Generic Paxil Suicide Lawsuit


Citizens Commission on Human Rights Award Recipient (Twice)
Humanist, humorist

Tuesday, October 09, 2018

Is GSK's Horlicks a Medicine, Asks Judge



I'm strong to the finish, 'cause I eats me Spinach

Following on from an earlier post of mine that the British and American media don't seem to be interested in, sees GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) lawyers in Bangladesh argue that GSK do not need permission to sell Horlicks in Bangladesh. Further, it sees the judge ask GSK if Horlicks, a malt drink marketed and manufactured by GSK, is a medicine, given the claims on the product label.

New Age Bangladesh is reporting that, on hearing both arguments, the judge asked GSK's legal team, "Is it a drug? Do you have drug administration’s permission?"

Several claims have been made on GSK's Horlicks, including that the consumption of it can "make you grow three times faster."


Glaxo Chairman and General Manager Failed to Show for Court Hearing

This from the New Age...

Prosecutor Kamrul Hasan said that on its label Horlicks contains words like ‘taller’, ‘stronger’ and ‘sharper’ next to the brand name, which may give rise to the idea among consumers that they needed to rely on the product for gaining the qualities. 
Kamrul said that the label further confirmed that their claim was proven ‘clinically’.
‘I challenge defence lawyer to prove its claim before the court,’ said Kamrul.
The label of Horlicks Classic Malt, Kamrul said, discusses about Horlicks drinkers showing five signs of healthy growth— ‘bone circumference’, ‘strong muscle’, ‘heightened concentration’, ‘healthy blood’ and ‘gaining weight rightly’. 
The label also listed numerous health benefits of drinking Horlicks, including the strengthening of bones and muscle, development of the brain, improving metabolism and ‘blood health’ necessary for a strong immune system. 
Kamrul said that the label even claimed that children might not get the necessary nutrition from regular food and their nutrition demand could be met by drinking Horlicks daily. 
Arrest warrants have been issued for GSK's chairman, M Azizul Haque, its General Manager, Prashanta Pandey and Azim Uddin Ahmed, chairman of Mutual Food Products Limited, the company responsible for processing and packaging of Horlicks in Bangladesh.

Haque and Pandey failed to show for the court appearance whilst Ahmed was present during the hearing and later granted bail.

It seems as though the longer a product stays on the market, the more manufacturers can make outlandish claims, as long as they add the words "clinically proven" next to the claim. GSK also claims Horlick's is 'clinically proven' to improve attention and concentration. Begs the question why they don't market it as an ADHD drug!

How on earth did we get from this...


...to this...

('clinically proven' to improve attention and concentration')

Nothing to do with the Beecham Group (now GSK) acquiring Horlicks in 1969, huh?

If one thing, it shows us how the power of marketing has improved over the years, even though it's all based around exaggeration as depicted in the popular Popeye cartoons of yesteryear. Glaxo has taken the Popeye cartoon and basically added to it a whole bunch of claims that they maintain are 'clinically proven.' I'm with the prosecutor on this one, "I challenge defence lawyer to prove its claim before the court."

Next thing we know, GSK will be claiming that their Lucozade sports drinks are better than water...Oh, hang on a minute, they already made that false claim (Source)

Or maybe that Ribena really is full of vitamin C, yup, they got busted for that too, by two pesky schoolgirls! (Source)

They may even claim that their popular antidepressant, Seroxat, also known as Paxil, is non-habit-forming - Oops (Source)


Bob Fiddaman

Back Story

Bangladesh: GSK Chairman & General Manager Could Face 7 Years in Prison







Monday, October 01, 2018

Breaking... Antidepressants cause Majority Withdrawal Symptoms





It's not often I write two blog posts in one day but as I hit the 'publish' button on my last post the following dropped into my Twitter feed.  - " a major new study suggests millions of patients are experiencing drug withdrawal. (LINK)

I just have this to say, for now:

SHAME on all those healthcare professionals, including GPs, NHS staff and psychiatrists, both on the NHS and Independent, who have, for years played down the severe withdrawal effects of antidepressants. Tonight, I hope you all sit down and read the study thoroughly. I hope every single one of you who have told your patients "It's the illness and not the drug" go on to social media websites tomorrow and apologize to all those you have ignored or dismissed over the years, I hope you can do this without spouting any irrelevant nonsense that "antidepressants benefit millions of people and they are life-saving."

You all need to apologize for being part of this wanton ignorance, you need to apologize for some of the abhorrent behaviours I have witnessed on Twitter this past week or so too.

I started this blog 12 years ago because I suffered severe withdrawal effects of the antidepressant Seroxat, known elsewhere as Paxil and Aropax.

12 long years of banging the drum only to be ridiculed online by medical 'professionals' - I've been labelled a 'smeary conspiracy theorist', a racist, a misogynist, a paedophile, and, more recently, a far-right Scientologist, all in efforts to silence me, all in efforts to stop people reading my work.

Other bloggers, most notably 'Truthman' have been doing the same - he too has been labelled by so-called medical professionals.

Shame on you, shame on you all.

The question now is - What are you going to do about it?

The Royal College of Psychiatrists President, Wendy Burn, has promised a meeting in November this year, although when asked to provide a list of those attending the meeting she has failed to respond. One tweeter summed this up with...


The new study found that over the past 20 years, "56 per cent of all patients on antidepressants suffer withdrawal symptoms, of which 46 per cent said their symptoms were severe."

Study researchers also found, "that it’s ‘not uncommon for patients to experience symptoms for several weeks, months or longer’, with some having debilitating symptoms for years."

One would expect me to be joyous about this new study. I'm not. For many years now patients who have struggled and continue to suffer because of long-term use of antidepressants, have been sneered at, ridiculed.

I am, in fact, very angry that it's taken this long to show healthcare professionals that they have been wrong for many years - they should have known they were wrong when faced with patients self-harming, showing signs of aggression, showing signs of memory loss - instead they chose to increase the dose or add another brain pellet to the mix.

Shame on you all, you uncaring, sociopathic bastards!

Bob Fiddaman.


Bangladesh: GSK Chairman & General Manager Could Face 7 Years in Prison



(Left) M Azizul Haque GlaxoSmithKline Chairman. (Right) Prakash (Prashant) Pandey GlaxoSmithKline General Manager

"For increasing sales, the accused adopted a host of heinous tactics."


