Health Canada Continue to Ignore the Voices of the Dead

Sara Carlin

One of Canada's biggest selling newspapers, The Globe and Mail, last week featured an update on the recommendations made last year at the inquest of Oakville, ON, teen Sara Carlin.

It was made apparent for all to see that Health Canada, the nation's drug regulator, intend to do nothing to warn doctors and patients about the dangers of children and adolescents being prescribed SSRi type drugs.

Personally, this comes as no surprise to me, Health Canada are basically the same as other drug regulators around the world in as much that they are a limpless machine churning out the same old bullshit when a drug they are supposed to regulate comes under fire.

Back in June last year I covered every day of the Sara Carlin inquest, I labelled it the 'Sara Carlin Vs GSK and friends inquest' because it was pretty obvious from the start that the Coroner wished to completely exonerate Glaxo's Paxil [known as Seroxat in the UK] from causing 18 years old Sara Carlin to take an electric piece of wiring, wrap it around her neck and hang herself in the basement of her family home.

Halfway through day one of that inquest saw Coroner's counsel, Michael Blain, appear in front of TV camera's outside the inquest. Here's what he had to say:



Nice of Blain to offer his opinion halfway through the first day of the inquest!

The jury in the inquest, who actually waited until the inquest was complete, made 16 recommendations, one of which was a call for an independent drugs regulator, it was apparent that they too were not confident in Health Canada's role of monitoring drugs.

Last week the Globe and Mail issued a statement from Health Canada regarding this one particular recommendation, a statement that merely highlights their lack of care and buck passing because they don't want to take accountability for their own incompetence in monitoring drugs such as Paxil.

Health Canada, writes the Globe and Mail, responded by saying it already implemented that recommendation, citing the 2002 creation of the Marketed Health Products Directorate within the department that focuses on surveillance of drugs. It also noted the government set up the Drug Safety and Effectiveness Network, which operates as part of the Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Health Canada's full response is posted on their website, a labyrinth to navigate around.

Here's what Health Canada failed to add.

Health Canada, in typical buck-passing style, responded by stating that they had, in 2002, already implemented the creation of a board that would operate independently from Health Canada. What they didn't add was that Pfizer Canada VP, Dr. Bernard Prigent was appointed to the governing board of Canadian Institute for Health Research (CIHR) which oversees the Drug Safety Effectiveness Network (DSEN) - the very same body that Health Canada tout as an independent Drug safety agency!

This conflict of interest raised eyebrows with the Canadian House of Commons Committee back in 2009.

Prof. Jocelyn Downie (Canada Research Chair in Health Law and Policy, Professor of Law and Medicine, Dalhousie University addressed the committee and made three points regarding Pfizer's Dr. Bernard Prigent's appointment:

First, Dr. Prigent's ability to bring his expertise in innovation and commercialization to the GC table is fatally limited by the fact that he is currently a Vice-President at Pfizer. A qualified candidate must not only have certain knowledge and skills but must also be able to use his knowledge and skills. This is a significant problem for Dr. Prigent.

Second, commercialization is not CIHR's objective. Rather, it is but one means for realizing CIHR's objective, which is, in fact, “the creation of new knowledge and its translation into improved health for Canadians, more effective health services and products and a strengthened Canadian health care system”.

Third, not only are innovation and commercialization only a means to CIHR's objective, but they are not the only nor the most important of CIHR's statutorily mandated means of achieving its objective. The CIHR Act requires CIHR to meet its objective by, among other things, “promoting, assisting and undertaking research that meets the highest international scientific standards of excellence and ethics”. By contrast, “encouraging innovation, facilitating the commercialization of health research” is but one of 12 means available to CIHR.

It's amazing isn't it? Time and time again these lilly-livered drug regulators shirk their responsibility and think everything will be just peachy clean if another board is created to help regulate drugs...providing that board has someone at the helm who has an Oh so obvious conflict of interest.

Health Canada's response to this particular recommendation smacks of a 'couldn't give a shit' attitude. It highlights their failure to protect children and adolescents from harmful drugs and shows their lack of care when it comes to giving impartial voices to 'independent bodies' that actually wish to protect the patients rather than the pharmaceutical industry.

