The mainstream media still seem disinterested in the on-going UK Seroxat litigation in London. Perhaps, they are waiting for some internal documents to surface, you know, something meaty they've never seen before?
Perhaps they are waiting to see if anything pertaining to GSK's Yugoslavia trials are aired?
GSK's Yugoslavia Seroxat Trials
Back in 1988, SmithKline Beecham (SKB) initiated a trial [called the relapse trial]
At this time, SKB was seeking approval of Seroxat and the Yugoslavia trial was to show the FDA (the US drug regulator) how effective Seroxat was in treating depression – they would also try to show the FDA how it was important to keep taking Seroxat and not to stop… because if you did stop then you would go into relapse, in other words, SKB was trying to prove that stopping Seroxat meant the patient’s original illness would return.
The following two posts may be a helpful resource for media outlets, should they ever take an interest in the current Seroxat litigation. Here and here.
Should the media wish to see the data from these trials, they could always contact the MHRA. They may be surprised by the MHRA's answer.
At the very least, it should prompt some serious questions regarding the Yugoslavia Seroxat trials and the way GSK, then SKB, seemingly spun withdrawal into relapse.
Because of my involvement with the current trial, I am restricted in writing about it. I can, however, write about GSK's history. That said, tomorrow I will be writing about a case involving Seroxat and birth defects. My previous blogs surrounding this particular case saw an insight into how GSK's attorneys operate, moreover, how they quickly settled out-of-court with a Pennsylvanian woman who had contacted me. An in-depth research of her case showed that GSK had clearly not handed over all items of disclosure to her attorneys, once I went public with this, they offered the woman in question a settlement, despite GSK previously persuading judges to strike her case.
Today was an interesting day regarding litigation against GSK and its brain pellet, paroxetine. GSK markets this product as Seroxat in the UK and Paxil in the US. It is also sold by GSK using other names to include Aropax n Australia and New Zealand. It's likely that pharma companies benefit by giving the same product different names in various countries because it makes it more difficult for consumers to search for and find relevant adverse drug effects as experienced by users across the globe. The average Aussie likely had no idea that Aropax is Paxil in the US, etc.
But back to the paroxetine court cases. Today the Supreme decided to hold off making their decision regarding the Dolin case. A previous case, Merck, Sharp & Dohme Corp. v. Albrecht has similarities to Dolin v GSK. That is, Merck's defence, like GSK's is that the FDA is responsible for changes in the labelling and not drug companies.
In the Dolin vs. GSK case, a Chicago court found in favour of Wendy Dolin in 2017. Not only did the jury determine that GSK failed to warn of the risks posed by paroxetine, they determined paroxetine caused Stewart Dolin's suffering and demise. An Illinois Seventh Circuit court later overturned the jury's decision and that decision was appealed to the Supreme Court where it now remains. It's never easy going up against GSK, despite the fact that they are officially criminals (See The United States Justice Department). I assume that the Supreme Court has decided to hold their decision on Dolin v GSK until the Merck matter is sorted.
Here in the UK, the long-awaited group action trial against GSK kicked off more than a decade after it was filed. The trial is estimated to last three months. I am one of more than 100 plaintiffs and will not be reporting on the trial just yet. But, stay tuned because I'm certain there will eventually be much to say when the dust settles.
As many of you know, I've been writing about GlaxoSmithKline and Seroxat for more than 13 years. Restrictions prevent me from writing about the current trial but I can still write about GSK's not-so-pretty sordid history, which I intend to do over the coming three months.
I will be attending some of the trial and will surely take notes because one never knows if there's another book I might write, my previous book, The Evidence, However, is Clear, the Seroxat Scandal, is quite old now and much has happened since I wrote it some 8 years ago.
For all of those who have contacted me today, these are the reasons why I am not covering the case as it presently unfolds.
It's frustrating given that Truthman and I likely know more about GSK's shady business and their Seroxat-labelled brain pellets than anyone else on the planet.
