Spin Doctor or Bullying Victim?

David Baldwin Alleges Harassment

Spin Doctor

a person (such as a political aide) responsible for ensuring that others interpret an event from a particular point of view.

Extra, extra, read all about it!

Today's headlines in The Times and Daily Mail were designed to attract attention. Their headlines suggest their articles are about a government advisor being bullied online. Like many headlines, I believe these two are misleading.

The Times runs with, "Drugs adviser David Baldwin quits after being branded ‘worse than Hitler’ in online abuse row." The Daily Mail uses, "Government drugs advisor QUITS after sustained campaign of abuse that saw him branded 'worse than Hitler' over his stance on antidepressants."

It's important to note that both newspapers omitted the word "alleged."

They have stated Baldwin's claims as fact.

Baldwin's Hitler claim caught my attention as I was once threatened by GSK's attorneys when I wrote these exact words regarding a GSK employee back in 2008. Today I was struck by Baldwin's claim because 1.Baldwin quoted a phrase from 2008 that was identical to the one I said about a former GSK employee and 2. There is no evidence that anyone on social media or any blogger has said this about Baldwin.** (Update at foot of post)

Baldwin, who is no stranger to controversy, claimed pressure from bloggers and social media forced him to resign from the Prescribed Drug Dependence and Withdrawal Panel for the forthcoming Public Health England review. Baldwin would have represented the Royal College of Psychiatrists.

One would think Baldwin had a stronger backbone given his profession freely assigns labels to all and sundry. What's good for the goose, huh? I, and other advocates are often labelled "conspiracy theorists" and "pill-shamers" for speaking out about drug safety and efficacy. Apparently, we must have stronger backbones given we don't throw hissy-fits and quit.

What's worse, having your behaviour elicit the label "pharma-whore" or being subjectively labelled "mentally ill"? The first label suggests one takes money from drug companies to peddle their products, the second emphatically declares is not of sound mind. I know which label I find more offensive.

However, the alleged name calling isn't really the issue here. Baldwin's bullying claim is a sneaky tactic used by Baldwin and RCP to deflect attention from the real issue: Taking drug money while promoting the drugs. Undoubtedly, if Baldwin had been brave enough to sit on the panel he would defend these products to infinity.

Smoke & Fire

Did Baldwin really quit because he didn't like the names he was being labelled? In the field of public relations, false reasons are often given when a person resigns or quits. Perhaps, Baldwin quit because where there's smoke there's fire. It's bad enough his pockets are lined with unethical drug money. It's possible further enquiries would uncover more conflict of interest.

Bullying Those Who Suffer

Earlier this year, Baldwin and RCP President, Wendy Burn gaslighted all who have suffered adverse drug effects from the pills they promote as "antidepressants." They said, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment." (Fig 1)

(Fig 1)

Baldwin now claims this statement is supported by the National Institution of Clinical Excellence (NICE). It would be interesting to learn just how many patients NICE see on a daily basis.

To quiet the critics of this joint statement, Burn has somewhat retreated. She now claims in her "clinical experience" she has not seen problems with discontinuing drugs marketed as antidepressants. Burn states via Twitter she treats and prescribes these drugs to patients over the age of 60. She has received drug company money in the past but doesn't take it anymore. In a conversation with blogger, The Truthman, she told him, "I stopped taking money because I saw how it looked…" It's a pity she couldn't have relayed this to Baldwin.

The keywords in the above statement are "vast majority." Most people who suffer adverse drug effects don't appreciate having their prescribed harm diminished by doctors. Both Burn and Baldwin have had plenty of time to retract their statement and apologize. For whatever reason, they choose not to.

Super sleuth and podcaster James Moore queried the Times comment as it didn't tally with RCP's own study carried out and published on their own website. In that study, RCP learned that 63% of people suffered from antidepressant withdrawal. Once Burn was contacted by Moore, RCP removed the study from their website claiming, "It was out of date." However, due to the marvels of the Internet, the results of RCPs own study can be seen here.

Pharma-Whore

It is unknown when the term 'Pharma-Whore' was first introduced. It's been used many times to describe someone who takes money from drug companies and then promotes drug company products. Sometimes this promotion is through prescribing and sometimes it is through biased research and spin doctoring.

Why Baldwin feels his salary isn't enough for him to live on is beyond me. He is responsible for his unethical conflict.

In a 2003 article in The Guardian, Baldwin declared a personal interest in Lundbeck. The company makes the"antidepressant" called Citalopram, also known as Celexa in the US. Baldwin has also participated in advisory boards for SmithKline Beecham (Seroxat, Wellbutrin), and Eli Lilly (Prozac).

The Truthman wrote an interesting blog on Baldwin entitled, "Professor David Baldwin’s Lovefest With The Pharmaceutical Industry. Truthman said Baldwin was "instrumental in the promotion of Seroxat in the late 90’s." In 1998 Baldwin stated, "it (Seroxat) was one of the safest drugs ever made." Professor David Baldwin was also the lead coordinator of the European trial on paroxetine (Seroxat) for “social anxiety disorder.”

