GSK, Not So Corporate

 

Back Story

GSK Lawyers target Seroxat campaigner Bob Fiddaman – what next?

Read more in my book, links below.

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

APA Use Restraints on Blogger

Image Capture - .pogo.org

The American Psychiatric Publishing, an arm of the American Psychiatric Association, [APA] have forced a commentator to change the web address of her popular blog because it apparently violated the American Trademark Law.

Suzy Chapman has, for the past two years or so, been voicing her opinion of the proposed new DSM-5, an opinion that has been, in many instances, critical of the biggest book of mythical tales since J.K Rowling's Harry Potter series.

Her original url included the use of the acronym 'dsm' [dsm5watch.wordpress.com/] so the APA decided to send Chapman a threatening 'cease and desist' email, part of which Chapman writes:

On December 22, I was stunned to receive two emails from the Licensing and Permissions department of American Psychiatric Publishing, claiming that the domain name my site operates under was infringing upon the DSM 5 trademark in violation of United States Trademark Law and that my unauthorized actions may subject me to contributory infringement liability including increased damages for willful infringement. I was told to cease and desist immediately all use of the DSM 5 mark and to provide documentation within ten days confirming I had done so.”

Chapman complied and changed the name of her blog to dxrevisionwatch.wordpress.com/

The intimidation by the APA has prompted a former Chair of the DSM task force, Allen Frances, to come out in support of Chapman and to write an aptly named post, "Is DSM 5 A Public Trust Or An APA Cash Cow?" on his website.

I, myself, was, sometime ago, contacted by GlaxoSmithKline's lawyer's, Addleshaw Gooddard, in relation to a video I had made. Apparently, my video had caused GlaxoSmithKline's former Head of Psychiatry, Alastair Benbow, great distress. Glaxo also mentioned that I had used their company logo in my slide-show video without their permission. I removed the video from YouTube but it was uploaded by an astute American blogger just 24 hours later. The video that landed me in hot water can be seen HERE and the whole "Videogate" scandal can be read in my book, 'The evidence, however, is clear...the Seroxat scandal.'

Last year two bloggers who voiced their opinions were targeted by lawyers. The anonymous author who writes the Seroquel Lawsuit Blog was, like Chapman, sent a 'cease and desist' email by lawyers because he/she had uploaded a settlement that had been put to plaintiffs by their lawyers Weitz & Luxenberg. The blogger was told to remove the document, he/she didn't and it is still available today.

Irish blogger Leonie Fennell, whose son committed suicide after a short period on the antidepressant citalopram, was also sent a threatening letter by Irish lawyers because she had voiced an opinion about Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey. Fennell writes about her son's death and included Casey in one of her articles [Casey was present at the inquest of Fennell's son, Shane, representing and observing for Psychiatry Ireland and to ask questions if the need arose.] Fennell posted the letter HERE.

I can't quite see what the APA have to gain by intimidating a critique of the DSM. Often when one in power gets uncomfortable they use that power to threaten, usually in the manner of seeking damages that they know their critique just does not have.

If the APA are correct and a Trademark violation has been breached then what of other blogs/websites that use trademarks as part of their web address? Will this move by the APA be the start of further intimidation to stifle opinion for blogs such as Seroxat Secrets, Prozac Withdrawal,  GSK Internal Files, all of which use trademarked names as part of their web address. There are literally hundreds of thousands of others.

It would appear that Chapman's opinions about the DSM-5 have been carefully monitored by the APA, they don't like what they see nor do they like the fact that Chapman has had over 40,000 visitors to her blog during the last two years, a number that was significantly increasing with each post she made.

Blogging is a powerful weapon against the Goliath's of this world, they are a bigger threat to the big boys because they answer to nobody. A newspaper article is run by the Chief editor before it is published, bloggers, in the main, hit the publish button more out of frustration that the mainstream media won't cover what needs to be covered.

And what if Suzy Chapman decided to write her blog anonymously with no contact details on her blog? The APA would have had to go through the laborious process of contacting the webhost, in this instance Wordpress.com, and asking them for an injunction. That would have cost them money so they take the easier route when people, like Chapman, are open and transparent about who they are. It is detrimental these days to be open and honest, how perverse is that?

Chapman continues to critique the proposals for the DSM-5, she has every right to critique a book of apparent psychiatric disorders designed to hook yet more people on mind-altering drugs and make the pharmaceutical industry billions of dollars in sales of their remedies to help 'fix' the problems created out of thin air by the Rowlingesque book.