UK Seroxat (Paxil) Litigation against GSK starts Monday, April 29, 2019
#KeepTheDate
#0429
For back stories regarding Seroxat (Paxil) please visit the website that GSK paid to have removed...but which was later resurrected by Seroxat activists. The original author of Paxil Protest was Rob Robinson, he's a legend around my way and was also part of a class action lawsuit in the US whereby GSK settled with over 3,000 plaintiffs regarding Seroxat withdrawal problems. GSK, who remember is a British company, have refused to settle similar claims brought by UK consumers.
Psychiatrist Carmine Pariante is a key opinion leader who often speaks on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), the coven that continually promotes bizarre brain disorders and the brain pellets whilst downplaying the adverse effects these toxins cause, to include horrific withdrawal problems and iatrogenic deaths.
Yesterday Pariante caused a Twitter storm when promoting his appearance on BBC's "Truth or Scare," hosted by former newsreader and British icon, Angela Rippon.
The bizarre rantings of Pariante had me perplexed. I'm going to try to dissect his comments for you but, frankly, I may need help from readers given I can't understand how anyone can make such outlandish and unproven claims. Watching the show I couldn't help but think of the Brothers Grimm fairy tales.
I interviewed Pariante myself months ago, an interview that came to an abrupt end because it seemed we couldn't adequately address the first and most important issue. (See here)
The BBC show, Truth Or Scare, sets out to prove whether stories in the media are true versions of facts or if merely scary stories.
Pariante was batting for the side of the pill-pushers. It seems he was batting alone as there was no invite, to my knowledge, of any batter from the other side of the issue, one who could rebut Pariante's televised claims. It seems the BBC may want only one opinion regarding brain pellets and depression.
BBC host, Rippon, took everything Pariante said at face value and never once asked for evidence. (More on this later.) She kicked off the show by asking Pariante to explain depression in laypersons terms. Here's where the fun starts so hold on to your sides, folks, as they just might split!
"Brain cells are close but they are not physically connected so to communicate they need a chemical to go from one cell to another", claimed Pariante, adding, "People with depression need a stronger connection."
Pariante then showed Rippon an explanation of this by, um, well, by knocking on doors in a corridor. (See video below** where he appears around the 3 minutes, 12-second mark.)
Rippon then tells viewers, "For a more scientific explanation of how antidepressants work, Professor Pariante has recreated the effects of antidepressants in a culture lab." She adds, "His team chemically induce brain cells in test tubes to mirror the state of depression. Antidepressant medication is then added."
Pariante, speaking with Rippon, says, "If you induce depression in a dish, as you can see, new brain cells stop growing and you have much fewer cells compared to healthy conditions."
Pariante then claims that once an antidepressant is added the number of new brain cells "rises again".
I was just digesting the "depression in a dish" claim when Rippon claimed, "The Science certainly seems clear."
At this point, I had to dry my eyes and change my underpants. Biting the table leg didn't help with my state of uncontrollable laughter either.
Pariante later backs up his "Depression in a dish" claims by quoting the Cipriani study (back story here) - Pariante claims that Cipriani's study "clearly shows antidepressants improve the symptoms of depression."
When asked about the 'dark side' of antidepressants, Pariante said, "Antidepressants are no more or no less than any other medication, they are effective in most people, they are tolerated in most people, and in some people there are side effects, in a very small number of people there are severe side effects, but that's like all medication."
When asked about the dependency on antidepressants Pariante says, "There is no evidence that we are over prescribing antidepressants, yes more antidepressants are prescribed today than 10 years ago but, in fact, most people who need antidepressants are not receiving an antidepressant."
Yes, he really did say this, and he also neglected to share that a recent study found nearly 56% of people taking brain pellets suffer withdrawal effects and 1.8 million people are currently at risk of severe symptoms when they decide to come off these drugs. (1) If Pariante gets his wish, these figures will, no doubt, rise.
The show (skit) also features two former patients who have opinions about brain pellets. It's well worth watching if only to see the performance of Pariante and some of his bizarre claims and also how Angela Rippon seems almost smitten with him.
"The science certainly seems clear" wins a gold star for the BBC's most unscientific quote of the year. Rippon's quote was based on walking around a lab with a guy in a white coat knocking on doors and examining slides of depression produced in Petri dishes.
