The Black Dog at Aston Villa

It's great being a writer, thoughts just come to you when you least expect them, having the ability to change those thoughts into words is not something that everybody has. Practice makes perfect, if you sit and wallow in the thoughts and don't do anything about it then the thoughts will, eventually, fade into oblivion... or they may just consume you.

It's hard going up against mainstream beliefs, especially when those beliefs come from professionals - their argument is, and always will be, "What qualifications do you have to offer such an opinion?" In my case, it's experience. Ten years (almost) of writing and researching antidepressants, pharmaceutical companies and medicine regulators, a large chunk of which has been taken up researching British pharma giant, GlaxoSmithKline, their antidepressant, Seroxat (Paxil) and also researching the British drug regulator, the MHRA.

Close family and friends of mine will know that I am an Aston Villa supporter, all though these days more of an armchair fan, critic. If you know your football (that's the game played with a round ball and the feet) you'll know that Aston Villa currently sit at the foot of the Premiership, having won just one game all season. It's depressing times for all concerned.

Ah, there's that word, 'depressing'.

It got me thinking.

The players and staff at Aston Villa Football Club can't be having it easy, low on confidence and morale, pressure from a strong opinionated set of supporters, ridicule in the press. The loyal fans will also be feeling it. Going to work on a Monday and facing rival supporters of other Midland clubs isn't easy, particularly when all those clubs are having decent seasons.

So, take this scenario - Aston Villa player or backroom staff member, or indeed a fan, has a mild form of depression (who wouldn't) - Now, it's the job of the 'professional' physician to determine just how bad that depression is and to treat it accordingly. "Don't worry, things will get better", really doesn't seem to be an option here, anyone who knows their football will know that Aston Villa are on their way down to the lower league come May.

So, is a lack of confidence or morale treatable?

Yes, of course it is - yet we don't see your modern day footballer sitting in a waiting room at their local doctors. Sorry, these guys are millionaires, so the likes of you and I wouldn't experience that in any event.

Today saw Aston Villa visit lower league Wycombe Wanderers, a full strength starting eleven managed to draw with the minnows (said with respect) - The aftermath of yet another heartless display saw a small minority of Aston Villa supporters air their anger toward club captain, Micah Richards, then later, at the whole team as they boarded the bus to take them back to Birmingham. Both incidents have not gone unnoticed, both being filmed and spread across the internet. I won't provide the links to the footage - you can work it out for yourselves what the reaction was.

So, it would appear that, in this case, the fans are the first to crack. Pent up frustration, anguish, irritability finally rearing their ugly heads after today's match at Wycombe. As a human I fully expect that those Aston Villa players who aced the onslaught of abuse will, tonight, be feeling somewhat stressed out and full of low self-esteem. I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon and say that a professional footballer's wages help soften the blow of such feelings. They are, like me and you, human. It's the fans who put them on the pedastal and make them bigger than what they actually are.

So, two sets of humans (fans and players) both sets experiencing personality changes that we have, for years, been told are signs of depression or anxiety disorders. Our apparent treatment comes in the shape of a pill, an antidepressant that, we are told, can make frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem magically disappear.

Now, I am not comparing someone's deep depression with losing a football match, be they fan or player - what I am suggesting, however, is that any human being can overcome frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem. In the case of Aston Villa players it would be to go on a winning streak - this will have a knock-on effect and will please those fans who feel the need (rightly or wrongly) to hurl abuse.

So, why do pharmaceutical companies spend billions of pounds promoting antidepressants for the very same traits mentioned above when, in actual act, all that is needed is a confidence boost?

Have we become so distanced from those 11 men kicking a round piece of leather around, nae, have they become so distanced from us? Truth is, they are humans experiencing stressful times, yet more stress when fans add to their woes by hurling abuse... and not an antidepressant in sight - rightly so.

Frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem are not, as pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists tell us, brain diseases. They are not chemical imbalances - they are a set of feelings brought on by a set of circumstances.