It never rains but it pours.

Incidentally, I love rain.

None of the British media has picked up on this, or indeed any other country apart from Bangladesh.

The New Age of Bangladesh, a leading English language daily newspaper, is reporting that an arrest warrant against, M Azizul Haque, who is the chairman, and Prakash (Prashant) Pandey, who is the general manager of GlaxoSmithKline Bangladesh, has been issued for cheating consumers through deceptive advertisements of Horlicks.

Kamrul Hasan, who heads the Department of Inspection for Factories and Establishments in Bangladesh said, "For increasing sales, the accused adopted a host of heinous tactics."

GSK and heinous tactics, surely not?

This from the New Age:


Horlicks Classic Malt
On the label of Horlicks Classic Malt, Kamrul said, five signs of healthy growth are talked about — ‘bone circumference’, ‘strong muscle’, ‘heightened concentration’, ‘healthy blood’ and ‘gaining weight rightly’ — which are confusing and misleading.
The label also listed numerous health benefits of drinking Horlicks, including the strengthening of bones and muscle, development of the brain, improving metabolism and ‘blood health’ necessary for a strong immune system.
Kamrul said that the label even claimed that children might not get the necessary nutrition from regular food and their nutrition demand could be met by drinking Horlicks daily.
‘This is not medicine and a food item cannot ensure so many health benefits alone,’ observed Kamrul.


 Mother’s Horlicks

Staggeringly, on the label of Mother's Horlicks GlaxoSmithKline claimed, "it helps the baby grow in the mother’s womb."

GSK didn't just add these outlandish claims to the labels, Kamrul said, "GSK was seen making similar claims in adverts meant for television consumers and Facebook users."

This from the New Age:
GSK was cheating people by bringing to market a variety of Horlicks products, targeting different groups of consumers like women, children and mothers.
The verified Facebook page of Horlicks Bangladesh show mothers continuously interacting with its updates, mostly being similar advertisements, sharing their desire to feed Horlicks to their kids, often aged about three.
A warrant for the arrest of Azim Uddin Ahmed, chairman of Mutual Food Products Limited, the company responsible for processing and packaging of Horlicks in Bangladesh, was also issued.

If the allegations are proved, the accused will face seven years’ imprisonment or heavy fines, or both.

Here's an example of the misleading ad Glaxo have broadcast across Bangladesh.



A spokesperson for GSK said, "We have not received any notice on the mentioned issue from Bangladesh Food Safety Authority; hence are unable to comment on it now."

Bob Fiddaman


Tuesday, September 25, 2018

Spin Doctor or Bullying Victim?






David Baldwin Alleges Harassment

Spin Doctor

a person (such as a political aide) responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view.

Extra, extra, read all about it!

Today's headlines in The Times and Daily Mail were designed to attract attention. Their headlines suggest their articles are about a government advisor being bullied online. Like many headlines, I believe these two are misleading.

The Times runs with, "Drugs adviser David Baldwin quits after being branded ‘worse than Hitler’ in online abuse row." The Daily Mail uses, "Government drugs advisor QUITS after sustained campaign of abuse that saw him branded 'worse than Hitler' over his stance on antidepressants."

It's important to note that both newspapers omitted the word "alleged."

They have stated Baldwin's claims as fact.

Baldwin's Hitler claim caught my attention as I was once threatened by GSK's attorneys when I wrote these exact words regarding a GSK employee back in 2008. Today I was struck by Baldwin's claim because 1.Baldwin quoted a phrase from 2008 that was identical to the one I said about a former GSK employee and 2. There is no evidence that anyone on social media or any blogger has said this about Baldwin.** (Update at foot of post)

Baldwin, who is no stranger to controversy, claimed pressure from bloggers and social media forced him to resign from the Prescribed Drug Dependence and Withdrawal Panel for the forthcoming Public Health England review. Baldwin would have represented the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

One would think Baldwin had a stronger backbone given his profession freely assigns labels to all and sundry. What's good for the goose, huh? I, and other advocates are often labelled "conspiracy theorists" and "pill-shamers" for speaking out about drug safety and efficacy. Apparently, we must have stronger backbones given we don't throw hissy-fits and quit.

What's worse, having your behaviour elicit the label "pharma-whore" or being subjectively labelled "mentally ill"? The first label suggests one takes money from drug companies to peddle their products, the second emphatically declares is not of sound mind. I know which label I find more offensive.

However, the alleged name calling isn't really the issue here. Baldwin's bullying claim is a sneaky tactic used by Baldwin and RCP to deflect attention from the real issue: Taking drug money while promoting the drugs. Undoubtedly, if Baldwin had been brave enough to sit on the panel he would defend these products to infinity.

Smoke & Fire

Did Baldwin really quit because he didn't like the names he was being labelled? In the field of public relations, false reasons are often given when a person resigns or quits. Perhaps, Baldwin quit because where there's smoke there's fire. It's bad enough his pockets are lined with unethical drug money. It's possible further enquiries would uncover more conflict of interest.

Bullying Those Who Suffer

Earlier this year, Baldwin and RCP President, Wendy Burn gaslighted all who have suffered adverse drug effects from the pills they promote as "antidepressants." They said, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment." (Fig 1)



(Fig 1)

Baldwin now claims this statement is supported by the National Institution of Clinical Excellence (NICE). It would be interesting to learn just how many patients NICE see on a daily basis.

To quiet the critics of this joint statement, Burn has somewhat retreated. She now claims in her "clinical experience" she has not seen problems with discontinuing drugs marketed as antidepressants. Burn states via Twitter she treats and prescribes these drugs to patients over the age of 60. She has received drug company money in the past but doesn't take it anymore. In a conversation with blogger, The Truthman, she told him, "I stopped taking money because I saw how it looked…" It's a pity she couldn't have relayed this to Baldwin.

The keywords in the above statement are "vast majority." Most people who suffer adverse drug effects don't appreciate having their prescribed harm diminished by doctors. Both Burn and Baldwin have had plenty of time to retract their statement and apologize. For whatever reason, they choose not to.

Super sleuth and podcaster James Moore queried the Times comment as it didn't tally with RCP's own study carried out and published on their own website. In that study, RCP learned that 63% of people suffered from antidepressant withdrawal. Once Burn was contacted by Moore, RCP removed the study from their website claiming, "It was out of date." However, due to the marvels of the Internet, the results of RCPs own study can be seen here.