Approximately two hours after the show was aired on BBC, Pariante, rather bizarrely tweeted the following:
He really does himself no favours.
Here's the video.
** The video was downloaded directly from the Stress, Psychiatry and Immunology Lab - SPI Lab Facebook page. Any copyright issues should be taken up with the owner of this page, ironically, Carmine Pariante.
Left-to-right: Mathy Downing, Bob Fiddaman, Kristina Gehrki, Kim Witczak
~~~
Love is all you need
~ Lennon–McCartney
~~~
Last weekend I celebrated some special champions of human rights at a star-studded Hollywood event. It was the 50th anniversary of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR). I respect this organisation and support their goals which include investigating and exposing psychiatric violations of human rights and demanding medical doctors become competent. Today's post is about the well-attended California event.
The "S" Word
For some people out there, there's an elephant in the room whenever CCHR's public health and safety work is referenced. It's an elephant I noted in my book years ago and one that I'm never shy to address. That it has to do with labels is something I find ironic considering labels are often the first tool psychiatrists use to lead unsuspecting victims down the destructive path of wrongful drugging.
CCHR is a nonprofit mental health watchdog responsible for helping to enact more than 150 laws protecting individuals from abusive or coercive practices. CCHR has long fought to restore basic inalienable human rights to the field of mental health, including, but not limited to, full informed consent regarding the medical legitimacy of psychiatric diagnosis, the risks of psychiatric treatments, the right to all available medical alternatives and the right to refuse any treatment considered harmful.
CCHR was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and Professor of Psychiatry Emeritus Dr. Thomas Szasz at a time when patients were being warehoused in institutions and stripped of all constitutional, civil and human rights. That the pharmaceutical companies and their PR machines often try to use one's spiritual beliefs to discredit those harmed and divert the public's attention away from real facts about the pharma and psych industry is nothing new. I've met countless victims and their families whose spiritual beliefs and the church they attend were the subject of depositions conducted by pharma. Pharma basically tried to link the SSRI-induced death of a 12-year-old girl to their family's Protestant religion and the church the family attended.
Here's the interesting thing. The surviving family members were questioned by the drug manufacturer's attorneys. They were trying to claim that the family were Scientologists because they supported the work of CCHR. For four hours the victim's sister was grilled. The drug manufacturer was trying to suggest that the family was unstable and that their sister/daughter died because of their beliefs and not because of Zoloft induced suicide.
That little girl, by the way, was just twelve-years-old and died by hanging shortly after her Zoloft dose was doubled. She weighed just 67 pounds.
Seriously, no kidding here. But what do you expect given pharma tried to blame another young child's death on possible "sex games" gone wrong. (The child was found hanging after consuming Zoloft and Pfizer claimed the boy may have died because he was possibly engaging in sex games. Matthew Miller was just 13 years old.)
So, back to the "S" word, Scientology. I was born into a Catholic family. While I no longer practice Catholicism, I also don't practice Scientology. Not that my religion should be anyone's business but my own, but apparently some people refuse to share helpful research, resources and stories of prescribed harm simply because of other people's religious beliefs or affiliations. This alarms me because as I noted, labelling and censorship is exactly what the psych and pharma industry promote to keep information about prescribed harm out of the public's eye. I'd hate to see people killed or harmed because they didn't have an opportunity to access factual information and/or read the avoidable tragedies of prescribed harm suffered by their neighbours.
I have many friends with various spiritual beliefs. They include Catholics, Scientologists, Protestants, Muslims, Hindus and atheists. While I'm always interested in learning more about my friends' personal beliefs, my friends don't pressure me to believe as they do and none have ever tried to convert me. Most people would agree it is wrong to be ridiculed and slandered based upon one's religious principles.
In my 13 years as a public health and safety advocate, I've seen one church constantly targeted and maligned by the psych and pharma industry--the Church of Scientology. It doesn't take a genius to figure out why pharma attacks Scientologists. One need only to look at the reliable and extensive research and resources freely offered by CCHR to understand why CCHR is a target of these industries. In addition, I suspect if any of these other religions advocated as CCHR does, they, too, would be targeted by psychiatry and pharma.