Aston Villa's backroom staff will, no doubt, be telling all players that the fans are understandably angry and not to pay too much attention to them as it will hinder their confidence. No doubt the backroom staff will, over the coming weeks and months, be working on boosting morale, confidence and banishing low self-esteem. They will do so by using psychology and not pharmacology.

There's a lesson to be learned here for health care professionals who dish out antidepressants at the drop of a hat to your average human with similar sets of circumstances to all those connected with Aston Villa Football Club.

I'll say it again, frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem are not, as pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists tell us, brain diseases.

I'll leave the final words to Bill Shankly, probably said with tongue firmly in cheek but if you are a football fan you will understand exactly where he was coming from.

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that." - Bill Shankly

Bob Fiddaman
Villa fan.

Psychiatry Taking the Biscuit

I've been itching to blog about this since I first read it earlier today. I thought I'd dip it in some warm tea first, digest it, then indulge myself. Hey, if the pro-antidepressant brigade can take the biscuit then why can't I?

The article, penned by Daily Mail Health correspondent, Jenny Hope, tries to offer balance in as much as we see one psychiatrist, Dr. David Healy, make claims that depression is not caused by low serotonin levels and most drugs used to treat it are based on a myth, while other psychiatrists, quoted in the article, um, basically agree with him yet make outlandish statements regarding the efficacy of antidepressants.

You confused? I certainly was after reading it.

In fact the professionals offered a chance to rebut Dr. Healy's claims, namely Professor Sir Simon Weasly, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and Professor David Taylor, Director of Pharmacy and Pathology and Head of Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Academic Group, King’s Health Partners, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, actually make the article more entertaining with their blinkered views without actually offering any scientific evidence. NHS Choices and Dr Paul Keedwell, Consultant Psychiatrist and Specialist in Mood Disorder, also add input.

So, here's the crux of the article. Healy has claimed that the belief that the most popular antidepressant drugs raise serotonin levels in the brain is nothing more than a myth, adding, that they took off because of the idea that SSRIs restored serotonin levels to normal, ‘a notion that later transmuted into the idea that they remedied a chemical imbalance’.

So, all pretty standard stuff and nothing that we (who move in these circles) haven't heard before.

Here's where it gets interesting.

Weasly: "Antidepressants are helpful in depression, together with psychological treatments, is established. How they do this is not."

So, he is saying that, yes, antidepressants work but he, or anyone else for that matter, don't know why or how.

Weasly continues with, "Most researchers have long since moved on from the old serotonin model."

Great stuff Mr. Weasly but it would have been nice if this statement was followed up with an explanation as to what the current model is...if indeed there is one?

Next we have a spokesperson for NHS Choices chip in. They claim, "It would be too simplistic to say that depression and related mental health conditions are caused by low serotonin levels, but a rise in serotonin levels can improve symptoms."

So, NHS Choices are agreeing with Healy then?

I'm not so sure. Here's what they say about bipolar disorder, "Bipolar disorder is widely believed to be the result of chemical imbalances in the brain. The chemicals responsible for controlling the brain's functions are called neurotransmitters and include noradrenaline, serotonin and dopamine. If there is an imbalance in the levels of one or more neurotransmitters, a person may develop some symptoms of bipolar disorder."

Here's what they say about trichotillomania (hair pulling)

"As trichotillomania involves compulsive behaviour, some experts think it's closely related to obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD). OCD tends to run in families. It's thought to be caused by both biological and environmental factors, which may lead to a chemical imbalance in the brain. Neurotransmitters are chemicals that send messages from your brain to your nervous system. If something goes wrong with the way neurotransmitters work, it can cause problems, such as compulsive and repetitive behaviours."

Just two examples, both of which are not backed up with any scientific evidence whatsoever. In fact the evidence they run with is the classic line, "...is widely believed to be the result of..."

So, NHS Choices are, it seems, basing their evidence on some sort of faith? Exactly who are those believers and when and where did this belief originate from?

Healy offers the answer, and I concur. "...the misconception that low levels of serotonin were responsible for depression had become established fact." He suggested that the success of so-called SSRI drugs – which include Prozac and Seroxat – was based on the ‘marketing of a myth’.

