Zantac Lawsuit

Researching drug company and regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years
Humanist, humorist

Thursday, May 30, 2019

Royal College of Psychiatrists in Dubious U-Turn

"I can read you like a book. And not a very good book. Certainly not 'Bravo Two Zero' by Andy McNab. Which actually improves with every read." ~ Alan Partridge

Many of us have read today's news articles published in several "mainstream" media outlets. Backslapping has ensued amongst those responsible for this apparent "U-turn". Today's media exposé isn't really an exposé, not when adverse effects, which include suicidality and suicide have intentionally been omitted in today's articles and in the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) new "position paper."

Stop the backslaps. This is no volte-face, as you will see.

For years the stance of the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCPsych) has been that what I call brain pellets and they call "antidepressants" are safe, effective and cause only minimal problems when patients try to stop taking them. RCPsych's stance has been documented for many years on their website, in their strategically placed media articles and on social networking sites.

Today RCPsych published a 29-page document on its website with emphasis regarding people who have, and still are, struggling with brain-pellet withdrawal. How long this document will remain on RCPsych's website is anyone's guess given RCPsych has a habit of removing evidence of withdrawal problems from its website (1)

The 29-page document, a "Position statement on antidepressants and depression", is a buck-passing exercise. Nothing more, nothing less. The diligent media (Guardian, The Times, The Mirror, Daily Mail) are doing what they often do best: providing RCPsych and the field of psychiatry with a free mouthpiece for positive PR.

The position paper gives RCPsych an opportunity to harp on about depression and how serious it is and gently--almost as a sidenote--slip in, "Oh, by the way, some people may struggle coming off the drugs we prescribe."

Why So Cynical?

Back in 2011, the British drug regulator, the MHRA, unleashed the SSRI Learning Module. This 'module' was aimed at prescribing physicians who, according to the MHRA, needed to learn more about antidepressant withdrawal problems, particularly from the SSRI class of drugs such as Zoloft, Prozac, Seroxat, etc.

The move back then is identical to what we see today: A gesture to try and stifle patients' voices, promote the drugs as a safe and effective treatment for depression, and appease, in some small way, advocates who have for many years accurately pointed out the truth. Previous denials by RCPsych and MHRA regarding this public health crisis made possible the prescribed harm and deaths of countless people. But these facts weren't really mentioned in today's media outlets.

As I typically do after any MHRA announcement, I reviewed their module and found some glaring omissions. Lot's of talk, but no real action. RCPsych's paper is similar. To learn more about the MHRA's SSRI Learning Module read here, here and here.

Next, read the emails I sent the MHRA regarding their claim that experts are on hand to help people struggling withdrawal problems.

So here we are 8 years later and we awake to another announcement, this one from the prescribers and RCPsych. The announcement is littered with contradictions. Moreover, the serious prescribing problems are barely addressed and played down all the while supposed benefits are emphasized. The old message still comes through loud and clear despite its newfound, quietly sly delivery: That is, "The product benefits outweigh the risks." 

I've often struggled with the benefits vs risks claim because I've never actually seen a list of these so-called benefits yet I have seen an ever-increasing list of risks.

For years we have been told the benefits outweigh the risks but when we question these benefits and ask what they are, exactly, there is no meaningful answer. The empty replies often parroted include "Depression is a serious illness." and "These drugs save lives." Interesting to note that data proving such claims never seems to be provided by RCPsych and prescribers who otherwise like to stress the importance of scientific data. RCPsych's press release and today's news articles also seem to omit the fact that SSRIs are often prescribed off-label for reasons unrelated to "depression." Such discussions and concerns regarding people who were prescribed these drugs NOT for depression is glaringly absent despite that these people also suffer from withdrawal and drug-induced akathisia (which can create anxiety and depression as an adverse drug effect). Those who died avoidable SSRI-induced akathisia deaths are also apparently invisible ghosts.

Despite today's announcements, little has changed since 2016 when I asked the MHRA to provide me with the benefits of Prozac. The only benefit MHRA could muster was that Prozac "raises the level of the neurotransmitter, serotonin, in the brain which can improve symptoms of depression." (2)

Yes, they really did state such meaningless nonsense. If Prozac (and presumably other SSRIs) help rectify a chemical imbalance then, that's the one and only benefit according to the British drug regulator. The fact that the chemical imbalance theory/marketing spin has been debunked and no longer touted by RCPsych didn't seem to matter to the MHRA, who, incidentally, are fully funded by drug companies.