These well-funded, systemically-organized attacks are merely manipulation tactics. An appropriate word for this behaviour is one I've just invented and rather like: hoodwinkery. So don't be hoodwinked by hoodwinkery.
Now back to last weekend's CCHR 50th anniversary events.
Library Meets Rock Gig
A CCHR event is a cross between a library and a rock gig. This may sound like a contradiction, but here's why I describe it as such. Attend any CCHR event and you will find yourself in a room full of knowledgeable people. Everyone there knows what's going on in the dark world of brain pellets. Audience members and hosts represent the knowledge, and the rock gig vibe is represented by, well, by accomplished musicians.
This Los Angeles event was the third one I've attended. (I also previously attended a CCHR award event in the UK years ago.) This year's human rights award recipients were film-maker Kevin P. Miller and attorney Andy Vickery. I have previously corresponded with both and was glad to meet Kevin Miller last weekend. Unfortunately, I never had a chance to meet Andy Vickery because honorees are swamped by the masses at after-show parties where everybody wants to talk with them. (I know because years ago I was one of several people recognized by CCHR for advocacy work.)
I was glad to meet award-winning documentary filmmaker, Kevin P. Miller. For those who don't know, Kevin wrote and directed both Generation RX and Letters from Generation RX. Like me, Miller has met many families destroyed by products marketed as "antidepressants." I prefer to simply call these pills brain pellets. It's a dark world we both move in yet it is also rewarding when we can improve public health by publicizing the personal experiences of those who have been prescribed harm. Kevin's humanitarian efforts shine in his documentaries. He is committed to human rights and long after his films are finished, he still speaks with the families of the victims, many of whom have become personal friends. He never forgets those whose stories he compassionately shares. I was glad to see Kevin, a kind-hearted man whose previous films have covered other human rights issues such as veterans and the homeless, recognized by CCHR for his contributions to a better society. I salute you, Kevin.
Another CCHR human rights award recipient was trial lawyer, Andy Vickery. Vickery was moved to tears when delivering his acceptance speech.
If you click on the New York Times link above about young Matt Miller who died while taking Zoloft, you'll see it was Andy Vickery who represented the family against Pfizer. Vickery was one of the first attorneys to represent families harmed by SSRIs and shined a public spotlight on the link between Paxil and violence when he represented the family of Donald Schell.
In 1998 the town of Gillette, Wyoming was shaken to its core, not by invading aliens arriving in motherships playing the five tones. Gillette was shaken by the Paxil-induced homicide and suicide of Donald Schell. Schell, age 60, shot to death his wife, daughter and baby granddaughter before turning the gun on himself. At that time nobody knew why such a loving man would carry out such heinous crimes. Thanks to Andy Vickery, the public soon learned about the link between Paxil and violence.
Schell's surviving son-in-law, Tim Tobin, brought a wrongful death lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline, Paxil makers. The jury in the Tobin v SmithKline Beecham (SKB) trial concluded that Paxil could cause someone to carry out suicide or homicide and that the drug was, in fact, a proximate cause of the deaths in this case. (1)
In 2004, some two years after the Tobin verdict, the FDA mandated black box warnings about the risk of antidepressant-induced suicidality, which SmithKline had denied, but which the Tobin case proved existed. The Black Box Warnings were a positive step in the right direction when it comes to protecting the public. However, the FDA does not require that the warning be clearly communicated by prescribers.
Vickery's award is well deserved.
(1)
For Those About to Rock... Da Sisterhood (You know who you are!)
The event itself was classy. It's glitz with a message and that message comes across loud and clear in a fantastic awards' show with top-notch talent. Award-winning Broadway star, James Barbour and Mark Isham, a Grammy-award winning, Oscar-nominated recording artist ended the program with an amazing rendition of the song "From Now On."
The spectacular finale had me wanting to jump on the table in the style of Thor whilst pulling a sword from my side. I was pumped up and proud of CCHR's accomplishments. Man, these folks know how to put on a show.
I met with past winners. I met with old friends and made new ones. I had a special time celebrating 50 years of CCHR and honouring Kevin and Andy. There really aren't enough superlatives for this ass-kickin' organisation that, in the face of extreme adversity, continue to fight to safeguard human rights for all.