Next, and somewhat absurdly, we see  David Taylor, Director of Pharmacy and Pathology and Head of Pharmaceutical Sciences Clinical Academic Group, King’s Health Partners, South London and Maudsley NHS Foundation Trust, offer his opinion. (Because that's all it is)

"Professor Healy makes a forceful but poorly supported argument against something which doesn't and has never really existed: the idea that SSRIs ‘correct’ an ‘imbalance’ of serotonin in the brain."

What?

So, let me get this straight. For years psychiatrists have been telling patients, adults, children and children's parents, that their depression is caused by a chemical imbalance yet Taylor claims that they haven't?

**Insert canned laughter here**

It's one thing to spin a lie but another to claim that the lie never existed. In any event, who made David Taylor the spokesperson for the whole of the psychiatry profession?

Like Weasly, Taylor follows up his statement with, "Researchers and psychiatrists alike know that SSRIs are effective in a number of disorders but no one is sure exactly how they work."

Guinea pig trials anyone?

If you don't know how a drug works then you won't know if that drug is causing an adverse event or not, right? You can, and more often than not you do, blame it on the condition, which, according to Weasly and Taylor, has nothing to do with a chemical imbalance.

Honestly, it would be easier to do the Rubik's cube behind my back then make heads or tails out of what Weasly and Taylor are saying here.

Finally, we have a sinister warning from Dr Paul Keedwell, Consultant Psychiatrist and Specialist in Mood Disorder.

"In the real world of the clinic, SSRIs are undeniably effective in treating individuals with major depression.

"They have become the first line treatment of choice because they have fewer troublesome side-effects than their predecessors, and are safer in overdose.

"David Healy has previously claimed that SSRIs cause dependence or provoke suicide. In so doing he has risked deterring individuals with severe depression from getting the help they need and this latest article just adds to this problem.

"The risk of suicide from untreated depression is much greater than the risk of treating it with antidepressants, and yes, this includes SSRIs."

So, in essence, Weasly, Taylor and Keedwell, don't know what causes depression but they know it isn't a chemical imbalance. They are all for prescribing SSRi's because, well, because they apparently have fewer side effects than the older types of antidepressants and are safer in overdose (apparently).

Yet neither Weasly, Taylor or, indeed, Keedwell know how SSRi's work. So, ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, they are suggesting that you and I take a drug that will alter the thoughts in your brain - they can't tell you how or why these drugs do it though.

Keedwell further criticises Healy for speaking out, claiming that Healy is deterring individuals with severe depression from getting the help they need.

Naughty Irishman - Last time I looked, he wasn't outside any pharmacy pointing a gun at people who were walking out with their pills to alter the chemical imbalance that they haven't got. Remember, we have to believe that the diagnosis of their 'illness' is based on a faith... it is widely believed, but we don't know by whom.

It's all about informed consent and, judging by the reaction of Messrs. Weasly, Taylor and Keedwell, it would seem that the only information they want you to believe is the information that they give you, which basically amounts to having no scientific evidence to back up their claims.

Doncha just love the wonderful world of psychiatry.


Bob Fiddaman.

Who Cares About Sweden Trilogy - The SSRi Swindle

A great set of videos to watch regarding the dangers of SSRi's.

"Who Cares About Sweden" released by ARTIMUS Film SVB AB will make you angry, sad, frustrated and all the other emotions one faces when realization sets in about how we, as consumers, have been duped by the pharmaceutical industry and the field of psychiatry.

ILL-INFORMED CONSENT - A child Psychiatrist's Perspective

Dr Laura Davis:  "The pills do not change who people are. And there is no way to become addicted to these pills."
Pic savodnik.com

A recent article by Dr. Laura Davies was recently sent to me via the medium of Facebook.

More about her article in a bit.

First off,  the author, Dr. Laura Davies, is a child psychiatrist who, it seems, is either totally misguided or just plain ignorant. Either way, her stance may be putting the children, adolescents and adults she treats in serious danger.