I'd love to meet with Health Canada, it would be like Groundhog Day for me as I have already met with their British counterparts, the MHRA. I wonder if Health Canada would nod their heads and show empathy just as the MHRA did to me. I wonder if Health Canada would pretty much ignore the problems patients are facing once I left the meeting table...just like the MHRA did with me.

To be honest, I've got far better things to do than to meet with limp-wristed cowards who are severely lacking in the gonad department. I'd rather bang my head against a brick wall than meet with medicine regulators whose sole purpose is to protect themselves from their own failures at the expense of human life.

I'll be in Canada later this year, I'll pay my respects to Sara Carlin in a private moment by her resting place. I'll tell her I tried my hardest to give her a voice and I'll tell her that, in her death, she has created an awareness for many parents across Canada, an awareness that the limpless folk at Health Canada should have been on top of years ago.

The Globe and Mail article can be read HERE - The comment section sees the pharmacuetical shills at work once again. Those who have left appalling comments and sided with GlaxoSmithKline and their shills should be utterly ashamed of themselves. [1]

Related:

Sara Carlin - Death by Paxil Inquest [PDF]

[1] The Inquest of Sara Carlin and the Moderation of Yahoo Groups

Sara's Voice [Over 6,000 views]



Fid


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


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE 

My Thoughts on the Psychopharmacuetical Monopoly

Since I returned from LA I've wrote a lot about other SSRi's and personal stories, in particular the death of 17 year old Toran Henry from New Zealand [Prozac] and the death of Matthew Schultz [2 hours old] [Effexor]

In the past I have wrote about Sara Carlin [Seroxat/Paxil], Sharise Gatchell [Seroxat/Paxil] and have other personal stories lined up, stories of children who have left us and left behind grief stricken families.

What LA taught me was there is a huge problem with SSRi medication. It is effecting all walks of life, adults, children, pregnant mothers.

There is something dark at work here folks, it stretches far beyond the manufacturers of these drugs and embroils psychiatry, medicine regulators, government and coroners.

With such a powerful field of opposition the small man has very little chance of getting his voice heard.

We have the pharmaceutical industry denying that they have done any wrong in not being open and honest about SSRi clinical trials, psychiatrists being paid by the said pharmaceutical companies to 'big up' the drugs, medicine regulators who, quite honestly, are about as useful as a chocolate kettle, government officials that only care about any issues if it benefits them getting votes at the next local elections and coroners who are so distanced from grief that they cannot see the wood through the trees.

All of he above are part of the problem. All of the above are responsible for the grief stricken parents, the thousands, if not millions, of people who struggle on a day-in - day-out basis with withdrawal from these addictive drugs. Their only form of defence is:

1. What else is there?

2. These drugs are safe, those that speak out are Scientologists

3. The benefits outweigh the risks

Do they understand how utterly ridiculous they look when they tout 1,2 and 3?

More and more families are being introduced into the seedy world of the Psychopharmacuetical Monopoly. Their children are being targeted by psychiatrists that invent labels of some new psychiatric disorder that the majority of us passed off as being 'just life' when we were children. Family doctor's are agreeing with them because they need a solution for Mrs Jones son who is being boisterous and rebellious in class or Mr Smith's daughter who, at 15, is having mood swings.

We've got complete buffoonery going on with an Australian psychiatrist who cannot only predict if your child has a 'disorder', he can predict if they will get one in future years! For this absurd fantasy he was voted as 'Australia's Man of the Year!

Cheekily, I added myself to his Facebook page and threw out the following question to him:

"Hey, do you think you could predict this weeks Lotto numbers for me, only I hear you can predict whether or not a child will get some sort of mental illness in future years."

He deleted me from his page...without answering. To be honest, I expected nothing less.

So, to fight back, what do we, as advocates, concerned citizens, have at our disposal?

Well, we have lawyers. Go bust this pharmaceutical company for us and show the public just what they are really like. In Britain, at least, a law firm against a pharmaceutical company is akin to a flea biting an elephant, no more better than the average blogger speaking out against this sick industry. At least we, as bloggers, don't have to bow down to lawyers etiquette. We can pretty much go for the jugular when writing about pharmaceutical companies and regulators and their complete lack of transparency, at least that's what I try to do with my writing.