It was especially rewarding for me to spend time with CCHR UK's Brian Daniels. I've known Brian for years. He's a top advocate and a dear friend (Oooh friend**). You kind of know how deep a friendship is when you, for whatever reason, don't see a lot of one another, but when you do meet again it's as comfortable as slipping into an old favourite coat. Brian is not only a friend, but he's also a fellow warrior and we share the same goals in life. (Oooh sharing friend**)
Another long-time friend, Gary Brown, was recognized for his support of CCHR. It was great to see Gary on stage. He is another favourite coat of mine.
I fully anticipate today's blog will be met by some with silence and continued censorship. While I don't give a toss if some people choose to judge or label me, I do care about protecting the innocent. If I saw my neighbour's kid playing with matches in his backyard, I wouldn't first ponder if my neighbour was a Catholic or a Muslim or a whatever before I rushed over to inform the parents and save their child from the fire.
CCHR has your back, folks, whatever your beliefs. I, unequivocally, have theirs too.
This week the Fiddaman Blog turned thirteen. It is now officially a teen which, ironically, is often the subject of this blog.
Inception
I vividly remember it's birth. It was a simple cut and paste job regarding Richard Brook who resigned from the Government's watchdog on antidepressants after it tried to cover up its own ten-year failure to identify serious side-effects of the controversial drug Seroxat.
Thirteen years on and that government watchdog, namely; The MHRA, are still sat thumb-twiddling and protecting drug companies.
A lot has happened since the inception of this old blog of mine. Stalkers, accusations, threats of lawsuits, a book, two human rights awards, radio shows, securing a settlement for a parent, talks, mainstream media attention, etc.
Who would have 'thunk' it?
I started this blog because I was concerned that the UK Medicines Regulator, the MHRA, was stonewalling questions posed to them regarding the notorious brain pellet, Seroxat. Thirteen years on and I tend not to bother with the MHRA anymore. I've met with them several times but no progress ever seems to come from such meetings. They are, as I suspected, limp-wristed beings from the planet Buffoonery.
It's fair to say I've taken my foot off the gas this year regarding this blog. There's only so much one person can endure when writing about children, husbands, wives, etc. whose demise started from taking brain pellets without full knowledge of the adverse risks vs. minimal, if any, benefit. I've shed many a tear for those who are no longer with us, and I carry their memory in my heart.
While blogs play an important role in advocacy, today's advocacy often happens in an instantaneous way via social media, especially on Twitter. You can follow my Twitter account here to see some of those interactions.
I find fellow advocates on Twitter, some of whom also started blogs long ago. One of whom, Truthman, deserves a hearty shout out for dedicated research and having the courage to tell it like it is.
We've stood together throughout the years, loudly banging the drum that sometimes it feels like we are joined at the hip. Brothers in arms, perhaps?
Truthman's work attracting and corresponding with drug company whistleblowers is greatly admired for I know how much time and effort is involved when whistleblowers reach out.
I salute you, Truthman!
There are others to thank, most of whom are dead, due to brain pellet induced suicides. It's those children, husbands, wives etc whom I am indebted to. I would never have met their surviving loved ones if it wasn't for their passing. There's far too many to mention, which, in itself, is a very sad state of affairs.
Who would have thought thirteen years ago this blog would still be going? Today almost 2.5 million views and still new people land on my blog, searching for info about drug withdrawal, birth defects, akathisia, drug-induced suicidality and suicide...I wish it weren't the case. I hope for the day when nobody has a need to search for such info.
I do feel the tide has turned during the past thirteen years. Many of the newer advocates offer new ways to reach out to the public. Many professionals have spoken out about the dangers of brain pellets. This was pretty much unheard of when I first started blogging. We had one or two forums, no Facebook, no Twitter and only a handful of professionals speaking out. Social media has, indeed, made a huge difference. I salute all who try to make a difference.
13 years, huh? Thanks for the readership. I'll be celebrating today with my partner, a cheeky smile, and maybe a glass of red wine as I (hopefully) watch my football team, Aston Villa, win again tonight.
