Royal College of Psychiatrists Dig Deep Abyss

Back in March, I reported on a letter that was sent to the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) regarding a statement made in The Times newspaper by their two employees, Wendy Burn and David Baldwin.

The statement irked many, myself included, as it was deeply misleading and dangerous. Burn and Baldwin claimed 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."

It was James "Scooby" Moore who rumbled the RCP when he confronted Wendy Burn on Twitter shortly after the statement was printed in The Times. You see, the RCP had previously carried out their own study into antidepressant withdrawal and even published the results. It was found that withdrawal symptoms generally lasted for up to 6 weeks. A small percentage of symptoms lasted longer than this. A quarter of the group surveyed by RCP reported anxiety lasting more than 12 weeks.

When Moore pointed this out, the study was removed from the RCP website and RCP claimed they removed it because it "was out of date." ~ Copies of the study were, however, copied by James Moore, you can see the pages here.

On March 9th, 2018, a formal complaint of misleading the public on a matter of public safety was lodged with the RCP against Burn and Baldwin. The complaint was signed by Professor John Read of the University of East London, on behalf of many psychiatrists and victims of antidepressant withdrawal.

Today, John Read and co have published the response from the RCP and it's priceless!

I don't want to spoil your fun by summarizing segments on my blog, you really need to read it in its entirety. (LINK)

If reading isn't your thing then you can listen to a special 9-minute podcast with Professor John Read here. In it, he describes how the RCP are conveniently cherry-picking selective quotes to justify what Burns and Baldwin initially said. It's jaw-dropping!

And I thought the MHRA were the best bricklayers in the UK!

Bob Fiddaman

How it all unfolded

Media Frenzy - Antidepressants Are Safe!

Royal College of Psychiatrists - 63%

Scooby and Those Pesky Tweeters Rumble Psychiatry

Scooby and Those Pesky Tweeters Rumble Psychiatry

I've stood back in amazement whilst watching psychgate unfold. It's been fun to watch the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) crumble over the past few weeks. Back in February, they were rejoicing about the release of a "new" study proclaiming antidepressants work better than placebo and that they now have evidence to prove it. Wow!

Remarkable, 30 years after the launch of Prozac and we are being told we now have evidence that it, and other SSRIs, are actually better than placebo!

Reading between the lines of the study and the flurry of tabloid headlines and you'll see the results have been known for many years - RCP just put a different spin on it, along with the Science Media Centre, of course. Drugs marketed as "antidepressants" appear to possibly be better than placebo ONLY for sufferers of Major Depressive Disorder (MDD). And this result was limited only to a drug trial lasting 8 weeks. It's not known if "antidepressants" are better than placebo after 8 weeks and these drugs were never meant for long-term consumption despite that many psychiatrists lucratively prescribe them permanently to uninformed patients.

Anyway, I've pointed out the flaws in past blogs.

Moving on to more recent events

As I reported previously, Wendy Burn and David Baldwin, both of the RCP, landed themselves in hot water when they co-authored a letter to The Times newspaper. They claimed, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment."

One has to dissect the above comment to understand its meaning. Not only did they claim a majority of patients, they claimed a "vast majority." By saying "vast majority" they are implying it's at the high end of the spectrum. So, not just a majority, but a 'vast' one.

In actuality, both Burn and Baldwin were hideously wrong, their figures, or rather their estimation, was plucked out of thin air, in much the same way that is a diagnosis. When asked for evidence of their hideous claim, both Burn and Baldwin have failed to show any. The comment remains and no effort of a retraction has been made, nor an apology for getting it catastrophically wrong.

It was James Moore who set the ball in motion when he confronted Wendy Burn on Twitter. The correspondence (tweets) can be seen here. I shall now refer to James as Scooby as he's the brains behind the exposing of Burns and Baldwin. (Ugh, what a horrible thought, Burns, and Baldwin exposing themselves.)

I jest, and I shouldn't really, because this is a very serious subject. Proclaiming withdrawal symptoms are resolved within 2 weeks is dangerous and throws further stigma onto those experiencing withdrawal problems. In essence, Burns and Baldwin are saying anyone who experiences severe withdrawal after 2 weeks is either a liar or is merely imagining the horrific, debilitating withdrawal effects. Nice, huh?