Pharma-Whore

It is unknown when the term 'Pharma-Whore' was first introduced. It's been used many times to describe someone who takes money from drug companies and then promotes drug company products. Sometimes this promotion is through prescribing and sometimes it is through biased research and spin doctoring.

Why Baldwin feels his salary isn't enough for him to live on is beyond me. He is responsible for his unethical conflict.

In a 2003 article in The Guardian, Baldwin declared a personal interest in Lundbeck. The company makes the"antidepressant" called Citalopram, also known as Celexa in the US. Baldwin has also participated in advisory boards for SmithKline Beecham (Seroxat, Wellbutrin), and Eli Lilly (Prozac).

The Truthman wrote an interesting blog on Baldwin entitled, "Professor David Baldwin’s Lovefest With The Pharmaceutical Industry. Truthman said Baldwin was "instrumental in the promotion of Seroxat in the late 90’s." In 1998 Baldwin stated, "it (Seroxat) was one of the safest drugs ever made." Professor David Baldwin was also the lead coordinator of the European trial on paroxetine (Seroxat) for “social anxiety disorder.”

The Bloody Aftermath

Baldwin and Burn would have been wise to apologize and retract their joint statement. People are dying violent, bloody deaths that are due to drug withdrawal. This is not my opinion, violence against oneself and others is often precipitated by akathisia. There are four types of akathisia to include withdrawal.

After their joint comment in The Times, a formal complaint, headed by Dr John Read, a psychologist and mental health researcher, was lodged to the RCP. The complaint was dismissed by RCP without a full investigation and with no right of appeal. A new complaint was then sent to the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. It informed that “the Royal College of Psychiatrists is currently operating outside the ethical, professional and scientific standards expected of a body representing medical professionals.” It's presently unknown if the Secretary of State replied.

The spin-doctoring from Baldwin is regrettable when you consider human lives hang in the balance.


Bob Fiddaman

** The 2018 'worse than Hitler' claim reportedly came from a comment left on a blog post. (Not this blog, I hasten to add)

Back Stories







Other "Conspiracy theorists" and "Pill-shamers" discussing David Baldwin can be viewed at the following links.

GSK Licence to [Kill]

Hole Ousia

Mad In America

Mad in the UK












Sunday, September 16, 2018

No Action to be Taken Against GSK for Hiding Suicide Data





Earlier this month I posted previously unseen documents that clearly showed how GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) hid 9 suicide attempts from the results of a 1993 clinical trial posted on their website. See - GSK Study ID - 29060/356 - The Missing Suicide Attempts

The documents were sent to me by 'Kathy', who is the moderator of the Facebook page,  Australian Antidepressants Class Action & Awareness and an administrator for the Australians For Safe Medicines Facebook page.

After publishing my findings, Kathy wrote to the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA) and asked if they would be taking action against GSK for failing to report the 9 suicide attempts in the Aropax clinical trials, known as GSK Study #356.

The TGA's response is staggering, to say the least.

Dear Kathy

Thank you for emailing the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA). I acknowledge your concerns about the GSK clinical trial (A double-blind, multicentre study to compare paroxetine and fluoxetine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder with regard to antidepressant efficacy, effects on associated anxiety and tolerability) that was conducted in 1993-1994.  However, the TGA is unable to comment about the clinical trial as it was completed twenty four years ago.

As has been explained to you previously, the TGA’s safety monitoring is based on rigorous pre-market assessment and then the post-market signal investigation area of the TGA monitors the safety of medicines, to contribute to a better understanding of their possible adverse effects when they are used outside the controlled conditions of clinical trials.

Thank you for your interest in medicine safety.

Regards

Bernadette Barton
Assistant Director
Adverse Event and Medicine Defect
Pharmacovigilance and Special Access Branch

--

On the 'About TGA' section of their website, they state: "TGA's approach to therapeutic product vigilance is to continually monitor and evaluate the safety and efficacy (performance) profile of therapeutic products and to manage any risks associated with individual products.

Just to be clear, the results of GSK Study #356 failed to mention 9 suicide attempts, moreover, they failed to say which group these 9 suicide attempts pertained to. Study #356 had two active drugs, namely paroxetine and fluoxetine, both of which are selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). There was no placebo group in the study.

As a regulator who claims to "manage any risks associated with individual products" I am utterly gobsmacked by their response above.

Surely a regulator should be asking GSK why they failed to include these 9 suicide attempts. Surely they should be telling GSK to publish the correct statistics and not a watered down version of what actually occurred during the study.

In essence, the TGA is saying, we don't care if the public doesn't know how many suicide attempts occurred in either the paroxetine or fluoxetine group. We don't care that GSK failed to report that the percentage of suicide attempts was a staggering 11.11%. We don't wish to manage these risks, even though we claim on our website that we do. We don't care the public isn't armed with this information when visiting their doctor or psychiatrist. We don't think 9 suicide attempts in a clinical trial is important.

I find the last line of the email kind of ironic: "Thank you for your interest in medicine safety."

Are they taking the piss?

Bob Fiddaman





Tuesday, September 04, 2018

GSK Study ID - 29060/356 - The Missing Suicide Attempts




Fluoxetine - AKA Prozac
Paroxetine - AKA Aropax, Seroxat, Paxil

Study ID - 29060/356
A double-blind, multicentre study to compare paroxetine and fluoxetine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder with regard to antidepressant efficacy, effects on associated anxiety and tolerability.


Snapshot was taken 3rd September 2018

Study ID - 29060/356/_1
Extension phase for a double-blind, multicentre study to compare paroxetine and fluoxetine in the treatment of patients with major depressive disorder with regard to antidepressant efficacy, effects on associated anxiety and tolerability.

Both studies appear on the GSK Study Register website, the second study is a continuation (extension) of the first.

As you can see, both studies were double-blind, which means neither the patient or investigator knew what drug they were taking/prescribing. After the trials have been completed, GSK can break the code and find out on which drug the adverse events occurred. In this case, one suicide in the paroxetine group and one in the fluoxetine group; no suicide attempts in the paroxetine group, and; two in the fluoxetine group, one of which was a completed suicide. In both groups, there was one suicide each, both were women.