I felt so angry at this article which lacked any scientific facts that I felt the need to subscribe to Dr Laura Davies' Facebook page. Others followed suit but, along with myself, were all removed from her page for asking a series of questions. I'd asked her if the article was ghostwritten... okay slightly tongue in cheek but I was astounded that there are still doctor's out there promoting the use of these drugs, especially child psychiatrists!

In fact browsing her Facebook page one is greeted with messages of self-indulgence, just a few included below:

"I am the expert"

If you say so Laura.

Just a few things about her article, 'Antidepressants often needlessly avoided'

First off, Laura Davies claims that antidepressants [pills] do not cause addiction or do they change people's personalities. That's quite a broad statement for an expert to make. Sadly, she offers no scientific data to support her claims.

Depression, she claims, "does not mean that one is crying all the time", she adds, "sometimes it can be a withdrawal from friends and family, irritability, difficulty sleeping, a change in appetite, thoughts of death or even suicide, a loss of hope for the future, anxious thoughts and lowered self-confidence."


So the definition of depression, according to Dr Laura Davies, being separated from friends or family, being irritable, having difficulty sleeping, not feeling hungry, being low in confidence and feeling suicidal.

I wouldn't call actual suicide, depression... I'd much prefer to call it death than give it one of Davies' psychiatric labels, but hey, she's the expert.

Her definition of depression must cater for anyone that she sees.

Who hasn't felt sad when being separated from family of friends?

Who hasn't felt irritable or had difficulty sleeping?

Not feeling hungry and feeling low in confidence are pretty normal but, then again, I'm not the expert.

Her one-sided article continues with, "Children of a depressed parent generally do worse in school and are more likely to be abused." and "Antidepressant medications have helped millions of Americans regain their interest in life and relationships. They do this in part by rebalancing serotonin, a chemical in the brain that helps relay messages from one part of the brain to another and also affects mood."

Once more Davies offers no scientific data for her claims.

The chemical imbalance theory has been debunked so many times that even the manufacturers of antidepressants have conceded this marketing spin by now adding the words, "It is thought", in front of, 'your depression is caused by a chemical imbalance.'


In fact, it could be argued that treading in a dog turd could cause a chemical imbalance. There's as much science attached to doggy-doo mishaps as there is Davies' claims about rebalancing serotonin.


Her claim of children doing in worse in school and being more likely to be abused because their parents are depressed defies all logic. It does, however, mean that this belief, however incredulous, gives carte blanche to psychiatrists to treat whole families when only one has a diagnosable 'illness'. "Hey, if mom is depressed then lets get the kids in to treat, we wouldn't want them doing bad at school or suffering abuse."


It's quite a scare tactic and one that Davies actually tries to sell in her article.

Her article finishes with, "The pills do not change who people are. And there is no way to become addicted to these pills. If you have any concerns that you may be depressed, talk to your doctor."

Well, I've seen evidence of addiction in antidepressant medication, I've also seen evidence of both doctors and psychiatrists prescribing more because they see the addiction as a return of the original 'illness'.

For a child, adolescent and adult psychiatrist at California Pacific Medical Center in San Francisco to write such an ill-informed article smacks of irresponsibility of the highest order. It also highlights how the belief system ingrained into psychiatry is unscientific, ignorant and dangerous.

I wanted to debate with Laura Davies on her Facebook page. I, along with others, wished to discuss the above points with her. She opted to block anyone from entering into such a debate. She may, if she so desires, wish to debate her claims via the comment section of this blog, let's see shall we.

Davies is a Qualified Medical Examiner who was once a Faculty Member of REACH (Recommendations for Employing Antipsychotics in Children and Adolescents)


“If the world should blow itself up, the last audible voice would be that of an expert saying it can't be done.”  ― Peter Ustinov






Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE

AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Father of 10 Year Old Suicide Victim Blames Medication.

10 year old Harry Hucknall

Back in March I wrote about the tragic suicide of 10 year old Harry Hucknall.

10 year old Harry had been prescribed Ritalin and Prozac by child psychiatrist Sumitra Srivastava. This because Harry was having difficulty concentrating at school, was being bullied by classmates.