It appears Burns and Baldwin have messed with the wrong people. They may feel they have the weight of the profession behind them but you should never mess with patient safety advocates such as Moore (ahem, Scooby).

Today a formal complaint of misleading the public on a matter of public safety has been lodged with RCP against Burn and Baldwin. The complaint, signed by Professor John Read of the University of East London, on behalf of many psychiatrists and victims of antidepressant withdrawal can be read here.

Scooby Scoop

Scooby wouldn't be Scooby without a perfect ending. So, what does Scooby do? Well, he interviews the complainer, John Reed.

Reed comes across as someone who knows his onions. His utter dismay of recent events shines through in this short interview. He also has actual evidence that Burn and Baldwin are wrong as he conducted his own study into withdrawal effects from antidepressant drugs. Listen and share. It will have you whooping and shouting screams of approval, or disapproval, depending on which side of the fence you sit, the side with evidence, or the side without.

Credit to James Moore for starting the snowball and for continuing to roll it.

Zoinks!




Bob Fiddaman

Royal College of Psychiatrists - 63%

As many of you already know, Professor Wendy Burn, President – Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Professor David Baldwin, Chair, Psychopharmacology Committee – Royal College of
Psychiatrists have been sent a letter regarding recent remarks in an opinion piece published by The Times newspaper. The letter, sent to Burn and Baldwin, is calling for the pair to publicly retract, explain and apologise for the statement.

The opinion piece to The Times was signed off by both Burn and Baldwin and it caused quite a stir amongst users, and former users of antidepressants. Burn and Baldwin wrote, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment."

Many outraged present and former patients took to Twitter to confront Wendy Burn where she was told that her opinion did not tally with a 2014 study posted on the Royal College of Psychiatrists website. It was a study that was due to be revised in Oct 2017, however, it appears, that it never was.

The study showed that 63% of people suffered from antidepressant withdrawal. The most common side effect listed by the Royal College of Psychiatrists, was Anxiety (70%).  Electric shocks, better known as 'head-zaps' was seen in 48% of those who participated in the study. Imagine that, a drug gave 70% of patients symptoms of anxiety during withdrawal!

Burn, who often prescribes antidepressants claims that she never witnesses withdrawal in the majority of her patients. Let's assume 70% of her patients suffer anxiety during withdrawal - it's probably safe to say that Burn diagnoses them with such and re-introduces the antidepressant - and round and round the patient goes. It beggars belief - if an antidepressant can induce anxiety then (ahem) treat that anxiety with an antidepressant!

When the survey was pointed out to Burn on Twitter, she claimed she never knew of it. 24 hours later the survey was taken down and now many feel it was removed because it didn't tally with the comments made by Burn and Baldwin in The Times.

Carmine Pariante, who is often a spokesperson for The Royal College of Psychiatrists, claimed on Twitter that he had been told: "The leaflet expired in 2016 and should have been revised then. @rcpsyc will produce a revised leaflet with an updated evidence-base and with input from patients and GPs."

However, a video which seems to accompany the survey was uploaded in 2015 to youtube. Remarkably, there is no mention of the 63% who suffered withdrawal effects, nor is there any mention that a quarter of those surveyed experienced withdrawal effects for 12 weeks or longer (as was stipulated in the original survey (here)

The video, which claims that "Most people don't have troublesome side effects when coming off antidepressants," once again, goes against their own study findings. More bizarrely, the video contradicts the above claim with, "Most people said that their symptoms lasted up to six weeks."

If that doesn't confuse you then I don't know what will!

To add more confusion to the pot they claim that the side effects may just be your depression returning ("You may have some physical symptoms or your depression may return.")

Moreover, the video still remains in the public domain - for whatever reason, it has not been taken down by the Royal College of Psychiatrists. One can only presume that the findings in the video haven't 'expired' and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have no plans for an updated 'evidence-base and with input from patients and GPs.'

It seems to me that the Royal College of Psychiatrists are having their cake and eating it here.

Anyway, here's the video that was published on YouTube on Jun 26, 2015. A backup copy has been made just in case the Royal College of Psychiatrists decide to move this video too.

Backup

Bob Fiddaman

Media Frenzy - Antidepressants Are Safe!