According to recently obtained documents from the Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA), the #356 trial reported 7 suicide attempts* (2 of which were completed suicides). However, there is no mention of the 5 attempted suicides on the GSK Study Register website, at least not for paroxetine. They do, however, cite two suicide attempts for patients taking fluoxetine during the trial, one of which was a completed suicide.

*Further, more documents show that there were in fact 9 suicide attempts in Study #356, however, there is no mention of this on the GSK Study Register website.

Masking the suicide attempts
GSK report that there were 6 subjects with non-fatal serious adverse events (SAEs) in the paroxetine group and 10 in the fluoxetine group. A total of five (2 paroxetine, 3 fluoxetine) are in the Drug Abuse (Overdose) category.

Drug overdoses
Could these be deemed as attempted suicides or were the overdoses unintentional? If, indeed, they were attempts at ending one's own life, then why is it not reported as such? Well, according to recently obtained documents, no suicide attempts were made by overdose.

Therapeutic Goods Administration (TGA)
Who are the TGA?

The TGA  is Australia's regulatory authority for therapeutic goods. They carry out a range of assessment and monitoring activities to ensure therapeutic goods available in Australia are of an acceptable standard. They are the American equivalent of the FDA and British equivalent of the MHRA.

The Previously Unseen Documents for Study ID - 29060/356
These were obtained under the Freedom of Information Act and forwarded to me by 'Kathy' who runs the Australian Antidepressants Class Action & Awareness Facebook page. Kathy copied me in on a lot of the correspondence between herself and the TGA. The process of obtaining the following documents took a considerable amount of time; I'd estimate the best part of a year. Kathy's tenacity and doggedness paid off.

After initially requesting payment for the documents, the TGA apparently had a change of heart and released many documents pertaining to Study #356, most of which make for very interesting reading. Before I publish them, it's important you understand the reasons why there are many redactions (black-outs) in the documents. According to the Australian Freedom of Information Act 1982, there are a number of exemptions where certain information may be redacted. They include: protecting patient privacy; irrelevant material; documents disclosing trade secrets or commercially valuable information and; documents subject to legal professional privilege.

Human Research Ethics Committees (Australia)
It may be unethical for a researcher to continue a trial if:

(a) there are or have been substantial deviations from the trial
protocol;
(b) side effects of unexpected type, severity, or frequency are
encountered

National Statement on Ethical Conduct in Research Involving Humans

You'll hear more about the Human Research Ethics Committees (HREC) in the documents below.

First off, the two suicides...

32-year-old female 
Causality: "Possible"
Outcome: Death, maybe drug



46-year-old female
Causality: "Possible"
Outcome: Death, maybe drug




Attempted Suicides

According to the study posted on the GSK website, there were only two suicide attempts, both of which occurred in the fluoxetine group. One of these was fatal. However, the documents obtained from the TGA say something quite different. There is a contradiction as to exactly how many suicides attempts occurred. Firstly, according to a Paroxetine Clinical Study Meeting, Dr Sykes claimed there were 9 reported suicide attempts, two of which were completed suicides.

The study meeting, according to the document, was held on Friday the 26th of November, 1993



However, 4 months prior to Dr Sykes' claims, GSK, then SmithKline Beecham, sent a letter to all investigators involved in the trial. They stated, "...we have now received reports of 7 suicide attempts (including two deaths) for the 356 study comparing paroxetine to fluoxetine."

The letter, below, goes on to state how confident they are that, "the number of suicide attempts in this study is within that expected as a consequence of the depressive illness per se."

In other words, it wasn't the drug, it was the illness.



In between these two letters, we have a document from a Professor (dated September 1993). The letter was sent to the Research Ethics Committee.

GSK had made contact and told him about the suicides and suicide attempts. Here it gets interesting because it gives us the number of those enrolled (63). The Professor states, "...there have been seven suicide attempts including two deaths in the first 63 patients included in this Australian multicentre study." (11.11%)

The letter,, signed off by an Associate Professor at the School of Psychiatry, goes on to say how he had researched data and had found no evidence that either paroxetine or fluoxetine increase suicide rate or ideation in depressed patients. Remember, this was 1993 - no lawsuits had yet revealed the extent of those who had died or attempted suicide on paroxetine, or indeed Prozac.


In November 1993, the Research Ethics Committee ceased enrollments for the study because of the "reported cases of suicidal gestures'.  A review of the attempted suicides was needed before #356 could proceed.





#356 was halted and, it seems, an independent review of the study took place one year later. The independent review clarifies that there were actually nine suicide attempts, two of which were successful. In all, according to the review, there were 100 patients enrolled. The review, however, found no reason why the study shouldn't continue. (Attempted suicides = 9%)

Of the 91 patients who did not attempt suicide, the review states, "26 either withdrew or were withdrawn prematurely from the trial."  No reason is given for this.

According to the review, no suicide attempts were made by means of a drug overdose.

Here is the 25-page Independent Report.

Comment

Where are these missing suicide attempts? Why are they not reported on the GSK Study Register website?

There were 7 suicide attempts when 63 patients were enrolled (11.11%) . Surely this figure should have raised a red flag?

There were 9 suicide attempts when 100 patients were enrolled (9%) . Even this figure is astronomically high.

Investigators and review panels didn't really have much to go on back in 1993/94, apart from, of course, GSK's own information and published literature that was mainly ghostwritten by PR companies hired by GSK.

From the early onset of this study, GSK made it abundantly clear to investigators (prescribers) that there was no supporting evidence that suggested paroxetine could induce suicidal ideation. The study was double-blind so the patients and investigators didn't know what drug was being used.

Today, on the GSK Study Register website we see that since the study completion, GSK broke the code (so they could see what patient took what drug). They admit to having one suicide in the paroxetine group and one in the fluoxetine group. What they don't do, and they've had 25 years to rectify, is show us what drug caused the suicide attempts. According to the findings, we see no attempts in the paroxetine group and 2 (one completion) in the fluoxetine group. This would suggest that they also broke the code for the suicide attempts but only showed 2 (both in the fluoxetine group) when the documents obtained from the TGA show that there were 7 attempts when 63 patients were enrolled and 9 attempts when the enrollment reached 100.