RCPsych released their position statement on products marketed as antidepressants because they have come under fire on Twitter from many drug safety advocates too numerous to individually mention here. RCPsych President, Wendy Burn, has claimed she never knew how bad the withdrawal problem is until she joined Twitter. Most would agree that the implications of this admission are staggering. For more than 30 years brain pellets have been on the market, and Burn and her colleagues have been prescribing them to elderly patients and children, two groups who are most at-risk for experiencing adverse effects to any drugs, not just SSRIs. What astounds me most about today's news is the messages Burn has been receiving on Twitter, some of which are from drug safety advocates thanking her. Yes, thanking her! Let's all send thanks to the drug companies, whilst we're at it. For years they denied withdrawal problems when, like Burn, were forced to change warnings about brain pellet withdrawal. How can you thank someone who has been forced to admit the truth by those damaged by the very same drugs Burn has continuously defended? The mind boggles.

RCPsych's position paper calls for more education for prescribers. RCPsych should start with its own president who has previously maintained that for years she has never seen withdrawal. I don't think Burn's admission is rare among prescribers. People have difficulty seeing what they don't want to see. People have difficulty recognizing and identifying what they believe seldom exists and/or doesn't exist at all. Lastly, like the drug companies, prescribers who don't want to know the honest answers to relevant questions--questions that will likely reduce prescribing, reduce product sales and increase public knowledge of product risks--choose not to ask certain questions.

Some might call this blog cynical but I've been writing about the withdrawal problem for more than 13 years and have witnessed endless ignorance, collusion and denial by drug companies, regulators and prescribers. RCPsych's publicly announced U-turn today will likely create little if any meaningful change. The only thing it does accomplish is to show RCPsych with egg on its face, an egg that will quickly be wiped clean as RCPsych continues to claim 1) They didn't previously know about serious withdrawal problems and 2) The benefits of "antidepressants" still outweigh the risks.

Evidence of RCPych's tactical position was seen just hours after the media announced their apparent U-turn. Dr Adrian James, a Forensic Psychiatrist with Devon Partnership NHS Trust and Registrar Royal College of Psychiatrists, was a guest on BBC Radio 4 show. He was there to discuss today's headlines. Here's what he said.

"...withdrawal was mild and self-limiting and not the real story, the real story was not enough people are getting antidepressant drugs."

As I said, the position paper just allows them to promote the use of brain pellets. The only upshot of James' torrid PR today presented by BBC radio is that the public is increasingly starting to see right through this shameless drug promotion and call it out for what it is.

I'd be more impressed if RCPsych were to hassle drug companies for the raw data regarding brain pellets, without which they can never give fully informed consent. Never.

Let us not forget those who have died as a result of medical "professionals" instructing patients to stop SSRIs cold turkey, or lowered brain pellet dosages too quickly or, wrongly increased SSRI dosages in response to symptoms that were actually SSRI-induced akathisia. Many of these men, women and children were prescribed brain pellets by average GP's who took their advice from RCPsych. Don't expect to see any remorse or apologies for the dead and/or for those who currently live lives with permanently prescribed harms. Do expect more of the same from the RCPsych fundamentalists.

There are too many captains at RCPsych, all of whom are blindly steering their ship into an iceberg. We, the patients, are the passengers. Some of us have already perished thanks to the stance of RCPsych. My heart, today, goes out to all those who have died as a result of the incompetence and ignorance of the Royal College. It goes out further to the families of those who will lose loved ones in the future due to RCPsych's tactical games. Trust me, there will be more deaths. And RCPsych knows it.

I held talks with the MHRA back in 2008. Recommendations were made by the MHRA. They promised to consult with the British National Formulary (BNF) and NICE. Nothing came of it (3)

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Bob Fiddaman

(1) RCP Remove Damning Antidepressant Document From Website
(2) Prozac - Benefits Vs Risks - MHRA Correspondence
(3) Guidance on the Management of Withdrawal from Seroxat (Paroxetine) and Other SSRIs 

Monday, May 06, 2019

UK Seroxat Litigation - 12 Years

The UK Seroxat litigation continues later this week.