Lead author, Andrea Cipriani

Like hungry sharks, today the "mainstream" media feasted on lies and half-truths as it dutifully regurgitated a new study analysis by Andrea Cipriani et al. The so-called "study," heavily promoted by "mental health" organizations, claims to determine drugs marketed as "antidepressants" are safe and effective.

Twitter pill-pushers, the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other "mental health" campaigners backslapped each other throughout the day. I even received a few emails from family and friends inquiring if this is the definitive study.

No, it is not. And I don't state this because of the large boxes of substantial evidence I've compiled as a drug safety blogger for 12 years. Instead, the timing of this self-proclaimed "study" and the critical info it intentionally omits is basically the smoking gun that points to fraud.

The study, which was merely a "research" team reviewing 522 trials of "antidepressants," claims to show "antidepressants" work better than placebo. What the Twitter pill-pushers failed to declare is that out of the 522 trials examined by "researchers," 78% of the studies were funded by drug companies. The 522 trials lasted only eight weeks. This pooled "study" doesn't determine that long-term use of "antidepressants" is safe or effective. But this question was intentionally left out as drug company studies--and researchers who profit from drug companies--typically never ask questions to which they already know the answers. Also, nowhere in the study does it discuss the dangers of SSRIs nor note that these drugs were never intended for long-term use.

Taking to Twitter, the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) gleefully seemed to wet its pants as it tweeted false claims. One taunting RCP tweet to BBC investigative journalist, Shelley Jofre, read...

@ShelleyJofre, thought you'd be interested in this story today: Anti-depressants: Major study finds they work https://t.co/TEr3gG11v4

— RC of Psychiatrists (@rcpsych) February 22, 2018

The RCP looks foolish for such immature tweets, and I'd state this even if this "study" were accurate.

Nevertheless, Jofre previously investigated "antidepressants" and showed that many consumers suffered severe withdrawal and suicidality caused by ADRs. She has also highlighted that these drugs can and do cause violence and deadly harm to self and others.

RCP's Professor Pariante further claimed, "This meta-analysis finally puts to bed the controversy on antidepressants." I doubt Pariante's pie-in-the-sky wishes will come true, but his apparent delusions include the belief that if he makes loud and frequent proclamations, the public will eventually accept them as truth.

I'm unsure if Pariante's proclamation refers to his delusion that "antidepressants" work better than sugar pills taken for 8 weeks. Or is Pariante claiming "antidepressants" don't cause suicidal thoughts, actions and suicide itself? Is Pariante stating akathisia, a condition that can and does lead to suicide, is of no concern?  Does he believe horrendous withdrawal effects people suffer when trying to come off them are merely consumers' delusions? Or perhaps Pariante may have been talking about the birth defects and infant deaths SSRIs cause?

Pariante pranced around on various TV and radio shows throughout the day making his outlandish claims based on a study that used data funded by drug companies. To diminish this fact, Pariante, like many other pill pushers, claimed drug-funded studies are unbias. Today on Science Media Centre's website, he proclaimed "...the paper analyses unpublished data held by pharmaceutical companies, and shows that the funding of studies by these companies does not influence the result, thus confirming that the clinical usefulness of these drugs is not affected by pharma-sponsored spin."

Really? Such a claim is outlandish whether one is talking about dangerous drugs or a study funded by CocaCola claiming Coke tastes better than Pepsi.

Dr. David Healy, a professor of psychiatry at Bangor University, had this to say:

The Cipriani paper discussed today is junk. It is based on ghostwritten papers with no access to the data. No one - not MHRA or FDA have had access - none of the notional authors of these papers have had access - none can let an independent expert see what the data shows

— David Healy (@DrDavidHealy) February 22, 2018

Bizarrely, Helen Stokes-Lampard, who is Chair of the Royal College of General Practitioners, tweeted about the new analysis:

These are drugs designed to be taken for at least six months and not a short amount of time - @HelenRCGP

— RCGP (@rcgp) February 22, 2018

Begs the question why Cipriani et al decided to pull data from studies that lasted just 8 weeks if these types of drugs are supposed to be taken for 'at least six months.'

For Americans reading this, a general practitioner is your average doctor. It's general practitioners who prescribe more SSRIs than psychiatrists. Now, it seems, they have something to hang their hats on to.

Pattern of Deceit

So, anyway, back to my theory about the timing of today's "news."