The 356 Study that sits on the GSK website today doesn't really raise any red flags in its current format. With documents I've published today should we have a need to be concerned?

It is unknown in what group the non-fatal suicide attempts occurred. For all we know they could have all occurred in the fluoxetine group. I'm unsure why GSK have omitted such important data but I can speculate.

It leaves me wondering that if such a trial was carried out today, would the review board still claim there is no link between either paroxetine or fluoxetine and suicidal ideation?

Since the year of this #356 study (1993) GSK has paid $390 million for suicides or attempted suicides said to be linked to paroxetine. This has included an average of $300,000 to resolve 300 attempted suicide cases and an average of $2 million for 150 suicide cases. (Source)

The most recent paroxetine suicide case involves former corporate lawyer Stewart Dolin, whose life ended when he jumped in front of a Chicago Transit Authority train on July 15, 2010, while taking a generic version of Paxil. On April 20, 2017, an Illinois federal jury found GSK liable for Stewart Dolin’s death and ordered the pharmaceutical company to pay $3 million to Wendy Dolin. However, on August 22, 2018, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict claiming, "GSK had presented sufficient evidence time and again through the proceedings – before, during and after trial – to demonstrate it had no control of the drug labeling at the center of the case. Therefore, they said, the lawsuit should have been dismissed." Further, they added, "Court judges erred when they allowed to go to trial a lawsuit brought by Stewart Dolin's widow (Wendy Dolin)"

By 2000, Eli Lilly had reportedly paid more than $50 million to settle more than 30 Prozac (fluoxetine) lawsuits related to murders or suicides. There were also undisclosed settlements. While Prozac suicide lawsuits spiked in the 1990s, Lilly faced less litigation after the drug lost patent in 2001 and generics flooded the market. An FDA-required black box warning for suicide ended all “failure to warn” lawsuits. (Source)


Bob Fiddaman

Special thanks to 'Kathy' of the Australian Antidepressants Class Action & Awareness Facebook Group

Kathy is also an administrator for the Australians For Safe Medicines Facebook page.

She is now in the process of requesting suicide information from Venlafaxine trials in Australia.




Thursday, August 23, 2018

Judge Hamilton & Co Toss $3M Dolin Verdict


Yesterday's decision from the Seventh Circuit declared "the drugmaker (GSK) can’t be sued under Illinois law for insufficiently warning of suicide risk on a drug’s label, when that label’s language was set by federal regulators."

Read on...

pre·con·ceived
adjective
(of an idea or opinion) formed before having the evidence for its truth or usefulness.




Mayor Larry Vaughn (left)

Jaws Synopsis

During a beach party at dusk on Amity Island, New England, a young woman, Chrissie Watkins, goes skinny dipping in the ocean. While treading water, she is violently pulled under. The next day, her partial remains are found on shore. The medical examiner's ruling that the death was due to a shark attack leads police chief Martin Brody to close the beaches. Mayor Larry Vaughn overrules him, fearing that the town's summer economy will be harmed. The medical examiner now concurs with the mayor's theory that Watkins was killed in a boating accident.




Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton


On May 30, 2018, the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard a plea from GSK with regard to reasons why they don't feel they shouldn't pay a $3million fine handed down to them last year. During the oral arguments, Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton (Pictured above) repeatedly voiced doubts over the issue of so-called “innovator liability,” or the theory that the original makers of a drug – the “innovator” – should be held liable for the effects caused by others’ imitation product. Hamilton stated that it could significantly harm the pharmaceutical industry, and consumers and patients who rely on the medications invented and manufactured by the industry.

Ironically, the actor who played Mayor Larry Vaughn in the movie Jaws, Murray Hamilton, shares the same surname as Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton. To my knowledge, they are not related.

I've been a fan of Jaws, particularly the screenplay, for many years. It bears so many striking similarities to the pharmaceutical industry (the shark) and the advocates that try to highlight wrong-doings, Quint, Brody, and Hooper. 

Yesterday's decision from the Seventh Circuit declared "the drugmaker can’t be sued under Illinois law for insufficiently warning of suicide risk on a drug’s label, when that label’s language was set by federal regulators."

Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton. Circuit Chief Judge Diane P. Wood and Circuit Judge Diane Sykessaid, said, "GSK had presented sufficient evidence time and again through the proceedings – before, during and after trial – to demonstrate it had no control of the drug labeling at the center of the case. Therefore, they said, the lawsuit should have been dismissed." Further, they added, "Court judges erred when they allowed to go to trial a lawsuit brought by Stewart Dolin's widow (Wendy Dolin)"



Former Glaxo CEO, JP Garnier

"There is a legal right for us to go directly to the public"

Nowhere in the Seventh Circuit's panel conclusion does it state that paroxetine wasn't responsible for Stewart Dolin's induced suicide, in fact, it suggests that it did, but claims GSK did enough to warn Stewart, even though the FDA didn't heed that warning. The ruling failed to mention the deposition, shown at the 2017 Dolin trial, by former Glaxo CEO, JP Garnier, in which, when asked, "You can change your label without even getting approval from the FDA, there's a law that allows you to do that, correct?", he answered, "Yes...it's considerably disrupting, that's why most companies go through the FDA first, in practice, but you are right, there is a legal right for us to go directly to the public."

In response to the ruling, Michael Baum, senior partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, stated “We are surprised and disappointed with the court’s ruling and respectfully disagree. We will be exploring Ms Dolin’s options.”

"You go in the cage, cage goes in the water, you go in the water. Shark's in the water, our shark."

The FDA has remained silent throughout. They are, it appears, answerable to nobody. With an admission by GSK's former CEO that there is a legal right for GSK to go to the public, ergo, they can bypass the FDA, the question still remains, why didn't they?

GSK, and other pharmaceutical companies are, as we know, in bed with each other. It's a sick, incestuous relationship that puts everyone who ingests a pharmaceutical product or who uses a medical device, at harm - the same harm that Seventh Circuit Judge David Hamilton used in his defence of the pharmaceutical industry. It would appear that they can be protected from harm but the same rules do not apply to consumers, we simply go in the cage, cage goes in the water, we then go in the water. Remember that next time you pick up your next prescription, folks!

The pharmaceutical and regulatory pools are infested with sharks!