The field of psychiatry is doing itself no favours by using intimidation tactics against people that criticize their opinion, let's face it, the whole premise of psychiatry is based on opinion, I've not yet seen any scientific evidence of the chemical imbalance the field of psychiatry tout when someone is depressed or has a psychiatric disorder.

Chapman's blog can be read at her new web address HERE. Her work/opinion continues to spread, much to the annoyance of the APA who have probably shot themselves in the foot with their intimidation tactics.

Memo to the APA - Intimidate a blogger and you put them on a pedastal, you highlight what it is that they have to say... here endeth your first lesson in psychology.




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

Irish Lawyers Threaten Blogger Mom

Professor Patricia Casey, Professor of Psychiatry, UCD and Nora Broderick, product manager psychiatry, Lundbeck (Ireland) Ltd

Irish lawyers, Brophy Solicitors, have sent a threatening letter to Leonie Fennell, the mother of Shane Clancy, who writes about her son's death and offers opinion as to why he died.

Shane was just 22 when he killed a young man before turning the knife on himself. The subsequent inquest found an open verdict, large traces of the SSRi antidepressant citalopram [Cipramil UK, Celexa US] were found in his system.

Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey was present at the inquest representing and observing for Psychiatry Ireland and to ask questions if the need arose. Casey has come under fire from Fennell on a number of occasions, in particular her relationship with the pharmaceutical industry and fees, grants etc that she has received from them.

Casey was at Shane’s inquest and took issue with some aspects of it, according to Leonie, Casey has publicly stated that there is no evidence to suggest that antidepressants can cause suicide or homicide and she is also a member of psychiatry Ireland  and has worked in association with Lundbeck, the manufacturers of citalopram.

The threatening letter from Brophy Solicitors carries an odd disclaimer at the footer, this, more than the threatening content, rather intrigued me.

************************************************************************
The information contained in this message may be privileged and confidential and protected from disclosure. If the reader of this messages is not the intended recipient, or an employee or agent responsible for delivering this message to the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you have received this communication in error, please notify us immediately by replying to message and deleting it from your computer.
***********************************************************************

I just love the use of the word 'may' here. It either is...or it isn't. It appears Brophy Solicitors are trying to stop Leonie Fennell from posting the letter or passing it on to third parties. Quite what disclosure they refer to is baffling as no court proceedings are in place to my knowledge.

What lands in my inbox becomes my property and I can do with it what I wish to do. I certainly wouldn't pay any attention by a law firm who represent a psychiatrist!

The content of the letter appears to be telling...not asking...Leonie to remove certain segments of a post she wrote about Patricia Casey.

Our client has instructed us in relation to comments appearing on your internet blog in which you repeat a statement that another lady made to you that “Patricia Casey ruined my son’s life”.

You also publish a letter on your blog to the Irish Medicines Board on 16th March 2011. As part of this letter you say “... as Patricia Casey has a long and I am sure lucrative association with Lundbeck ... you can take from that anything you want to”.

So, let's just get this straight. A blogger uses a quote from another person and then writes an opinion about Casey's association with Lundbeck. For that she is sent a threatening letter because Casey didn't like it?

Boo hoo.

I imagine writers across the blogsphere are shitting themselves!

I find it comical that a psychiatrist such as Casey wishes to suppress opinion, particularly when the whole field of psychiatry is based on opinion. The mere fact that Casey hands out antidepressants to children is based on opinion...unless of course Casey can provide evidence that shows her patients have a mental disorder? Blood tests, urine samples will suffice. Incidentally, SSRi antidepressants are not recommended for children in Ireland but they can be prescribed 'off-label' - in other words, if the doctor or psychiatrist are of the opinion that a child will benefit from them then they will prescribe them.

Leonie Fennell is right to question a psychiatrist who has links to the manufacturer of the drug that, she believes, killed her son. If she didn't question then what sort of mother would she be?

Brophy solicitors are making assumptions as far as I can ascertain.

"The implication in this second comment is that our client either knows or ought to know of what you describe in your blog as the potentially fatal side effects of certain antidepressants, and yet continues to prescribe these anti-depressants."