Today is a day of rest. Today is also the anniversary of the death of 18-year-old Candian Sara Carlin who died by hanging in 2007. Today, but for Paxil, she would have been 30.

I will never forget Sara, even though I never met her I have an affinity with her and her family.

I always will.

Bob Fiddaman

Back Stories

Sunday, May 05, 2019

Hashtag Backfires on Twitter

Wendy Burn: President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists

Twitter can be an effective resource for sharing research links, personal experiences and public opinions. It can also highlight the personalities of people with strongly held views.

On May 1st Hattie Gladwell, a journalist and columnist, tweeted the following:

At first glance, I perceived this tweet as just another tired attempt to try and silence those who've been harmed by pharmaceutical products and prescribers. It appeared Gladwell was trying to imply those who take pharma products marketed for mental health are, somehow, stigmatized by others. While I don't buy this PR spin, I do believe organizations and media work together to silence and stigmatize drug safety advocates and those who share their own experiences of prescribed harm. While I don't know if Gladwell and/or her publication is supported by pharma money/resources, her tweet actually sparked a Twitter storm that spotlights the black hole of dangerous prescribing.

Reading some of the replies made my jaw drop as people started posting the various drug cocktails they currently take. I've included a few examples below and have redacted the tweeters' names because some of these people likely didn't consider possible issues surrounding such public proclamations.

The below tweet was retweeted by the Royal College of Psychiatrists President, Wendy Burn. Burn didn't offer any warning regarding the cocktail of drugs this tweeter was taking.

Any patient concerned about the interactions of drugs they are taking can visit, a database whereby a user adds the names of multiple drugs they are on to see if the drugs interact with one another. There are many similar databases available on the internet.

Here is what reports about the interactions of Lithium, Quetiapine, Venlafaxine, and Mirtazipine:

The tweeter thanked me for bringing this to her attention and said she would speak with her doctor.

Many other tweeters, from public health and safety advocates to those who support the pharma/psych industry, joined the conversation by using the hashtag, #ITakeMedsForMyMental Health.

The Royal College President continued to retweet those tweets she perceived to support her whilst dismissing those tweets about adverse effects. I suppose this is Burn's prerogative and I can't blame her for trying to support her own field.

However, several of her retweets are cause for concern. Many of her retweets were from patients who are taking several different drugs that have major interactions. Burn continued to retweet them and some members of the prescribed harm community perceived Burn's tweets to be an exercise in goading.

I implored Burn to stop as, I felt, she was putting patients in danger by not pointing out the dangerous interactions among some of the drugs these tweeters were taking. She ignored my request and continued retweeting.

One such retweet had me perplexed.

For Burn to retweet this after her college, back in August 2017, finally debunked the chemical imbalance myth, is astounding.

RCP reaffirmed this again in June 2018

Burn also retweeted, seemingly in support of Paxil, a product known as Seroxat in the UK and one that is currently the subject of litigation in London. Paxil cases have been won and settled in the US with regard to causing severe withdrawal problems, birth defects and even death!

Understandably, Burn came under a lot of fire for retweeting in support of a chemical imbalance, particularly after her own college has twice debunked this marketing ploy.

Burn took umbrage to the criticism and bizarrely tweeted the following:

Many people responded to Burn to ask why she thought trying to educate people regarding drug interactions could be deemed threatening. She never replied. Some 24 hours later, Burn blocked me and many others.

Understandably, her refusal to engage in critical conversations about adverse drug interactions has enraged many service users.

Burn is no stranger to controversy. Back in February 2018, she, along with fellow Royal College member, David Baldwin, came under fire for stating publically that, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment."  (Image above)

This statement was in sharp contrast to a previous study ("Coming Off Antidepressants") carried out by the Royal College that showed at least 63% of respondents reported difficulties withdrawing from the SSRI drugs. 

When this was pointed out to her by drug safety advocate, James Moore, the college pulled the study from their website stating that it was "out of date". (Back Story)

Complaints were made to the college but they were quickly dismissed.

The Twitter controversy continues today and many are dumbfounded that the RCP president is not warning patients about the life-threatening drug interactions she is witnessing and then publicly communicating via her Twitter page.