I've been blogging about drug safety for more than a decade and have seen patterns emerge when public opinion begins to sway regarding "antidepressants" safety and effectiveness. In the past year, several authors have released books regarding the dangers of antidepressants. While this isn't new news as many authors have exposed dangerous drugs and pharma/psychiatric industry fraud, today social media more quickly disseminates info directly to the public when promoting new books. One example is that Johann Hari, who recently gained media attention when extracts from his new book, 'Lost Connections: Uncovering the Real Causes of Depression – and the Unexpected Solutions', were published in The Observer. Hari was also given a platform on various radio and TV shows. Hari, was shut down by the RCP and the various lickspittles hired by the Science Media Centre. (More on them later)

It seems large bureaucratic "mental health" organizations & their spin doctors aren't agile enough to keep up their lame rebuttals; hence, today they joined the media circus to make a loud splash with their new carefully planned spin.

The public has also recently seen increased attention regarding the link between prescription drugs and violence as more info unfolds regarding two high-profile cases of mass shootings. A recent autopsy report on Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock noted he had "anti-anxiety" drugs in his system at the time of death. (1) Meanwhile, Henderson Behavioral Health, an independent organization, has released information noting that Florida shooter, Nicolas Cruz, was "receiving mental health treatment services and that he was taking medication." (2)

After both of these mass shootings, the public began asking whether or not the shooters were taking prescription drugs. They asked because it is increasingly becoming more difficult for prescribers to deny the link between prescription drugs and violence given that the majority of these massacres have been carried out by someone under the influence of prescription drugs.

This threatens the financial livelihood of members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and other "mental health" organizations. When more people question the safety of "antidepressants" psychiatrists whose jobs increasingly rely on lucrative prescribing, will lose their livelihood or be forced to provide meaningful therapy.

The timing of this new "study" was carefully crafted by those who financially benefit from promoting "antidepressant" consumption. This includes the pharmaceutical companies who paid for a large portion of the studies pooled by Cipriani. The lead author was, today, busily answering prepared tweets today from industry admirers who are thrilled to see Cipriani prancing around. Pay no mind to the fact that Cipriani is really an emperor with no clothes.

Science Media Centre: Heavy on the Media, Soft on Science

So, how does a canned "study"on such an old subject attract heavy media attention? The Science Media Centre (SMC) to the rescue. SMC is a self-proclaimed think tank of spin doctors disguised as scientists. You can read more about them here. When I first started blogging, it was primarily the job of pharmaceutical reps and opinion leaders to promote drug use. Now, it seems, SMC and social media PR staff are doing the job for them. Despite large PR budgets and staff, I anticipate more people will question the safety of these drugs as more school children are violently killed by former classmates. RCP knows this, too.

But back to today's sharks and their bloody feeding frenzy: Do you know that Bull sharks eat other sharks including juvenile members of their own species? Present-day psychiatry knows it's a dying field and with the promotion of today's new analysis by all those at the RCP, it would suggest that they will always be the silent bystanders as many people struggle at the hands of these drugs.

Finally, I want to leave the last word to the study authors. One has to bear in mind here, that suicide figures are rising as prescriptions for "antidepressants" increase. Here's the death warrant they promoted today in the British media:

"More people should be offered medication when suffering from mental health problems."

Bob Fiddaman

(1) Las Vegas shooter had anti-anxiety medicine in system, autopsy says
(2) Parkland Shooting Suspect Was Receiving Treatment, Medication When Probe Closed

The Prognosticator Pariante

Earlier this week the British tabloid, The Evening Standard, ran with an article that posed the question, Why are prescriptions of antidepressants at an all-time high?

Finally, I thought, evidence to show why antidepressant prescriptions have risen by 92% in the UK over the last ten years.

Alas, I was wrong. The article rolled out the standard fare and it appeared that the column inches were given to two members of the Science Media Centre (SMC). You can read about the SMC here.

A day later, another British tabloid, this time The Guardian, rolled out an article from Mark Brown, this one was entitled, Antidepressants work, so why do we shame people for taking them?