The Bloody Aftermath

Baldwin and Burn would have been wise to apologize and retract their joint statement. People are dying violent, bloody deaths that are due to drug withdrawal. This is not my opinion, violence against oneself and others is often precipitated by akathisia. There are four types of akathisia to include withdrawal.

After their joint comment in The Times, a formal complaint, headed by Dr John Read, a psychologist and mental health researcher, was lodged to the RCP. The complaint was dismissed by RCP without a full investigation and with no right of appeal. A new complaint was then sent to the new Secretary of State for Health and Social Care. It informed that “the Royal College of Psychiatrists is currently operating outside the ethical, professional and scientific standards expected of a body representing medical professionals.” It's presently unknown if the Secretary of State replied.

The spin-doctoring from Baldwin is regrettable when you consider human lives hang in the balance.


Bob Fiddaman

** The 2018 'worse than Hitler' claim reportedly came from a comment left on a blog post. (Not this blog, I hasten to add)

Back Stories

RCP Remove Damning Antidepressant Document From Website

Royal College of Psychiatrists - 63%

Scooby and Those Pesky Tweeters Rumble Psychiatry

Royal College of Psychiatrists Dig Deep Abyss

Royal College of Psychiatry: "Unprofessional Conduct"

Other "Conspiracy theorists" and "Pill-shamers" discussing David Baldwin can be viewed at the following links.

GSK Licence to [Kill]

Hole Ousia

Mad In America

Mad in the UK

Royal College of Psychiatry: "Unprofessional Conduct"

The Royal College of Psychiatry (RCP) continues traveling down its road of willful ignorance regarding a formal complaint submitted to them by more than 30 mental health experts last February.

Digging through the timeline of events, you'll find that RCP orchestrated a media frenzy surrounding a study of drugs marketed as "antidepressants."  The analysis by Andrea Cipriani et al that was unveiled in February again over-hyped the supposed benefits of  "antidepressants." Two members of the RCP, Wendy Burn and David Baldwin, went further by claiming, "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment."

If this was a throw-away comment on Twitter one could be more forgiving, however, Burn and Baldwin's comment was published in the Guardian newspaper. RCPs claim was met by health professionals and patient safety advocates who adeptly pointed out that RCPs down-playing the horrific withdrawal effects of antidepressants contradicted RCPs own previously published content, "Coming Off Antidepressants." 

RCP previously noted that a staggering 63% of respondents in its own survey reported difficulties withdrawing from SSRI drugs ("antidepressants.")

When the RCP-published study was brought to the attention of Wendy Burn via Twitter, it was swiftly removed. RCP later claimed it was "out of date" and needed "updating."

Understandably outraged at RCP's seemingly intentional public health misinformation, many mental health experts submitted a formal complaint to RCP demanding that Burn and Baldwin be asked to provide evidence that backed up their claims that, "in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment."

The formal Complaint was dismissed by RCP without a full investigation and without a right of appeal.

Undeterred, the 30 mental health experts continue to push for evidence from Burn and Baldwin, and indeed the RCP. However, RCP refuses to provide any such evidence. RCP will not retract its claim provided to the Guardian newspaper and refuses to publicly apologize for its disinformation and/or "error."

Two days ago, the 30 mental health experts wrote to The Rt. Hon. Matt Hancock MP, the newly appointed Secretary of State for Health and Social Care, to inform him that “the Royal College of Psychiatrists is currently operating outside the ethical, professional and scientific standards expected of a body representing medical professionals.”

The full letter, along with a timeline of events can be read here.

The recent arrogance shown by RCP, Burn, and Baldwin is typical of a system that protects prescribers and further harms those who have suffered at the hands of prescribers. Burn, who is the current President of the RCP, should know that any comment she makes in the media represents the views of the college, which is probably why her colleagues are not asking Burn to back up her claims.

RCP knows it takes longer than two weeks to withdraw from antidepressants, they know this from their own study carried out several years ago. When the statistics from their own study didn't tally with their president's comments, RCP pulled the study from its own website within 24 hours and then concocted a story that it was 'out-of-date.' No effort has been made to reinstate the original study with amendments.

The stance of RCP highlights the dangerous smoke-and-mirrors world of psychiatry. It's a world where arrogant 'professionals' can pretty much claim whatever they want without having to show any evidence. Burn and Baldwin had a golden opportunity to ethically inform the public that there is a growing problem of psychiatric drug withdrawal. But instead of improving public health and safety, they chose to protect their own image and economic livelihood.

Burn, Baldwin, and indeed the whole college are walking a tightrope but they have a wide safety net beneath them should they fall. The consumers of the products the college promotes and prescribes have no such safety net, many have died while others have fallen and will continue to fall as long as the likes of Burn and Baldwin continue to publicly deny reality.

Shame on Burn. Shame on Baldwin. Shame on the Royal College of Psychiatry. Their PR game is a crying shame that will cause more avoidable harms to the unsuspecting public.


Bob Fiddaman

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