There are an abundance of human beings suffering at the hands of drugs that were given to them to make them feel better. When they seek help they are told it's not the drugs. When they are vocal, they are attacked from pharmaceutical whores, those in the pocket of the industry, those who clearly have their own agenda's in suppressing the truth.

Coroner's will drag out their reports, leaving a family in limbo, often refusing to carry out the toxicology tests that would show traces of SSRi medication. Once dragged to the limits of a two year wait for such a report, the family are handed the report... time barred from seeking any recourse from the pharmaceutical industry because...well, that's the way the law is.

The limp-wristed cowards that make up the medicines regulators sleep well at night because their sub-committees highlight that there are problems with SSRi's, they forward letters of warnings to doctor's, nurses, psychiatrists who don't even have to open them. Why would they? I can only assume that they think the regulators are basically those who grant licences to drugs, anything else they have to offer is of no importance.

Then along comes a group of noisy revelers, bloggers, campaigners, lobby groups who highlight the dangers of these drugs only to be appeased by the powerless regulators who spend more time targeting natural remedy shops than those they claim to protect from unsafe prescription drugs [the public]

You know, filling an adverse reaction report in and sending it off to a regulator shouldn't just be it. Any reports collected should be thoroughly researched, instead it's just another statistic put into a database that shows that the regulator are doing their job when in reality they are merely sweeping this problem under a very big carpet.

Every single child who commits suicide should have a screening to see if traces of antidepressant medication is found, not a standard screening either, a thorough one. The wizard psychiatrists are quick to screen them when they are alive so why not allow them the dignity of a screening process when they are dead?

I was recently asked if I wanted to attend a meeting with the MHRA to discuss SSRi withdrawal issues. A campaigner had written to the UK Health Minister who, in turn, had passed the letter of concern onto the MHRA. Same old story, pass the buck until the campaigners grow tired. I refused to be part of any such meeting as I have been down that road before. Why sit with a bunch of people who nod their heads when they hear horrific stories of withdrawal, suicide, self-harm then do absolutely nothing to eradicate the problem.

"Oh, we will send a letter out to warn doctor's"

Whoopiefuckingdoo!

They are at a loss of what to do because they are paid for by the pharmaceutical industry, how could they chastise their paymasters?

Our government are scared to speak out because the industry will just move their business elsewhere leaving an already depleted Britain in a further financial mess. Meantime, more and more children will fall into the system of the Psychopharmacuetical Monopoly - Pharmaceutical companies - Psychiatry - Regulators - Coroner's.

1. Pharmaceutical companies - Manufacture a remedy
2. Psychiatry - Create an illness for that remedy
3. Regulators - Grant licence for remedy to treat the illness created by psychiatry
4. Coroner's - Find no apparent connection with treatment - blame it on the created illness.

It's a vicious cycle of greed, manipulation and cowardice, each one finding excuses to blame the person before them.

Psychiatrist - It wasn't my fault I prescribed the drug, it's the manufacturer of said drug.

Regulator - It's not our fault, we sent warning letters out to psychiatrists.

Coroner's - We have been assured by the pharmaceutical industry that these drugs do not cause suicide.

Pharmaceutical companies- These drugs are not meant to be given to children.

In truth, the pharmaceutical companies have a good argument, thing is, they know their drugs are being given to children and they do nothing about it.

As a parent, would you allow  someone to give a cigarette to your 4 year old, or maybe half a bottle of vodka?

Same thing, the pharmaceutical industry know this goes on but it makes them bucket loads of cash, more cash to pay psychiatrists to invent new illnesses...and so the cycle continues.

They can tout the 'these drugs are not meant for children' all they want - It's obviously a lie, why else would GlaxoSmithKline be trialling out Paxil/Seroxat on children as young as 7 in Japan?

Chances are the CEO's are pharmaceutical companies have children and grandchildren, what's the betting that they are never given psychiatric drugs?

Same goes for regulators families, why allow their children, grandchildren to take a class of drugs that they know so much about...but do very little about it.

No doubt the MHRA will swarm over this post - if they don't like it.... let them send me a letter.

I won't open it.


Fid

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