suicide” in quotes because I don’t believe people who die from prescription-drug induced self-harm while suffering from SSRI-induced akathisia have died by their own hand, so to speak. These deaths are sometimes labeled ego-dystonic suicides or suicide beyond one’s will. I simply call it prescripticide.
Q: Have you ever had any correspondence with either Eli Lilly (Prozac) or Pfizer (Zoloft)?
A: No. I learned that Eli Lilly was largely responsible for starting the whole “antidepressant” industry scam by intentionally skewing the real data in their Prozac clinical trials. I consider Eli Lilly my daughter’s first killer. Pfizer comes in next as killer number two as their internal documents show Pfizer knew their product, Zoloft, caused akathisia and suicidality among healthy volunteers in their clinical trials. Glaxo Smith Klein was so impressed by the “Lilly Protocol” deceit that helped gain Prozac FDA approval they then recruited the same employee to conduct similar trials for Paxil. Natalie never was prescribed Paxil, but it is interesting to note how the pharmaceutical industry shares their top talent.
Drug company fraud and corruption—all designed to put profits before people—ought to be made into a Hollywood movie. People might not believe such evil is real. But my daughter went off in a coffin instead of off to college. Her violent death is our reality forever more.
Q: You have met many fellow advocates on your journey, many of whom who have suffered personal tragedies with regard to antidepressant induced death. How has this helped you and do you still keep in contact with this network of fellow advocates?
A: Shortly after Natalie died, I started googling “Zoloft causes suicide” and similar searches. I quickly found stories of many families, such as Woody Witzack, Stewart Dolin and Candace Downing, families whose loved ones also died SSRI-induced deaths. Mathy Downing, who lost her twelve-year-old daughter after Zoloft, told me “Ours is a sad club to belong to, but you will meet a lot of wonderful, caring people.” She was right. I’ve met many wonderful people similarly dedicated to helping others avoid our tragedies. I very much appreciate these fellow advocates and friends.
Q: I was recently privy to witness a speech/statement to you gave to members of an FDA Panel. Can you tell me what that was about and, for the benefit of the readers who never saw this, could you tell me what you said to those panel members? (Footage of Kristina's delivery to the FDA after her answer)
A: I attended the FDA’s recent hearing on “Manufacturer Communications Regarding Unapproved Uses of Approved or Cleared Medical Products.” I had no plans to speak and wasn’t on the speakers’ list. However, after listening to hours of pharmaceutical industry propaganda and industry-funded shills, to include the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill, I felt upset and nauseous. Many of the so-called “patient advocates” were sent to the hearing by the pharmaceutical companies and their funded organizations. Few people can afford to travel to the Washington Metro area and speak up for their loved ones who were harmed or killed. I was glad I did.
I arrived with no prepared speech and simply spoke from my heart. Perhaps I could have been a bit more cordial and succinct, but, really, who can expect parents to be pleasantly deferential when speaking to the government body whose actions and inactions caused the torture and death of their child?
Q: Where do you see yourself in 10 years’ time?
A: Like other people whose loved ones have been harmed and/or killed, I will continue advocating to help prevent this from happening to other families. Losing a child, or any family member, to avoidable death, is terribly painful. However, the best thing we can do to honor our loved ones is to cherish their memory, create happy moments and live our lives with meaningful purpose. Ten years down the road, I will still be advocating, but, hopefully living in a sunny place surrounded by lush greenery and a little garden.
Q: Finally Kristina, some personal questions... 1. What book are you currently reading?
A: Ah, this is a difficult question. I have a large stack of books I want to read, some for pleasure and others for research related to my own book. None of the research related books are happy reads, but the authors--Robert Whitaker, David Healy, and Peter Breggin--are all excellent writers.
2. What was the last CD you listened to (in full)?
A: Vienna Teng’s Waking Hour. She is a talented musician with a beautiful voice. Natalie loved Vienna Teng. Shortly before she died, she downloaded the song “Lullaby for a Stormy Night.” Natalie was suffering from Zoloft-induced psychosis, complained of violent nightmares and insomnia. I doubt she was able to truly understand she was going to die. Akathisia is so overwhelming; perhaps Natalie just wanted to go to sleep. Hence, the lullaby.
3. What is the best movie you have seen this year?
A: The Edge of Seventeen with Woody Harrelson. It’s an entertaining comedy about the awkward challenges of the teenage years. Given that I taught high school marketing for many years, the movie resonated with me. It was realistic and made me laugh. Laughter is a very important part of my life.
4. What country would you most like to visit?
A: While I’ve traveled a lot, I would like to see Ukraine. Given that my grandparents were Ukrainian, I grew up eating Ukrainian food and have fond memories of my grandfather playing the accordion and dancing the polka.
5. If you had the choice of being either a defense or prosecution lawyer, which would you choose and why?
A: I would aim to be proficient at both, but would prefer defense. It seems the U.S. system is increasingly stacking the deck against the “common person” and not just regarding pharmaceutical fraud. Unfortunately, the U.S. imprisons more people at a higher rate than any country. Every person should have the right to adequate legal representation. The notion of the right to a fair trial, along with “anyone can grow up to be president,” are two quaint, Disney-like notions that are U.S. fallacies.
