So what?

They shrug their shoulders while muttering, "So what?"

This seems to be the general consensus of not only drug regulators and the business of psychiatry but also of the largely apathetic general public.

Sure, we see the familiar faces on Twitter and Facebook banging the drum, but what about others? You know, the "so what" lot?

Twitter went into a frenzy earlier this week with news that immigrant children are being forcibly injected with drugs at the Shiloh Residential Treatment Center near Manvel, Texas.

Those who don't normally tweet or retweet drug abuse stories were doing so in droves. I couldn't quite understand why people who don't normally discuss the dangers of drugs felt compelled to tweet this news? Do they lean to the left and feel that sharing America's ills will somehow score them brownie points? Or perhaps tweeting or Facebooking about the Shiloh Residential Treatment Center abuses of minority children will make them appear that there isn't a racist bone in their body? Maybe some sort  of  "Look, I'm spreading the news about abusing immigrants and, therefore, I care about others different from me." 

Here's some news: forcibly drugging children in "care" has been going on for years. Why is it only now highlighted when it involves immigrant children?

I suppose I should see the silver lining as I watch people take a break from their hectic schedules, vacations, etc., to post news they typically don't bother posting. Perhaps their tweets will reach an audience that might now be prompted to reevaluate the drug industry, psychiatric industry, and their own government regulators. If so, great.

In a recent blog post, The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs, I shared a video which noted more than 6,000 children in the UK are prescribed drugs that were never approved for children's consumption. There's a warning on the boxes of these products that states suicide is an increased possibility (a "side effect") whilst taking the products. Although the blog post was popular with fellow advocates, it drew little attention on Facebook and Twitter, certainly nowhere near as much attention as the Shiloh Residential Treatment Center story generated.

It was met with a 'so what?' attitude from the largely apathetic general public. I can't quite get to the bottom of why people seem compelled to respond when a story of immigrant children on bad drugs hits the news, yet stories of far more children on many more bad drugs goes astray in their wine and dine world. Perhaps their one tweet met their monthly one good deed quota?

Apathy, as Polystyrene (X-Ray Specs) once said, is a drag.

If news of immigrant children caught your attention and you felt the need to retweet or Facebook it then stop and think before you pat yourself on the back for your good deed of the day.

I'm guessing those same wine and diners didn't feel the need to post or, indeed discuss, the latest news from the dodgy world of drug companies. Purdue Pharma, reports CNN, used deceptive sales tactics for OxyContin. In 2007 they pleaded guilty and were fined $630 million. However, last week a whistleblower who used to work for the Connecticut-based company, stated the company continued to illegally market their product by inventing disorders even after the fine.

Just so the wine and diners know, the opioid crisis has killed more than 200,000 people, and I'm fairly certain some of them were also immigrants.

Carol Panara is a former sales rep for Purdue Pharma and this week she revealed how the drug company made up names of disorders in order to sell more of their product. This from CNN...

But amid skyrocketing addiction rates and overdoses related to OxyContin, Panara claimed the company taught a sales tactic she now considers questionable, saying some patients might only appear to be addicted when in fact they're just in pain. In training, she was taught a term for this: "pseudoaddiction." 

She went on to tell CNN that company bosses told her the cure for "pseudoaddiction" was higher doses of opioids. CNN asked her if this concept of pseudoaddiction came with studies backing it up? Panara replied:

"We had no studies. We actually -- we did not have any studies. That's the thing that was kind of disturbing, was that we didn't have studies to present to the doctors."

A 2015 study published in Current Addiction Reports found "no empirical evidence" to support "pseudoaddiction" as a diagnosis.

If these two stories above aren't enough then check out an old video recently uploaded to YouTube. The video, just over three minutes in length, is a pastiche of people giving evidence to the FDA about their experiences with SSRI drugs. It's from the 90's and it really highlights how the SSRI suicidal/homicidal problem has been shelved all these years. I imagine after seeing it there will be little outrage and no tweeting from those who tweeted this week about the forced drugging of children in Texas.

Here's the video that is, seemingly, less important than a handful of immigrant children in Texas.

People die horrific deaths on psychiatric drugs ~ so what?

Bob Fiddaman

Dutch Court Rules for Plaintiff - Seroxat (Paxil) Psychological Damage

Gerard Eggebeen (32)

**UK Exclusive**

GlaxoSmithKline, whose headquarters are in London, England, has been found guilty in the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland, in Utrecht for the damage suffered by a claimant caused by the use of Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US and Canada.

The Decision

"he attempted suicide six times."

In 2001, Gerard Eggebeen (32) was first prescribed Seroxat at the age of 14. His GP, according to court documents, prescribed it to him due to family trauma. Eggebeen had, at the age of 12, witnessed his father suffer a fatal heart attack, a result of which saw him suffer trauma and depressive episodes for the next two years. Because of this, his mother sent him to see a doctor who prescribed Eggebeen, who was 14 at the time, a whopping 50mg of Seroxat.

At school he started to behave more and more hostile to fellow pupils and teachers, he sometimes waved a knife, was suspended several times and was finally expelled from school.

During the course of his life, Eggebeen has attempted suicide six times. He now resides at Emergis, a clinic for mental health care, where still suffers from the prolonged side effects of Seroxat, even though he hasn't taken it since the age of 18.

In 2015, Eggebeen, like most people, stumbled on articles relating to Seroxat use in children. He was aghast and filed suit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK argued, unsuccessfully, that Eggebeen was 'out of time', a more common phrase meaning he did not meet the Statute of Limitations.