Afterword:

A Japanese submarine slammed two torpedoes into our side, Chief. We was comin' back from the island of Tinian to Leyte, just delivered the bomb. The Hiroshima bomb. Eleven hundred men went into the water. Vessel went down in twelve minutes. Didn't see the first shark for about a half an hour. Tiger. Thirteen-footer. You know how you know that when you're in the water, Chief? You tell by lookin' from the dorsal to the tail. What we didn't know... was our bomb mission had been so secret, no distress signal had been sent. Heh.

They didn't even list us overdue for a week. Very first light, Chief, sharks come cruisin'. So we formed ourselves into tight groups. Y'know, it's... kinda like ol' squares in a battle like, uh, you see in a calendar, like the Battle of Waterloo, and the idea was, shark comes to the nearest man and that man, he'd start poundin' and hollerin' and screamin', and sometimes the shark'd go away... sometimes he wouldn't go away. Sometimes that shark, he looks right into ya. Right into your eyes. Y'know the thing about a shark, he's got... lifeless eyes, black eyes, like a doll's eyes. When he comes at ya, doesn't seem to be livin'... until he bites ya. And those black eyes roll over white, and then... oh, then you hear that terrible high-pitch screamin', the ocean turns red, and spite of all the poundin' and the hollerin', they all come in and they... rip you to pieces.

Y'know, by the end of that first dawn... lost a hundred men. I dunno how many sharks. Maybe a thousand. I dunno how many men, they averaged six an hour. On Thursday mornin', Chief, I bumped into a friend of mine, Herbie Robinson from Cleveland- baseball player, boatswain's mate. I thought he was asleep, reached over to wake him up... bobbed up and down in the water just like a kinda top. Upended. Well... he'd been bitten in half below the waist. Noon the fifth day, Mr. Hooper, a Lockheed Ventura saw us, he swung in low and he saw us. The young pilot, a lot younger than Mr. Hooper. Anyway, he saw us and come in low and three hours later, a big fat PBY comes down and start to pick us up. Y'know, that was the time I was most frightened, waitin' for my turn. I'll never put on a life jacket again. So, eleven hundred men went into the water, three hundred sixteen men come out, and the sharks took the rest, June the 29th, 1945.

Bartholomew Marion Quint ~ Amity Island, MA

--

Bob Fiddaman


Backstories in chronological order:







Friday, August 17, 2018

Psychiatry: A Faith-Based System?





Prof Wendy Burn, president of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (Image: publicity picture)

Wendy Burn, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists has recently engaged with fellow sufferers of antidepressants via Twitter. Burn, 58, had blocked a number of followers but in a recent u-turn has now unblocked many of those who criticized her stance on antidepressant withdrawal.

Burn fuelled the fire earlier this year when she, along with RCP colleague, David Baldwin, wrote a letter to the Times newspaper claiming, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment." (back story)

Burn's presence and engagement on Twitter is refreshing, and sometimes very frustrating. For the advocates who criticise psychiatry and the wanton use of antidepressants, it's been eye-opening and, at times, jaw-dropping. None more so than the following snapshot of tweets she and I had.

Here's the order in which they were asked and answered.



Surprisingly, Burn didn't respond to my last two tweets. I'm not chastising her for failing to respond, as I know she is also answering many other queries from disgruntled service-users.

It would appear Burn bases her diagnosing and prescribing system based on faith rather than actual science. Here's why:

First off, by Burn's own admission, she works, in the main, with elderly patients, 65 and older.

Burn asserts that elderly people metabolise more slowly so drugs stay in their system longer, which, assumes Burn, minimises withdrawal.

Drug metabolism is the process by which the body breaks down and converts medication into active chemical substances. The primary site of drug metabolism is the liver, the organ that plays a major role in metabolism, digestion, detoxification, and elimination of substances from the body.

Research has found that people fall into one of four general metabolizer types. (1)

The Four Metabolizer Types

- Poor metabolizer: Patients who are poor metabolizers experience a very slow breakdown of medications, making side effects more pronounced. That means standard doses of certain medications may not work as intended.

- Intermediate metabolizer: A slowed metabolism may impact breakdown of medications, causing effects similar to poor metabolizers, but not as pronounced.

- Extensive metabolizer: Considered a “normal” rate of metabolism. Patients are likely to metabolize medication normally and medication is likely to work as intended.

- Ultrarapid metabolizer: Patients in this group metabolize medications too quickly to experience relief from symptoms of depression or other disorders.

Are elderly people more prone to a poor metabolizing system?

According to statistics (2), 40% of the elderly regularly take five or more concomitant prescription medications, add to this the fact that many medications have more than one metabolic pathway, and you can see how prescribing, or adding medication into the mix, can be extremely dangerous for anyone 65 and older.. Furthermore, if, as Burn assumes, 'most (elderly) are slow metabolizers', then without any test in place prior to prescribing she, along with other treating physicians are basically taking it on faith that the person in front of them is a poor, intermediate, extensive or ultrarapid metabolizer.

I asked Burn if she carried out any Pharmacogenomic testing prior to prescribing to her elderly patients. She never responded.

If you, like me, struggle to grasp how the metabolizing system works then a layperson's explanation may help.

Let's say I am a poor metabolizer and my best friend is an extensive metabolizer. Both of us are depressed and both have been prescribed an antidepressant of the SSRI family.

After taking the drug at exactly the same time, my friend excretes it far quicker from his body so when it's time for our next dose I am at a slight disadvantage because my second dose will be topping up my first dose, whereas my friend will have most of his original dose excreted from his system or a higher percentage of it than I.

Now, let's say we are both on these drugs for 6 weeks. The build-up of the drug in my body will be far greater than that of my friend. He may be able to withdraw without any problems, whereas I may find it extremely difficult to withdraw. I may also have toxicity in my system.

If Burn assumes that the elderly are slow metabolizers then when prescribing to them she is doing so by using a belief rather than any scientific testing such as pharmacogenomic testing. If, by her own admittance, she knows they are slow metabolizers then they will more than likely endure what I did in the example above.

One should also take into account a person's genetic factors when prescribing. Genetic factors account for 20 to 95% of patient variability in response to individual drugs. (3) - It seems perfectly logical then that a prescriber would choose to ensure the safety of their patient when prescribing a drug. By claiming that they 'monitor' patients is clearly not good enough, particularly when they have a tool at their disposal that can predict if their patient will struggle on the drug they prescribe, moreover, if the drug will stay in their system longer making the withdrawal process more difficult.