So, another response from the British medicines regulator, the MHRA, regarding the benefit vs risk ratio of the antidepressant, Prozac.
It's been painstaking trying to get to the logic behind some of their responses, in fact, it's been suggested that some of their responses to me regarding this issue have been 'obtuse'. It is, however, important that I try to keep this line of communication open with them, if only, to have their responses made public via this blog.
Regular readers will recall that I have been scratching my head regarding the MHRA's stance that one apparent benefit of taking Prozac outweighs the number of adverse events reported by Prozac users or their treating physicians - a list of which can be seen, ironically via the MHRA's own web page, here.
As suspected, the MHRA are now telling me that the list of adverse events reported for Prozac should not be "interpreted as a list of possible side effects to a medicine," furthermore, they add, "It is important to note that causality has not been proven in these reports."
Here is their full response to me - it may help if you read the previous correspondence between myself and the MHRA regarding Prozac's benefit vs risk in order - 1, 2, 3.
So, here's their latest - my response to this follows... Dear Mr Fiddaman
Many thanks for your email of 25 November 2016.
Most medicinal products that contain one active substance exert their effect through one mechanism of action, in this case through raising the level of serotonin in the brain (which can improve symptoms of depression). In addition, most medicinal products have a range of possible side effects. It should be noted that the frequency of such side effects are considered when evaluating the benefit/risk profile of a product to determine whether it should be granted a marketing authorisation. The frequency of these side effects are also monitored after a marketing authorisation is granted to ensure that the benefit/risk profile of a product is still positive.
The Drug Analysis Print (DAP) for fluoxetine represents a listing of all suspected adverse drug reactions or side effects that have been reported to the MHRA via the Yellow Card Scheme. This includes all reports received from healthcare professionals, members of the public, and pharmaceutical companies. It is important to note that causality has not been proven in these reports; reporters are asked to submit a Yellow Card report even if they only have a suspicion that the medicine may have caused the adverse drug reaction. For this reason it is very important that the information within a DAP is not interpreted as a list of possible side effects to a medicine. The data shown in our DAPs can be very useful in helping to identify possible medicine safety issues. However, this information does not present a complete overview of the potential side effects associated with specific medicines. Conclusions on the safety and risks of medicines cannot be made on the data shown in the DAP alone. Patients should instead refer to the Patient Information Leaflet for the most complete and up to date information on possible side effects.
Best regards
The FOI Licensing Team --
My response...
Please find my following up questions in bold font below.
(MHRA's statements are in italics.)
Most medicinal products that contain one active substance exert their effect through one mechanism of action, in this case through raising the level of serotonin in the brain (which can improve symptoms of depression).
1. Is this a definitive answer, ie; Are you saying that you (the MHRA) have clinical and scientific evidence that, in this instance, Prozac improves depression by raising the level of serotonin in the brain? If so, could you please forward me the scientific literature that clearly shows this to be true. If this is just a 'common belief' could you please state, for the record, that the evidence of Prozac improving depression by raising the level of serotonin in the brain is inconclusive.
In addition, most medicinal products have a range of possible side effects. It should be noted that the frequency of such side effects are considered when evaluating the benefit/risk profile of a product to determine whether it should be granted a marketing authorisation.
2. Is this based on the clinical trials that last between 8 and 12 weeks?
The frequency of these side effects are also monitored after a marketing authorisation is granted to ensure that the benefit/risk profile of a product is still positive.
3. Monitored by whom? Can you please explain the system of monitoring - ie; does monitoring include reading 'anecdotal reports of adverse events ' on Prozac forums?
The Drug Analysis Print (DAP) for fluoxetine represents a listing of all suspected adverse drug reactions or side effects that have been reported to the MHRA via the Yellow Card Scheme. This includes all reports received from healthcare professionals, members of the public, and pharmaceutical companies. It is important to note that causality has not been proven in these reports.
4. Out of all the adverse events reported for Prozac via the Yellow Card System, how many have been found to show that Prozac was the causality and how many have been shown that Prozac was not the causality?
...reporters are asked to submit a Yellow Card report even if they only have a suspicion that the medicine may have caused the adverse drug reaction. For this reason it is very important that the information within a DAP is not interpreted as a list of possible side effects to a medicine.
5. How do you, the MHRA determine whether or not the adverse events reported via the Yellow Card System are caused by Prozac?
The data shown in our DAPs can be very useful in helping to identify possible medicine safety issues. However, this information does not present a complete overview of the potential side effects associated with specific medicines.
6. Thus far, you, the MHRA have given me just one benefit of Prozac, namely that it "can" improve symptoms of depression by raising the level of the neurotransmitter, serotonin, in the brain. When you suggest that it "can" are you saying that sometimes it can't? Please clarify what you, the MHRA, mean when you claim that it "can" improve symptoms of depression.
Conclusions on the safety and risks of medicines cannot be made on the data shown in the DAP alone. Patients should instead refer to the Patient Information Leaflet for the most complete and up to date information on possible side effects.
7. If a doctor, or patient, for that matter, files an adverse event via the Yellow Card System do you, the MHRA write back to them if you determine that Prozac was the causation? Do you, the MHRA, at any point, visit the reporter to try and gain more information - if so, in the past 12 months, how many times has the MHRA visited a reporter of an adverse event regarding Prozac?