Harry was found hanging from a belt at his home in Dalton-in-Furness, Cumbria, back in September 2010.

The inquest, held in April of this year, was told that Harry had more drugs in his body than the normal level for adults suffering from the same problems.

Harry's father is now asking awkward questions...and he has every right to.

In an article from Today's Mail Online Mr Hucknall questions the reasoning behind the child psychiatrist prescribing his son these drugs.

‘When I was growing up there were lots of kids like Harry — a bit over-active, a bit naughty, who didn’t always do as they were told. Now they are branded with a complaint called attention deficit hyperactivity disorder,

‘What is it? What has changed? Is there some weird disease in the air? Harry was just a normal little boy. But because we live in 2011 he, and many other kids, are on tablets.

‘It seems nearly every child has suddenly developed this ADHD. What a load of nonsense. It’s an easy get-out for parents and schools who can’t control children.’

Hucknall is pretty much bang on the money here.

Sue Reid, who wrote the Mail Online article, writes:

These medicines are being given to very young children — one aged just 15 months, according to our investigations — despite official guidelines from the manufacturer and the fact that the UK’s National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) prohibits their use for those under six.

Last week, educational psychologist David Traxson told me he suspects that in the West Midlands at least 100 three, four and five-year-olds are on Ritalin or similar drugs. If this is replicated around the country — as is likely — the number will run into thousands.

‘These young children are taking powerful, potentially addictive drugs and no one knows what will happen to their brains in the future,’ he warned.

Further evidence of this theory based "science" came when Harry's father challenged the child psychiatrist during the inquest. He asked Sumitra Srivastava why he had put his son on Ritalin and Prozac. Srivastava told him it was because he had a chemical imbalance in his brain. Hucknall then asked him, “How do you know? Did you take chemicals from his brain?” Srivastava responded by telling him it was a theory.

The article highlights how children's parents are being granted state benefits if their children are on these types of drugs, Sue Reid writes:

For instance, one family in the West Midlands has two children receiving medication for ADHD. They get £600 a month in disability allowances for each of the two children who have been diagnosed with the ailment.

A third child is being examined by psychologists to see if he is also a sufferer. If he is diagnosed, the family’s annual haul from the state will be £21,600 tax free.

The current government are revamping the benefits system, they want to get people back into the workplace, that seems to be their main initiative. I have not once heard any utterance from Cameron and/or Clegg about parents receiving benefits because their children are on antidepressant type medication. It's a win-win situation for the pharmaceutical industry.

Harry's father has a long road ahead of him if he wishes to get answers. He could start with the UK regulator, the MHRA, but I'd advise against that. The MHRA have sat on this problem for years, they shrug their shoulders and send out warning letters to doctors that these drugs can be potentially dangerous if given to children. They don't go that extra mile and ban them because they are powerless to do so - it wouldn't benefit them either, they are entirely funded by the pharmaceutical industry.

Harry Hucknall is not the first child to commit suicide as a result of ingesting these powerful drugs, he won't be the last. It's a crying shame that the regulator know this, as do the manufacturers of these drugs.

Mr Hucknall, your journey is about to begin, once you start digging you will be appalled by those that profess to protect are in fact part of the problem.

There's a ground-breaking documentary that questions the use of these drugs in children. "Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child". It's heartbreaking and will intensify the anger of parents whose children have died as a result of a combination of drugs for invented illnesses that have been given the all clear by the combination of psychiatrists, pharmaceutical companies and medicine regulators [The Psychopharmaceutical Monopoly]

The documentary is narrated by Celeste Steubing, her son, Matthew, jumped off a bridge and killed himself whilst on psychiatric medication. I've met Celeste, I've hugged her and held her hand while she sobbed. I've looked into her vacant eyes where the burning question burns deeply. Why?

It's evil and greed combined with cowardice, it's the Psychopharma Monopoly.

Sue Reid's full article is a must read for every parent in Britain.

CCHR's doucumentary, "Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child", is a must watch for every parent globally.

You're being duped folks and children are dying because of it.