Leading the push to increase the 92% increase in prescriptions for antidepressants was none other than Swedish professor of pharmacology, Elias Eriksson who, in the past, has been on advisory boards and/or received speaker's honoraria from Eli Lilly and H Lundbeck, both of whom, you've guessed it, promote and manufacture antidepressants. Swedish friend and fellow investigative journalist, Janne Larsson, who has been researching Eriksson for years, told me, "You should know that his next target is children; to make a “reanalysis” of the studies on antidepressants done by the companies, to show that the pills are “safe and effective” also for children and that the claims about increased suicidality are completely wrong."

Today, however, I wish to concentrate on the Evening Standard article because it throws up yet another popular myth from the field of psychiatry.

Last month the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) ran a disastrous PR campaign via Twitter, this coming after the BBC had aired A Prescription For Murder. The RCP, it seemed, wanted to orchestrate the general consensus that Panorama was scaremongering when they dared to point out that an antidepressant called Zoloft could have been implicated in the slaying of cinema goers in Aurora, Colorado (2012).

Spearheading this initiative was, amongst others, Carmain Pariante and Wendy Burn, both of whom have strong connections to the RCP and SMC. It was an initiative that backfired as hundreds of people, concerned about the side effects of antidepressants, pushed questions at them. In the end, they were forced to concede that the chemical imbalance theory, that they had been promoting for many years, was now something that they no longer agree with. No apology, no explanation as to why they ever promoted this nonsense, just a tweet...

So, with one myth busted what do they, the RCP do? Well, they create another one, once again offering no proof whatsoever. They, after confessing that they no longer supported chemical imbalance theory wrote this...

So, the story of Hansel and Gretel and the mysterious hut made of sweets continues. Hansel and Gretel, although I say so myself, is a good analogy to use here - they too were duped into believing the mysterious hut was everything they could wish for, what kid wouldn't like to see a hut made of sweet tasting candy, right? They were basically lured into the hut by the wicked witch who, in some versions of the old fairy-tale, was a cannibal.

Now, I'm not suggesting for one minute that Wendy Burn and Carmain Pariante are your modern day versions of the wicked witch or, indeed, cannibals, but the antidepressants they, seemingly, promote are aimed at the public in pretty much the same way of luring (making false promises).

You see, for many years people have questioned where depression comes from. Logical people will tell you that it's more than likely down to circumstances in your life, you know, financial woes, relationship problems, work related stress, etc.

The pharmaceutical industry, along with the field of psychiatry don't know why people get depressed, nobody does. So, to sell a pharmaceutical product one has to create a problem that it can cure or, as with the case of antidepressants, stabilize. That's why the chemical imbalance theory was born and, as you can see above, later (much later) officially thrown out of the pushchair by the RCP.

However, with one myth gone they had to create another - let's face it, without antidepressants a good 80% of psychiatrists would be unemployed. So, along comes the 2017 version of the chemical imbalance, in that antidepressants increase new brain cells. You see, anyone can say pretty much anything about the human brain because it's an organ that has been studied by the medical establishment for many years, they have guessed, second guessed and created theories because, well, because if they look at the workings of the brain on a rat and then treat that rat with a chemical then that treatment will, more than likely (they claim) work on the brain of a human.

So, is it possible to actually create new brain cells? There are many who claim that this is, indeed, is a possibility. However, those that make these claims outside of the incestuous industry do so by offering the fruits of mother nature.

Blueberries, dark chocolate, Omega-3 fatty acids, turmeric, and green tea are also said to create new brain cells, as is sex. To my knowledge, none of the above carry any risk of suicide or any withdrawal problems.

If it's true that these natural products can create new brain cells then why is Pariante jumping on the back of mother nature and now claiming that antidepressants do the same? The Evening Standard article quotes him:

"The action of antidepressants is more complex than that and involves stimulating the birth of new brain cells and regulating stress hormones."

Nowhere in the article does Pariante offer any evidence to back his claim. Why would he? For years people like him continued to tout the chemical imbalance nonsense - for years he, just like many others, refused to budge, resulting in millions of prescriptions to unsuspecting members of the public who were told by their general practitioner that they had something chemically wrong going on inside their brains...but fear not, there is a product on the market that can correct it.

The latest creation of new brain cells myth will, no doubt, go unanswered for many years, is it true, isn't it true? It doesn't really matter whether it is or not, at least not to the likes of Pariante et al. He just needs something in place to deflect the reasons why he and his colleagues duped so many people for years.

Just like the witch did to Hansel and Gretel.

Bob Fiddaman