Quite why this isn't mandatory will, more than likely, be blamed on the expense and how 'time-consuming' the whole process can take. I really don't buy into the 'monitoring' angle, I mean, how can a prescriber monitor a patient 24/7?

Burn is on a hiding-to-nothing when she is posed questions by many drug safety advocates on Twitter. I give her kudos for attempting to tackle the hundreds of tweets she receives daily now that she has unblocked many of those who previously opposed her views.

Science can only be the winner here and not assumptions. One prescriber may have different approaches than another - one may be more thorough when deciding to prescribe. Assuming a patient may or may not be a slow metabolizer is tricky ground though. If we can't predict (without pharmacogenomic testing) then should psychiatrists and doctors really be prescribing toxic drugs to patients at all? It's Russian Roulette, but we are told, and always have been, that the benefits outweigh the risks.

Serotonin toxicity, often incorrectly called a "syndrome", is best managed by reducing and/or discontinuing the offending drug(s). If left untreated it can lead to akathisia, an emotional state that can sometimes include the emergence of strange and unusual impulses, often of an aggressive nature. It can also lead to violence and suicide. (4)

Burn, in defence of her statement to criticisms of her Times letter, has claimed that in her clinical experience she has never seen a patient suffering from severe withdrawal from antidepressants. We have to take this at face-value as there is no way of knowing if, a; Burn knows the difference between antidepressant withdrawal and "depressive symptoms" and, b; whether or not she is being truthful.

Many elderly patients trust prescribing physicians, my own mother did when she was alive. Many don't like to 'rock the boat'. We often hear the elderly make claims such as, "The good old doctor went through years of med school, so they know exactly what they are doing", and, "they wouldn't give me a drug that could harm me."

Reminds me of the statement King & Spalding's lead attorney made in his closing statements to the jury in the Dolin v GSK Paxil-induced suicide trial:

“Don’t you think if these medicines caused suicide someone would have spoken up?” ~ Andy Bayman - King & Spalding.

The jury did.

I long for the day when Wendy Burn and her peers acknowledge that the drugs they prescribe to children, adults and the elderly may be the cause of depressive symptoms and feelings of hostility. Judging by her current stance, however, I think we may be in for a long wait.

Bob Fiddaman


(1) Fast, Slow or In-Between: How Your Genes Affect Medication Success
(2) Pharmacogenomic Treatment Support, Today’s Geriatric Medicine, Vol. 7 No. 4 P. 20
(3) Hypothesis: comparisons of inter- and intra-individual variations can substitute for twin studies in drug research.Pharmacogenetics. 1998 Aug;8(4):283-9.
(4) What is akathisia?

The Unscrupulous Activities of Monsanto (Video)




A fascinating insight into the unscrupulous activities of Monsanto is doing the rounds on YouTube.

The show, The HighWire, hosted by Del Bigtree, invited Baum Hedlund's Lead and co-counsel, Brent Wisner and Robert F. Kennedy Jr into the studio to discuss the recent $289 million verdict against Monsanto.

The success for the plaintiff, Dewayne Johnson, will be short-lived as the former groundskeeper has terminal cancer and is, sadly, expected to die soon. The victory could set a massive precedent for thousands of other cases against Monsanto. I hope they name a law after Johnson, his courage to step up to the plate and take on the unethical and immoral Goliath needs to be remembered...forever.

Monsanto, as expected, has appealed the verdict.

The interview starts at 38.40 and features, amongst other revelations, jaw-dropping internal emails from Monsanto employees who wanted to keep the cancer link 'in-house' rather than tell an unsuspecting public.


Bob Fiddaman


If you have been diagnosed with non-Hodgkin lymphoma after being exposed to Roundup weed killer and would like more information about whether you might have a potential Roundup lawsuit, please contact a personal injury attorney at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman



Tuesday, August 14, 2018

Guest Post: Irresponsible Reporting Harms Parents & Children



Kristina Kaiser Gehrki

Irresponsible Reporting Harms Parents & Children 
By Kristina Kaiser Gehrki

In 1987 I was an optimistic college student earning my first degree in journalism from a top 10 university program that was then, and remains today, highly ranked by the Associated Press.

I vividly remember class discussions about the Washington Post—a newspaper that had diligent reporters such as Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein who exposed wide-scale corruption to include President Nixon’s Watergate scandal. Back then, venerable Washington Post reporting was often seen as a public service for the greater good. It was good journalism about which Academy Award-winning movies like “All the President’s Men” were made. 

Flash forward to the present decade and it appears journalism ethics and responsible reporting has gone the way of the dinosaurs. Yesterday’s article in the Washington Post titled, “Your Child is Nervous About the New School Year, Which May be Normal—or Not,” is just one of a long string of examples.

In an effort to sell and publish articles, journalists often write stories called “evergreens.” Such articles have a long shelf life and keep their leaves when autumn arrives. I suspect the “Your Child is Nervous” article by Jill U. Adams was likely written as an evergreen, and the back-to-school marketing headline was later crafted to catch the attention of concerned parents who want to ensure their kids are happy and healthy.

As a parent, trained journalist and former teacher, Adams’ article caught my attention because of what she claims and what she chooses to omit.


Jill Adams -  freelance science journalist

Former Pharma Employee-Cum-Reporter Promotes Risky Drugs for Kids

Adams states kids with anxiety can benefit from cognitive therapy—and certain drugs. She specifically asserts: “Medications can help, too, particularly the class of antidepressant drugs known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, or SSRIs.” 

Really? Given that Adams is also a trained pharmacologist, one presumes she is aware of research that finds SSRIs are neither safe nor effective for children. Adams neglects to mention such nor does she inform her Washington Post readers that she studied psychoactive drugs for Johnson & Johnson. 

I can’t help but wonder, was Adams working for Johnson & Johnson when the company criminally marketed Risperdal for unapproved use by children? More than 30 children died and more than 1,000 reported serious complications. The US Dept. of Justice effectively forced Johnson & Johnson to pay more than $2.2 billion to resolve these criminal and civil charges. 