In my opinion, the hashtag that started this debate was a good one. I don't believe people are being stigmatized because they take drugs, but the hashtag certainly publicized the serious problems posed by polypharmacy. This recent Twitter storm shows me that there is a lack of duty and care among many prescribers and their professional organizations.

Being blocked by Burn doesn't really bother me. But it does highlight how the president of RCP, and RCP itself, continues to put PR above patient safety.

Bob Fiddaman


“what we believe in” by Peter J Gordon

Thursday, May 02, 2019

UK Seroxat Litigation - Adjourned - The Blame Game

Court is adjourned today and will resume Tuesday.

As I understand, part of GSK's defence in the UK Seroxat litigation trial currently being heard in the High Court in London is, they claim, the surge of Seroxat reports regarding a withdrawal problem was down to a series of programmes aired by the BBC. There were four in all (Videos below)

Isn't this like blaming Amazon or Trip Advisor because people say bad things about products and hotels?

It's a strange argument and one, it seems, they have a history of making, as confidential internal documents show.

In 1998 they didn't have consumers or the media to blame, instead, they blamed Eli Lilly for the Seroxat withdrawal problem. Lilly is the manufacturer of Glaxo's direct competition, namely; Prozac.

A 1998 internal memo highlights this in great detail and it's well worth reading. One also has to remember here who GSK blamed in the Dolin trial. The FDA, Dolin's doctor, Dolin's 'state of mind.'

Here's the document where they blame Lilly for Seroxat's withdrawal problem.

Here are those Panorama programmes GSK claim resulted in more reports of Seroxat withdrawal.

The Secrets of Seroxat elicited a record response from the public as 65,000 people telephoned the BBC helpline and 1,300 people emailed Panorama directly.

The second Panorama programme on Seroxat, Emails from the Edge included a report of the survey to which the 239 people responded. It showed widespread experiences of suicidal feelings and other severe reactions, very bad withdrawal symptoms and lack of warnings from doctors. After the broadcast users/survivors and Mind protested outside the offices of the MHRA.

Taken on Trust highlighted the incompetence of MHRA figures as well as hearing from GSK spokesperson, Alistair Benbow. This episode sees Benbow infamously blame patients for reading the Seroxat patient information leaflet incorrectly.

On 29 January 2007, the fourth documentary of the series about the drug Seroxat was broadcast. It focused on three GlaxoSmithKline paediatric clinical trials on depressed children and adolescents. Data from the trials show that Seroxat could not be proven to work for teenagers. Not only that, one clinical trial indicated that they were six times more likely to become suicidal after taking it. In the programme, Panorama revealed the secret trail of internal emails which show how GlaxoSmithKline manipulated the results of the trials for its own commercial gain.

Bob Fiddaman

Wednesday, May 01, 2019

UK Seroxat Litigation Day 3 - More Silence and Discovery History

Day three of the UK Seroxat litigation sees more silence from the British media. I'm assuming they are waiting until the end of week 1 before they go to print. Opening statements can be repetitive and tiresome.

As I am not in a position to report on the trial given I'm a claimant, I want to highlight a previous case I worked on (for free). It involves Seroxat and just like the current litigation wasn't reported on in the media.

This old post of mine highlights how GSK's attorneys operate, at least in the States. It's important that I air this again as it shows readers who may be unfamiliar with GlaxoSmithKline exactly what kind of beast UK claimants are up against.

I worked on this case for almost three months before going public. Much of what went on behind the scenes has never been made public...until now. It's a long post as it takes some explaining. Imagine, if you will, a jigsaw, that you are told will reward you with a pot of gold upon completion. You get to the end only to find missing pieces. Some years later, after nobody has come forward to collect the prize, you are handed those missing pieces. There was no pot of gold for me but I took great satisfaction in helping a mother who had been harmed by one of the largest pharmaceutical companies in the world. My satisfaction came as a result of their forced u-turn.

First off, rules of discovery do apply to both sides to some extent. But the reality of the situation is that the defence does not end up having to play by the same strict rules. This doesn’t mean defendants can sit on their hands, though. Failure to respond to discovery in a timely manner can result in sanctions, including financial penalties.