First off, it is Brophy Solicitors that have drawn that conclusion. If they feel that antidepressants do not pose a fatal reaction to young people then they are going against what medicine regulators around the world claim. The fact that their client, Patricia Casey, prescribes them should be in question, particularly when they are not recommended for Casey's younger patients. Visit the MHRA website HERE - I'll leave it to Brophy Solicitors to work their way around that particular labyrinth to find what they are looking for.

"The very clear implication here is that our client receives payments from drug companies and is quite happy to prescribe anti-depressants to individuals who should not take these drugs and who would be placed in danger if they did take these drugs."

Brophy Solicitors really need to do their homework. Children and adolescents ARE placed in danger when prescribed these drugs. It is on Casey's own behest [her opinion] that despite not being recommended she continues to prescribe after weighing up the risks versus benefits.

"The first comment – that our client ‘ruined’ someone’s life is even more serious and while it is entirely untrue and without foundation, it is clearly extremely damaging to our client."

This is a particular sticky issue and, as I understand, Leonie Fennell, has now removed that comment. It kind of runs against those programs you see such as Crimewatch where the victim is silhouetted and their voices are changed. They do so for protection. Fennell claims the woman who made that statement feared repercussions from Casey, hence the reason for leaving her name out.

Are Brophy Solicitors going to send out letters to all bloggers who have opinions about their client or who question their client's ties to the industry?

Leonie Fennell lost her son because he was prescribed an antidepressant on the opinion of a doctor. No blood samples were taken, no urine samples were taken, no MRI scan, PET scan or X-rays. It was the opinion of Shane's doctor that citalopram would help lift the blues he was feeling. Sadly it didn't and Shane took his own life. If these drugs worked then there would be no suicides. If they were so safe then regulators around the world would not have imposed restrictions on them...restrictions that Casey appears to ignore because she has her own opinions on these types of drugs.

Leonie has published the threatening letter in full and added her own opinion HERE

If either Casey or indeed Brophy Solicitors wish to debate the ethics of giving children and adolescents drugs that are not recommended for children and adolescents then I'm all ears. Feel free to leave a comment beneath this post. If the benefits outweigh the potential risks then please feel free to send me a detailed list of those benefits.

For the record I take umbrage to Casey making the following statement on the Irish Health Website:

“Around 50% of people do not have a trigger or risk factors for depressive illness”, she said. “The outcome for those who get treatment is very good. It is also important to be aware too that antidepressants are not addictive”.

Coincidental that Casey sings from the same hymn sheet as the manufacturers of antidepressants?

Perhaps Casey would like to tell the 10,000 or so paroxetine users that what they are experiencing is not addiction?

Maybe she should confront the 20,000+ Prozac sufferers who have posted online regarding Prozac's addictive qualities?

Or she could oppose the near 24,000 who have expressed their views regarding the SNRi Effexor online?

I could go on but then again I'm of the opinion that psychiatrists who don't speak out against psychiatric drugs have irrational and delusional traits - Just an opinion of mine I happen to hold.

Here's a classic reason why:

“Fidgeting and foot movements (known in our research setting as ‘Wender’s sign’) are very common signs of hyperactivity in adult ADHD patients – so much so that such patients can usually be diagnosed in the waiting room by a knowledgeable receptionist.” - Professor of Psychiatry at the University of Utah School of Medicine, Paul Wender [Paul H. Wender, Attention-Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder in Adults, Oxford University Press, New York, 1995, p. 20]

Professionalism at its very best.

In the meantime, stick in your headphones and listen to the mother of Shane Clancy pour her heart out in a recent podcast she did with me HERE.

Am I sticking up for Leonie Fennell because she did an interview with me? Nup, I'd stick up for any parent who was having their voices stifled by lawyers who have not done their homework with regard to the way their client's prescribe drugs to a generation, despite those drugs not being recommend by world-wide medicines regulators.

All of the above is my opinion, I'm sure many other bloggers will offer theirs over the course of the next week or so. I'm of the opinion that Casey has brought some rather unwanted attention on herself by using Solicitors to try and suppress the voice of a grieving mother.

Some bedtime reading for Brophy Solicitors - http://www.ssristories.com/ - Your opinion and Casey's too, on the stories featured, would be greatly appreciated, there's over 4,500 of them!  If you disagree with the 4,500+ stories, I won't be sending you a threatening letter, it is, after all, just your opinion, however wrong you may be.