In the Nederlands, a limitation period of five years applies after the injured party has become aware of both the damage and the person liable for it, and in any case by the lapse of twenty years after the event causing the damage.

Looking at the online Court document, it appears that the Judge ruled for plaintiff because "GSK knew from about the year 2000 that paroxetine for children and adolescents (under 18) was not effective", also, GSK knew that Seroxat "had serious side effects, including (in short) suicidal behavior." Furthermore, GSK "had to make that knowledge public at the time, and they did not. If they had done so, Eggebeen would not have been prescribed it in 2001."

The conclusion of the trial found, "GlaxoSmithKline has acted in violation of the due care that, according to an unwritten law, is common in society, and therefore unlawful. This is unlawful towards the users of Seroxat, who (without warning) were exposed to the risks, so also against [the plaintiff]. The statement of entitlement can therefore be assigned."

Amsterdam psychiatrist, Dr. Bram Bakker, who was consulted as an expert during the trial, told the Dutch media, "there are still doctors who prescribe the drug to young people. If they think it is necessary, they will write it, that's how it goes." He added, "I'm afraid that under the influence of paroxetine an unknown number of murders have been committed."  Bakker refers, among other cases, to the 'axe killings', in which a former KLM stewardess, known only as Elzelien K (64), axed her husband and daughter to death at their home in Badhoevedorp. She then tried to kill herself by driving her car into a tree. She was, as expected, found guilty but in sentencing her to 7 years in prison the court considered her acts to have been brought on by the drug she was taking at the time, namely Seroxat. (1)

Further, in 2014,  asylum seeker, only known as 'Alasam S' (29), was sentenced to six years in prison after being found guilty of killing his girlfriend and a policeman in 2011. (2) What's interesting about this case is that a year previously he was sentenced to 28 years in prison, upon appeal, however, the court heard how Alasam had developed psychosis the day before the killings as a result of the use of the antidepressant Seroxat.

One other related case pertaining to the Nederlands is that of the Sierre bus disaster, a case that I have covered previously on this blog. There were 52 on board, 28 people perished, 22 of them were children. The other 24 pupils, all aged between 10 and 12, were injured, including three who were hospitalized with severe brain and chest injuries.

A full investigation into the crash was carried out by Swiss Chief Prosecutor Olivier Elsig, the results of which were inconclusive. He ruled out the involvement of a third party, shortcomings in the road surface or the tunnel infrastructure. Excessive speed, alcohol or technical problems with the vehicle were also ruled out. He, at no point, could determine whether or not Geert Michiels carried out an act of homicide/suicide with the vehicle. In fact, the final report leaves more questions than it does answers.

The autopsy of the bus driver, Geert Michiels, revealed traces of Seroxat in his system. Michiels had been taking Seroxat for several years, he had been prescribed it as, at the time, he was going through a divorce. However, he was, at the time of the bus crash, in the process of tapering off. (3,4,5)

David Slew Goliath

The verdict, in favor of Eggebeen, can be seen as a victory for David over Goliath - the ruling condemned GSK to compensate Eggebeen because of the psychological damage caused by Seroxat. The judgment was passed down by Mr. AE The-Kouwenhoven, Mr. P. Krepel and Mr. MWV van Duursen.

Because of the verdict, Eggebeen has now formed the Seroxat Claim Foundation. The lawyer of the foundation is Ron Lensen and because of the 'time limitations' ruling against GSK he is now looking for other victims of Seroxat (Link)

Of the verdict, Lensen said, "The verdict of the court opens the door to more damages in this affair. This goes further than just Mr. Eggebeen. This statement against GlaxoSmithKline is, in fact, usable for everyone in a similar position. The foundation can act as a representative for a group of injured parties. GSK is bound by this court judgment to all interested parties. "

In a statement, GlaxoSmithKline said, "GSK does not agree with the decision of the court in Utrecht and will carefully consider the next steps. For that reason, we can not now respond substantively to the verdict."

Bob Fiddaman

Hat-tip - Olga Leclercq


--

(1) Criminal-law side effects: Increased chance of committing a murder?

(2) Alasam S. gets six years in prison and TBS for manslaughter girlfriend and agent in Baflo

(3) Did Seroxat Trigger the Fatal Sierre 2012 Bus Crash?

(4) Sierre Bus Crash Revisited

(5) The Bus Disaster in Sierre

The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs

The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs ~ Dr. Chris Van Tulleken

Many people outside of the UK will not have seen the following show broadcast on the BBC on the 30th May 2018.

I've often wondered why a show broadcast in one country is unavailable in other countries, particularly when the content is of vital importance, wherever you happen to live.

After watching the half-hour episode of 'The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs', please read the link at the foot of the video. The two are connected.

Pay attention to the quote, in the show, from Andrea Cipriani, who claims that antidepressants work by "increasing the level of neurotransmitters, called serotonin, in the brain."

So, they help rectify a 'chemical imbalance' then?

Honestly, I thought we were past this nonsense. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists don't support this view anymore.

For those who don't know, Andrea Cipriani is the lead author of a paper which earlier this year was heralded as the 'final say' on the efficacy of antidepressants. Hard to believe that Cipriani believes antidepressants rectify a chemical imbalance, then again, it's hard to believe anyone does these days.

Here's the video. Please, after watching, click on the link below the video.

Now read this.



Bob Fiddaman