Parents Denied US FDA Black Box Warning Info


US FDA Black Box Warning

While promoting SSRIs to reduce childhood anxiety, Adams also fails to mention that SSRIs carry the US FDA’s most serious Black Box warning. (Above image). She doesn’t note SSRIs cause akathisia which often causes psychosis and unwanted deaths. Reporters are not legally required to communicate FDA Black Box warnings with the readers who trust them. Doctors are not legally required to share FDA Black Box warnings with the parents who trust them. But that doesn’t mean it is ethical for either to withhold such life-saving information.

Failure to Share Conflicts of Interest

Adams also neglected to inform readers that her quoted source, psychiatrist John Walkup, has several potential conflicts of interest to include taking free drugs and money from many pharmaceutical companies.

Adams’ Health and Science section article is simply the latest of many accountability and ethics problems found in mainstream newspapers. Years ago after my teenaged daughter died a prescription-drug-induced death, I contacted the Washington Post about similar omissions and reporting errors. My valid concerns backed up by published data were met with a virtual pat on the head and false promises to contact me should they ever again cover this topic.

A Constant Pattern of Zero Accountability

Systemic errors of omission don’t just occur in newspaper articles; they also rear their ugly heads in the Letters to the Editor and Op-Ed pages.

The Washington Post Letters to the Editor section requires writers to “disclose any personal or financial interest in the subject matter of their letters.” However, in 2014, the newspaper published a letter that appeared to be written by your average Joe, a man named David from Vermont. David’s letter was in response to a Washington Post article about SSRIs, depression and children. His letter expressed concern for children who are depressed and supported the use of pharmaceutical products as effective treatment.

I noticed the letter writer’s last name was “Fassler” and realized this seemingly average Joe from Vermont was Dr. David Fassler, a child psychiatrist and frequent testifier to the FDA in support of the pharmaceutical industry. Fassler describes himself on his LinkedIn page as a specialist in “child and adolescent psychiatry” and “forensic psychiatry” and notes he’s worked with the Executive Director of NAMI-Vermont. NAMI, is the National Alliance for the Mentally Ill and has been the subject of Congressional investigations into its deep financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry. 

Fassler testified at the 2004 FDA SSRI hearings in support of prescribing SSRIs to children. Specifically, “David Fassler of the American Psychiatric Association cautioned that the FDA should not scare patients away from treatment.” Ironically, this was a quote from the Washington Post.

The FDA also heard testimony from many family members who carried photos of their dead loved ones while recounting the torturous SSRI Adverse Drug Reactions they suffered before dying. After the hearings, the FDA responded, albeit far too late, by placing the Black Box suicide warnings on SSRIs.



Fassler’s more recent FDA testimony supported prescribing atypical antipsychotics to children.

Who “Works” for Whom?

But back to 2014. I contacted Fassler to inquire why his Washington Post letter to the editor didn’t disclose his medical credentials nor any personal and financial interests in the subject matter. Our correspondence is below:

On 7/11/14 12:32 PM, Kristina G. wrote:
--------------------
Hi David,

I read with interest your letter to the Washington Post. I was wondering why you didn't share your expertise as a child psychiatrist, experience testifying, and work with pharmaceutical companies? If you write the Post again, perhaps you should include your background so readers can better respect and understand your viewpoints. 

Regards,
Kristina Gehrki

--

On 07/11/14 5:36 AM, David F. wrote:
--------------------
Hi Kristina

I did tell the Post I was a child psychiatrist, but they chose not to include any identification. 

I don't do any work w/ pharmaceutical companies.

David

--

It’s important to note Fassler stated: “I don’t do any work w/pharmaceutical companies.” Perhaps he also has no personal or financial interests in the subject matter he wrote about? What is not debatable is that Fassler is an active member of The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (AACAP) and ran for their national position as AACAP Treasurer in their 2013 election. It must be an important position considering AACAP states that in 2012 their “60th Annual Meeting Sponsorships” included “Pharmaceutical sponsorships” that “totalled $175,000.”

I can’t help but wonder if Fassler sat next to Dr. John Walkup at this annual conference when Walkup was a featured speaker at AACAP’s 2013 Psychopharmacology Update Institute. I also wonder if Fassler read AACAP’s 2013 Report to the Council that stated:

“August 14, 2012 Informed on August 4 that Wayne Batzer, M.D. resigned as a member of AACAP stating, “The Academy is clearly reliant on continued pharmaceutical industry funding and I am no longer able to accept this.” 

Looking back on it, I’ve come to accept Fassler’s statement “I don’t do any work w/pharmaceutical companies” at face value. To me, its relevancy depends upon how one first personally defines the word “work.”

Experience is the Best Teacher

Today I’m no longer an optimistic college student. While I’ve earned more advanced degrees and certificates, the most important knowledge I’ve gained since my daughter, Natalie's, prescribed demise comes from experience and research. Independent research and unbiased “journalism” uncovers unimaginable fraud, collusion, corruption and ethical violations in nearly every nook and cranny—from university medical schools to medical associations, from pharmaceutical headquarters to neighbourhood pharmacies, from national papers to your hometown rag, and right on down to your local doctors.

As a former high school marketing teacher, I understand parents want their children to start the school year off right. Parents want to believe things that will provide comfort. Seeking comfort is a basic human trait. But I implore parents who might read yesterday’s Washington Post dribble or another newspaper’s misleading article tomorrow: Remember, just because something sounds comforting doesn’t mean it is true.

When Natalie was 10, I took her to a therapist because of concern about mild school anxiety. I wanted the best for my child. Unfortunately, what we anticipated would be talk therapy soon turned into drug “therapy” prior to the FDA’s SSRI Black Box warning. It’s tragic that misinformed parents who read such articles might unwittingly go down the same dangerous drug path from which there may be no return. I speak up simply because I don’t want to see other trusting parents caused permanent discomfort when later they find themselves visiting their children’s graves.

Natalie’s prescribed demise is featured here & here. Like Anne Frank, Natalie's diary documented her torture and it is hoped society can learn from these systemic atrocities.


Kristina Kaiser Gehrki is a public health and safety advocate and educator. She holds degrees in crisis and strategic communication, journalism and education but feels her most relevant knowledge stems from personal experience. Her teenage daughter, Natalie, died a prescription-drug induced death after suffering SSRI Adverse Drug Reactions and SSRI withdrawal that was undiagnosed by her doctor and improperly treated with SSRI dose increases.






Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.