Father Speaks out [MAIL ONLINE ARTICLE BY SUE REID]

Dead Wrong: How Psychiatric Drugs Can Kill Your Child [ONLINE VIDEO]

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
US & CANADA HERE OR UK FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING 

Long-term Effects of Psychiatric Medications - Robert Whitaker

In Anatomy of An Epidemic, Robert Whitaker, acclaimed medical author and journalist, asks "Why has the number psychiatric diagnoses given to adults and children skyrocketed over the past 50 years? Why does this epidemic parallel so closely the growth and dominance of psychiatric drugs as treatment?". The acclaimed US medical journalist documents a history of science and medicine that raises a heretical question: Could this drug-based approach actually be fuelling this modern-day plague? Whitaker argues we need to start an open conversation about how to stem the epidemic of disabling mental distress in society and move to an approach that helps people get well and stay well over the long term.

Robert's lecture begins around the 19.30 mark.



Fid

Thanks to the Truthman for sending me the link.

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

Three Cheers for SSRIs

Interesting, if somewhat misguided, article on empowher.com that has invoked many comments.

The article may invoke you to respond too.

Here it is.

When Prozac first hit the market in 1988 people were frightened of it. TV talk show hosts like Phil Donahue dedicated entire episodes to the new antidepressant claiming the drug caused people to do crazy things like put their babies in the oven or try to commit suicide.

Once the negative exposure surrounding the Vista Lab drug died down people quickly learned that Prozac was good news. The SSRI (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) antidepressant was the biggest thing to happen in psychiatric pharmacology since the advent of antidepressants in the 1960’s that included drugs like Elavil and Anafranil.

Prozac’s function involves balancing levels of Serotonin in patient’s brains thereby improving moods for many. It didn’t take long before millions of Americans went on the drug, some with tremendous results. In the years that followed, other SSRI’s were developed including Zoloft, Paxil, Lexapro and others, and have met with great success for many.

There is a reason why these pharmaceutical companies are doing so well selling these drugs. It’s because they work and today 11% of the population in the United States takes the drug regularly. The vast majority of patients taking Prozac agree that taking a chemical to improve their quality of life is worth it.

Depression, sleepiness or insomnia, unexplained aches and pains, fatigue, loss of interest in doing things a person used to love are all signs of a possible brain chemistry imbalance. Anyone with these symptoms would be remiss not to ask their doctor about antidepressants. In addition the drug can be prescribed for post partum depression and PMS.

You can view the comments HERE

Fid

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

"I didn't just cross a line I tripped over an edge": Experiences of serious adverse effects with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor use.

"The accounts we report cast a shadow of doubt on the rhetorically powerful, but ultimately un-testable, 'disease not the drug' claim."



Many thanks to one of my readers and close friends who sent me the following paper.

It's from the New Zealand Journal of Psychology Date: March 1, 2008 Author: Liebert, Rachel; Gavey, Nicola

Abstract:

Evidence that selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) may elicit suicidal and/or aggressive thoughts and behaviours has been circulating for nearly thirty years. Despite a growing body of knowledge around these serious adverse effects, however, they continue to be surrounded by controversy. In particular they are subject to (arguable) counter-arguments that any risks from using the drugs are outweighed by benefits and/or more attributable to a person's 'underlying disease'. Moreover assessments of risks often use rates of completed suicides as the ultimate measure. In this paper we draw on people's own accounts of their experiences of serious adverse effects associated with SSRI use. In depth semi-structured interviews were undertaken with nine people who had either used SSRIs themselves or had witnessed the use of SSRIs by a close family member. We present four themes identified across the interviews relating to adverse effects from SSRIs: experiences of akathisia, aggression and suicidality; 'out of character' behaviour; harm to relationships; and accounts of responses from the medical profession. Participants reported that the experience of adverse effects had marked impacts on general wellbeing, identities and relationships. These accounts cast doubt on notions that serious adverse effects associated with SSRI use may stem from an underlying condition and/or be outweighed by benefits from SSRI use. In addition they offer a persuasive and poignant plea to further consider non-fatal adverse effects and their consequences in assessing the risks of these drugs.