Discovery, in the law of common law jurisdictions, is a pre-trial procedure in a lawsuit in which each party, through the law of civil procedure, can obtain evidence from the other party or parties. Discovery is conducted in various ways such as interrogatories, requests for production of documents, requests for admissions and depositions. (Source)

Headlines Galore
In December 2013 a petition of allocatur was filed in the case of a woman who claimed that her use of  Paxil (Seroxat) during pregnancy caused birth defects necessitating an abortion. Allocatur basically means permission to be allowed to file an appeal.

The woman, Joanne Thomas from Pennsylvania, filed the allocatur to challenge a Nov. 27 Superior Court ruling that GlaxoSmithKline did not fraudulently conceal from her information about the U.S. Food and Drug Administration birth-defect risk classification of its drug Paxil. Given there was no fraudulent concealment to toll the statute of limitations, the Superior Court ruled the case was time-barred. Additionally, the court ruled that since Thomas' unborn baby did not reach the fetal gestational age of 23-24 weeks, it was not considered "viable" in terms of a wrongful death/survival claim.

In 2009, Glaxo lost a case that claimed it did not do enough to warn mothers of potential dangers when taking Seroxat during pregnancy. The next year, Glaxo paid more than $1 billion to settle 800 similar suits in the U.S.

The 'test case' Glaxo lost in 2009 involved Lyam Kilker.  Lyam was born in 2005 with multiple cardiac defects: a hole in his atrial septum, a hole in his ventricular septum, along with transposition of the great arteries. Shortly before conceiving, Michelle David, Lyam's mother, had been prescribed Seroxat for mild anxiety and occasional panic attacks, and she continued to take the drug throughout her pregnancy.

Lyam's mother filed a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline and on October 13, 2009, a jury in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas returned a verdict against GlaxoSmithKline. The jury ordered GSK to pay $2.5 million in damages to the family.

"Please don't forget about me"
During the Kilker trial, it came to light, via GlaxoSmithKline internal emails, that Glaxo had been contacted by a consumer in 2001. The name of the consumer was redacted.

Here are the emails that were sent to Glaxo in 2001

"I was diagnosed with panic disorder about four-and-a-half years ago. Since that time I've been taking Paxil, which is truly a miracle drug. I've been panic-free with this drug and have been able to go on with a normal life.

"I was married in October of 2000. My husband and I found out we were pregnant at Christmas time. I was so excited. I love children. The only problem is that I carried the baby to six months gestation and then had to have a termination.

"The doctors diagnosed my son with Truncus arteriosis. They said he would not lead a normal childhood and would most likely not make it through the open heart surgery that he would need as soon as he was delivered (if he was able to make it to that time).

"To say the least, I was absolutely distraught with this news. I thought this was something that I did [...] because I stayed on the Paxil for selfish reasons.

"I wanted to know if you could direct me to any information you might have of any woman that has taken Paxil and still had healthy babies.

"My husband and I are ready to try again to get pregnant in the next month or two. I am so nervous. I don't want to stop taking my miracle pill. But, then again, if there is a chance that this might hurt or affect the baby, I want to know upfront. And I will somehow stop taking it for the time being.

"Please contact me as soon as possible. I love everything this drug has done for me. I am so thankful that your company had this available for me. I just want to continue to have a normal life and have the child that I always wanted.

"Please contact me as soon as possible ... Please don't forget about me."


The woman sent a second email, on 1 June 2001.

"This response is in regards to an e-mail that I had sent you previously. I was asking to see if you have any or are in the process of any clinical trials for women who are currently on Paxil and pregnant. I wanted to find out information to see how many women were on Paxil during pregnancy and if they were able to successfully have healthy babies.

"I am in no way insinuating your product did this to my child. I love the product, and I don't think I could have gotten through my panic attacks without the wonderful help of this miracle drug.

"I just want to start to try and get pregnant again soon. I do not want to put my unborn child through anything that would hurt him/her.

"Please, if you do not have this information, where is this information held? Does anyone do studies like this? Please, any information you may give me would be great. Thanks again for your help."


The following GSK internal memo from June 2001 refers to her emails.

"Report 2001014040-1 describes the occurrence of a terminated pregnancy in a female of unknown age prescribed paroxetine (Paxil) for panic disorder.

"This report was received from the patient and has not been confirmed by a physician or other health care professional. Concurrent medications and medical conditions were not known.

"Four-and-a-half years ago, the patient started Paxil (dose unknown). Since taking Paxil, the patient noted she has been panic-free and has been able to go on with a normal life.

"Patient discovered she was pregnant in December 2000 while being treated with Paxil. However, she reported that at six months gestation the pregnancy had to be terminated because the fetus was diagnosed as having Truncus arteriosis.

"Her physician told her that the child would not lead a normal childhood and would most likely not make it through the open heart surgery that he would need as soon as he was delivered, if he was able to make it to that time."


Eventually, GSK emailed the following response to the woman on 6 June 2001.

"Thank you for your inquiry. We are attaching a copy of our current product information for Paxil. Please review the section on use during pregnancy.

"Further questions about your treatment should be directed to the physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider who has the most complete information about your medical condition.

"Because patient care is individualised, we encourage patients to direct questions about their medical condition and treatment to their physician.

"We believe that because your physician knows your medical history, he or she is best suited to answer your questions.

"Our drug information department is available to answer any questions your physician or pharmacist may have about our products. Your healthcare professional can call our drug information department ..."


These emails were produced at the Kilker trial as was a GSK admittance, albeit via an internal document.

An internal GSK document relating to the correspondence, headed "re-investigation of case number A0348482B", dated 13 June 2001, states: "Relatedness assessment to medication – almost certain."

So, GSK knew as far back as 2001 that it was almost certain that Paxil caused the birth defects. They never, however, gave this information to the female consumer who wrote to them. This despite the woman asking for information regarding Paxil as she and her husband wished to try for another baby, "I just want to start to try and get pregnant again soon. I do not want to put my unborn child through anything that would hurt him/her."


Contacting a Blogger
In 2014, I was contacted by Joanne Thomas who, if you remember, had lost her case against GSK due to a statute of limitations defence being used.

Joanne was unaware that she had been the subject of many blog posts and had been sought by attorneys, some even hired private detectives to try and track her down. Dr. David Healy had also previously wrote about her, here and here, but she was unaware of this.

Her email to me obviously struck a chord and I asked her to view a video I had uploaded to YouTube. The video, a deposition from GSK's Jane Nieman, had been used as evidence in the Kilker trial.

Within minutes of watching the video Joanne emailed me back saying, "Omg...Bob that's me!!!!
"Jesus Christ 31:07 ... I believe its my call!!
"I am a mess...."

I spoke at length with Joanne and her father and pieced together her case, in all it took around three months to put an article together. I also contacted her attorneys to basically let them know they had "missed a trick."

Within the space of a few weeks after publishing my findings, GSK and Joanne's attorneys agreed on a settlement. Disappointingly, Joanne's attorneys told her not to contact me anymore this after I handed them victory against GSK. A nice 40% of Joanne's award for them for others doing their work. 

Joanne sent me emails which showed GSK in a tizz over the evidence they had previously kept from her attorneys. We spoke again on the phone and she asked my advice about the paltry sum GSK was offering her. Her lawyers, in my opinion, a two-bit bottom-feeding law firm, put pressure on Joanne to accept GSK's measly compensation. What price for killing a child, huh? Sadly, Joanne was to be gagged once she accepted the settlement.

I don't know how Joanne is getting on these days and don't really blame her for ceasing contact with me. I do, however, know that GSK knew exactly who she was but told a judge that her case was barred by the Statute of Limitations when the reality is they had already admitted back in 2001 that they were certain Seroxat caused her child's birth defects. GSK knew but didn't tell her and put her and any future babies at risk. Don't you find this conduct inconceivable?

Keeping evidence 'in-house' that may point to a fault causing death is one thing, but to keep it 'in-house' knowing that it may happen again to the same person is unforgivable.

I had more shares on the following two posts than any other of my blog posts I've ever written. GSK, King & Spalding (GSK Attorneys) all visited my blog, hence the reason, they settled with her.

Here are the two posts that forced the hand of GSK to settle.

Ryan, Glaxo's Non-Viable Fetus - Part I

Ryan, Glaxo's Non-Viable Fetus - Part II - The Twists


Bob Fiddaman

Coming soon. GSK's defence in the UK Seroxat litigation - Playing the media blame game and why it doesn't hold water.

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