Related Media

Podcast - Robert Whitaker on Today With Patricia Casey

FDA Flex Muscles on Elderberry Manufacturer

If ever one needed evidence regarding how medicine's health officials around the globe prioritise what's regulated and what's not then look no further than the American medicines regulator, the Food and Drug Administration.

The latest victim of the FDA's crackdown on business trying to make a buck is Wyldewood Cellars, Inc. Their apparent crime? Well, their website violated the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act.

Way to go FDA, where would we be without you.

Wyldewood Cellars, Inc were sent a letter from the FDA back in 2006, the crux of which was the FDA bitching about Wyldewood Cellars Elderberry-Juice Concentrate.

In a letter to John A. Brewer, Ph.D., Owner of Wyldewood Cellars, District Director of the Public Health Service for the Food and Drug Administration, John W. Thorsky, writes:

The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has reviewed your firm's website at http://www.elderberry.net. Our review of your website found violations of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act...

It appears the FDA were pissed because of the various claims made by Wyldewood Cellars about their Elderberry-Juice Concentrate, such claims included that various cultures, including the Native Americans, had used the elderberry plant to treat colds, asthma diabetes, rheumatism, and nervous disorders such as insomnia and migraines. They also claimed that one teaspoon of Elderberry Juice Concentrate provided a daily preventative dose for most colds and it was a medically proven strong antiviral.

The FDA took umbrage to these claims:

Because your product is not generally recognized as safe and effective when used as labeled, it is also a new drug as defined in section 201(p) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 321(p)]. Under section 505 of the Act (21 U.S.C. 355), a new drug may not be legally marketed in the United States without an approved New Drug Application (NDA). This drug is also misbranded under section 502(f)(1) of the Act [21 U.S.C. 352(f)(1)], in that its labeling does not bear adequate directions for use.

The above violations are not meant to be an all-inclusive list of deficiencies in your products and their labeling. It is your responsibility to ensure that all products marketed by your firm comply with the Act and its implementing regulations.

Wyldewood Cellars made adjustments to their labelling and thought no more of it. Imagine their surprise when the FDA recently sent US Marshalls on a mission to the Wyldewood Cellars warehouse, where they duly confiscated the said product.

One moment whilst I wipe the tears of laughter from my eyes...

Here we have the FDA pulling out all the stops to make sure a product is not making false claims. You know where I'm going with this, right?

The FDA, which is basically akin to a pharmaceutical agent, are surely barking up the wrong tree here by going after a piddling wine-maker, doncha think?

Let's take a look at some of the claims that the FDA and other medicines regulators have stood by over the years for various pharmaceutical products.

Cipramil, known as Celexa in the US
"Now indicated for panic disorder"
Panic disorder cannot be diagnosed using 21st century technology.
The FDA/MHRA see no problem with this claim.

Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US, Aropax in Australia.
Early promotion of Seroxat saw the manufacturer claim that it 'corrected a chemical imbalance'
Public pressure and basic common sense saw GSK later remove this claim. They were never charged by the FDA or MHRA for this false claim.
Glaxo also promoted this drug for use in children by way of a ghost-written paper, when they knew it was not safe for children.
After a four year investigation by the MHRA, Glaxo were sent a letter saying they had been naughty and not to do it again.

Ribena "contains four times as much vitamins as oranges"
It took two New Zealand schoolgirls to debunk this claim made by Glaxo. They were effectively doing the job of the food and drug regulators. Glaxo were fined a pittance and told not to do it again. Their manufacturing plants were never raided.

The list of psychiatric medications that are promoted for fixing or helping this and that is quite large. Both the FDA and MHRA have made no attempt to debunk any of the claims made by the manufacturers of these products.

Unlike Wyldewood Cellars, I can't think of one pharmaceutical company who have had their production plants raided by the police because of the claims made on packets. Maybe Wyldewood Cellar Inc should have touted the 'benefit vs risk ratio' at the FDA or maybe they should have told them that their Elderberry Juice Concentrate was thought to correct a chemical imbalance in the big toe of those who drank it. I hardly think the FDA would have been in a position to dispute any such claim seeing as they have, for years, stood by the claims of the pharmaceutical industry.

Difference with Wyldewood Cellars juice and pharmaceutical products is crystal clear. Their juice has never made anyone feel suicidal or homicidal. Their juice can be stopped without withdrawal problems. Their juice does not claim to fix something that does not exist.

Your move pharma.

Hat-tip - Natural News

Fid

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