The full paper can be downloaded here and provides further evidence to the medicine regulators that we have a huge problem here and the quicker they act upon it, the safer the public will be.

A copy has been sent to the MHRA.

Fid

Read the new book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

GSK paroxetine study

I'll be reproducing some of these over the coming weeks.

Downloadable from the GSK website

Patient 083.003.1090

Study Medication: Paroxetine
Cause of Death: Suicide (by hanging)

This 58 year old female had hypertension on entry to the study. She had been receiving metoprolol 100mg daily and amiloride plus hydrochlorothiazide from day 54.

She had suffered five or six previous episodes of depression for which she had received treatment with bi/tri/tetracyclic antidepressants and benzodiazepines. The duration of the present episode of depression was recorded as 1 to 3 months. She had received previous treatment for this episode with bi/tri/tetracyclic antidepressants, which were stopped on day 1, and benzodiazepines, which were stopped on day 4.

The patient received 20mg paroxetine from days 0 to 8. She also received temazepam 20mg, twice or three times daily, from day 0, and chloral hydrate 500mg daily from day 1.

The patient experienced a moderately decreased appetite and mild dryness of the mouth from day 2; both events were considered to be probably related to study treatment.

The patient did not have any double flagged changes in vital signs data and only baseline laboratory assessments were performed. On day 8 the patient committed suicide by hanging (preferred term: emotional lability).

The investigator considered this to be unrelated to study treatment.
CONFIDENTIAL Seroxat Article 31 - Consolidated Response Document - January 04

****

Here are some paroxetine deaths and 'incidents' you won't find on GSK's website.

Fid

Hat tip: The Truthman

Read the new book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING

SSRI chemical imbalance theory

The following is an extract taken from a featured article called 'The Media and the Chemical Imbalance Theory of Depression' by Jonathan Leo & Jeffrey R. Lacasse.

Abstract

The cause of mental disorders such as depression remains unknown. However, the idea that neurotransmitter imbalances cause depression is vigorously promoted by pharmaceutical companies and the psychiatric profession at large. We examine media reports referring to this chemical imbalance theory and ask reporters for evidence supporting their claims. We then report and critique the scientific papers and other confirming evidence offered in response to our questions. Responses were received from multiple sources, including practicing psychiatrists, clients, and a major pharmaceutical company. The evidence offered was not compelling, and several of the cited sources flatly stated that the proposed theory of serotonin imbalance was known to be incorrect. The media can play a positive role in mental health reporting by ensuring that the information reported is congruent with the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

Before you read the full article, take a look at the following:

Lexapro - Manufacturer - H. Lundbeck A/S - Denmark – (Forest Laboratories in the US) - "Lexapro corrects this chemical imbalance andmay help relieve the symptoms of depression" [Patient Information Leaflet]

Cipramil / Marketed under the Brand Name Celexa in the US - Manufacturer - H. Lundbeck / American partner Forest Laboratories: Google search "Celexa helps to restore the brain’s chemical balance by increasing the supply of a chemical messenger in the brain called serotonin."

Pristiq - Manufacturers - Wyeth: "As an SNRI, PRISTIQ affects the levels of two neurotransmitters thought to play a key role in depression — serotonin and norepinephrine. Serotonin and norepinephrine are chemicals that occur naturally in the brain. While no one knows for sure what causes depression, many experts believe that it may occur when neurotransmitters are out of balance." Pristiq website

Aropax [Seroxat] - Manufacturer - GlaxoSmithKline: "Aropax corrects the chemical imbalance and so helps relieve the symptoms of depression." GSK Australia

Geodon - Manufacturer - Pfizer: "How GEODON Works. Doctors believe GEODON helps balance certain natural chemicals in your brain. Balancing these chemicals helps treat your symptoms of acute manic or mixed episodes associated with bipolar disorder. And that can help you feel better." - Geodon Website

There are many more. Now read the article

Fid

Read the new book, The Evidence, However, Is Clear...The Seroxat Scandal

ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING