CHEMICAL IMBALANCE - PATIENT INFORMATION LEAFLETS FOIA TO MHRA

 

For the record, I emailed the MHRA earlier with the following request:

To whom it may concern,

According to UK legislation, [Regulation 267 of the Human Medicines Regulations 2012] it requires that marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of UK MAs and article 126a authorisations inform the competent authority of all changes to the labelling and patient information leaflets which are not connected with changes to the Summary of Product Characteristics (SmPC).

With this in mind, I hereby request the following information:

1. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of citalopram change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

2. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of escitalopram change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

3. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of fluoxetine change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

4. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of paroxetine change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

5. When did the marketing authorisation holders (MAH) of sertraline change the labelling and patient information leaflets with regard to any reference referring to a "chemical imbalance" and what was the reason/evidence for this change.

Sincerely,

Bob Fiddaman

Do Antidepressants Save Lives?

 

I find the whole 'antidepressants saved my life' thing quite strange. I'm sure some think this to be true but what leads them to this conclusion? How do they know they wouldn't be alive right now if it wasn't for taking medication? To question this one is seen as a 'pill-shamer' or accused of stigmatizing.

Now, on the other side of the fence we have those who have been harmed by antidepressants. The 'lucky' ones are alive to tell their stories, many have died as a result of the antidepressant inducing suicide. This is plain to see and one doesn't need to assume if this or that may happen. It's already happened. 

There are physical signs of antidepressant harm too, Akathisia and other central nervous system injuries are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to compiling a list of injuries that antidepressants can cause.

So, why does there seem to be a push back whenever anyone on social media chooses to describe their personal experiences of antidepressant harm?

Why are stories like this met with "they work fine for me", "they help millions of people world-wide", "they saved my life"?

Antidepressants can cause a lack of empathy, and what I see playing out here is people, who genuinely believe antidepressants help them, are refusing to acknowledge the harm antidepressants have caused others.

The 5 Empathy Skills:

To see the world as others see it, or perspective taking.

To be non judgemental.

To understand another person's feelings.

To communicate your understanding of that person's feelings.

Mindfulness (paying attention)

So, whenever I read anything on social media from someone harmed by antidepressants and this is followed with replies such as 'they saved my life' - I'm reminded of how antidepressants can remove the 5 empathy skills (above) - I know, because whilst taking Seroxat (Paxil) most, if not all of the 5 empathy skills, didn't exist in my world. It was only after withdrawing (19 month taper) empathy came flooding back.

Antidepressants are designed to blunt emotions and a lot of what we see on social media from those taking them shows that design is working. I see very little of the 5 empathy skills from those who oppose people posting about antidepressant harm. Shouting how they save lives doesn't help the person posting about the harms caused.

This whole area has been massively emphasized, of late, by COVID vaccine injuries. Many of those who opted to take the jabs will skip past the horrific injuries caused by the jab that are posted on social media on a daily basis. If they are not skipped, they are answered with the classic, "all drugs/vaccines carry a risk." Again, this does not help a mother or father wanting support because they now have a child suffering, for example, myocarditis, or a brother or sister distraught at losing a family member as a result of an adverse reaction to the vaccine.

I'm not aware that the COVID vaccine strips people of empathy but there's a very high percentage of people who have taken the jabs who show a complete lack of empathy.

Like antidepressants, or rather people that take them, we see the same scenario playing out with regard to the 'life-saving' comments.

"If it wasn't for the vaccine, I'd be a lot worse", or "the vaccine saved my mother from dying".

Again, people who claim this are speaking of possible future events, just as people who make the same claim with antidepressants.

This does nothing for those harmed or those grief-stricken.

I'm almost certain, in fact I'll bet my left nut on it, that this post will be picked up on Twitter by those firmly in the "antidepressants saved my life" camp and I'll be accused of either pill-shaming or stigmatizing ~ I can live with that, even though it's not true, because, as I mentioned above, I am well aware that antidepressants kill empathy.

As for the professionals who make the 'saves lives' claims, they have a possible ulterior motive. If you take away antidepressants then psychiatrists are only left with their communication tools and from what I've witnessed on social media platforms, particularly Twitter, communication skills are severely lacking in this field.

Finally, if you are taking an antidepressant and you believe it is keeping your head above water, that's great. I'm genuinely pleased for you. One, however, would need a time-travelling DeLorean to predict that without them you'd be dead.

Bob Fiddaman

Merck & Co Face Uphill Battle as Gardasil Lawsuits Consolidated

 

Last Thursday, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) issued an order consolidating Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine lawsuit claims. The order, according to a press release, allows the cases to move into coordinated discovery and pretrial proceedings.

When cases, like these Gardasil lawsuits, are complex, it is requested that they be moved to one district court. That one court can then handle all discovery and pretrial proceedings for the lawsuits. 

Multidistrict Litigation is handled by just one judge during the pretrial and discovery process where it is hoped parties will reach a settlement. If no settlement is reached then cases are sent back to their original courts.

Merck & Co will now have to submit written answers to some very tough questions regarding the number of claims made by plaintiffs.

On granting the consolidation of Gardasil human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccine lawsuit claims, the United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation said, "These personal injury actions present common questions of fact arising from allegations that plaintiffs, or their minor children, developed postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome (POTS) and various other injuries as the result of an autoimmune reaction to the Gardasil vaccine…"

Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, are representing young men and women across the country who allege they suffered serious injuries as a result of Gardasi, injuries that include but are not limited to:

Autonomic Dysfunction (Dysautonomia)

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS)

Premature Ovarian Failure (POF)

Fibromyalgia

Myalgic Encephalomyelitis / Chronic Fatigue Syndrome (ME/CFS)

Orthostatic Intolerance (OI)

Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome (POTS)

By July 28, 2022, 48 cases were pending with at least 100 more to be filed in federal courts nationwide. You can read about some of these cases below:

Baum Hedlund Take a Stand Against Vaccine Maker

Californian Law Firm Lead the Way in Gardasil Litigation

Fifth Gardasil Vaccine Lawsuit Filed

Gardasil Vaccine Can Cause Infertility, New Lawsuit Alleges

Gardasil Lawsuits Continue

Vaccine Manufacturer Used "Spiked" Placebo to Hide Injuries Between Vaccine and Control Groups, Lawsuit Alleges

The Gardasil Vaccine Lawsuits Keep Piling Up

"I don’t want this pain for other kids." ~ Victoria Trevisan, Gardasil Victim

Bob Fiddaman