Zantac Lawsuit


Researching drug company and regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years
Humanist, humorist
Showing posts with label Leonie Fennell blog. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Leonie Fennell blog. Show all posts

Tuesday, March 11, 2014

A Search for Justice – Death in Bray - Review




To write an opinion piece without offending is always going to be tricky. In the past I have wrote many articles where I have never really given any thought to my opinions hurting anyone because, in the main, I write about pharmaceutical companies, medicine regulators and psychiatrists whom I don't really care much for.

This piece is different as it concerns a number of people who are all suffering loss, all, who I mention, in the following piece, are searching for answers. We have a bunch of people divided by opinion which makes it increasingly difficult for any of the parties to accept facts.

My opinion, it will be argued, is one of bias - I cannot refute this but can offer my reasons for sitting on one side of the fence opposed to sitting on the other side or, indeed, sitting on the actual fence.

Last night TV3, an Irish network channel, aired a 90 minute special that covered the death of 22 year-old Sebastian Creane. The documentary, 'A Search for Justice – Death in Bray', has, if anything, raised some questions that need answering.

Before I go on I would just like to stipulate that I did not know Sebastian Creane nor Shane Clancy. I have, since this tragic incident, met with Shane Clancy's mother, partner and family on numerous occasions and they, like other families I have met and wrote about, have become good friends.

So, many may think that my bias will originate from this friendship. I can state clearly that this is not the case.

It was my father who, many years ago, said to me, "Always write about the things you know about", which is something that I have tried to do. As a writer my job is similar to the programme-makers of 'A Search for Justice – Death in Bray' in as much that I wish to raise certain concerns and my ultimate wish is that those concerns are debated.

Watching the documentary was difficult as many people have been affected by the tragedy it covered, none more so than the parents of Sebastian Creane and Shane Clancy.

Sebastian Creane, 22, was stabbed to death on August 16, 2009, by Shane Clancy, 22, who then killed himself at the Creane family home in Bray. A subsequent inquest into the alleged suicide of Clancy resulted in a coroner's decision, based on evidence given, of an "open verdict".

This, it seemed, was the basis of 'A Search for Justice – Death in Bray'.

Sebastian Creane parents, Nuala and Jay, were not happy with the outcome of the Shane Clancy inquest and both they and friends of Sebastian took umbrage to Leonie and her partner, Tony, appearing on The Late Late Show [RTE] some 6 weeks after the tragic incident.

If I were a neutral watching 'A Search for Justice – Death in Bray' I would have been of the opinion that Shane Clancy was a crazed young man who killed his former girlfriend's lover and then, after realisation of his actions, decided to take his own life rather than face the consequences of those actions. I believe the documentary, although compelling, didn't really delve into the evidence of antidepressant homicide/suicide.

I have been writing and researching about the side-effects of SSRi medications for almost nine years now and this case is not too dissimilar to other cases of bizarre beahviour from those who have ingested these powerful group of drugs.

Homicide Vs Suicide - What is the difference?

Homicide is the act of killing another.

Suicide is the act of killing oneself.

So, why did the coroner in Shane Clancy's inquest deliver an "open verdict"?

Well, based upon all evidences provided to the inquest it could not be deemed that Shane Clancy knew that he was killing himself [suicide]. The reasons why he never knew this have never been elaborated on [officially].

If Shane never knew he was about to kill himself then did he know that he was carrying out an act of homicide when he killed Sebastian?

This, of course, was never answered. Shane's inquest was not about finding fault or laying the finger of blame, it was, as all inquests are, about preventing any future deaths in the manner of how Shane Clancy died.

A very important issue was raised in the documentary. If Shane had not killed himself after killing Sebastian [and attacking others] then he would have been tried and [more than likely] convicted. I say more than likely because it is very rare for accused killers or criminals to be acquitted by using induced psychosis as a result of medication being taken. Rare but not unheard of.

In February 24, 2000 Connecticut Superior Court Judge J. Arnold acquitted Christopher DeAngelo of first-degree robbery on the grounds that the defendant lacked substantial capacity as a result of mental disease or defect. The judge specifically attributed Mr. DeAngelo's impaired state to his prescribed Xanax and Prozac.[1]

David Crespi plead guilty to brutally stabbing his five-year-old twin daughters to death, but there is one person that still believes he’s innocent: their mother.

Kimberly Crespi has fought for her husband from the beginning, forgiving him for his horrific crime in 2006 and now she wants to share their story with the world.

Mrs Crespi believes Crespi killed their girls because he was misdiagnosed with a personality disorder and put on a cocktail of drugs which in turn, caused a psychotic episode. [2]

Clinical psychologist, Dr. David Antonuccio, was one of multiple doctors who gave Charles Baymiller a mental evaluation. He said that she was displaying negative drug side effects prior to the killing such as agitation and sleep deprivation and had visited her doctor to address them. Instead, a nurse practitioner increased her dosages. He said that was not an appropriate adjustment. Antonuccio said that within weeks, the drugs could have caused her to be in a drug-induced state, where she would be in a “fog-like, sleepwalking” state and later have no memory of her actions. He said the known side effects of Paxil are irritability, aggessiveness and suicidal tendencies.” [3]

Probably the most infamous of all is the case of Donald Schell. Here's the verdict of the jury [Fig 1]






These are just four incidents, there are many more if one researches.

Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, who appeared in the TV3 special, claimed that there is no evidence to suggest that the SSRi group of drugs can cause homicide. Some of the instances above, may be debated but, nonetheless, they show evidence that Casey claims does not exist.

Back in 2011 Lawyers representing Patricia Casey wrote to the mother of Shane Clancy. Casey took umbrage to a blog post and subsequent comments that appeared on the Leonie Fennell blog. Fennell was, in essence, told to remove the comments or face being sued by Casey. Back stories here and here.

Casey was interviewed and appeared in the 90 minute special last night, she made assertions that Shane Clancy had a "psychiatric illness" and did not believe his actions were due to citalopram he was taking. [Whilst alive Shane was seen by three professionals, none of whom diagnosed him with a psychiatric illness]

From what I can gather, Casey has based her diagnosis around reading documents from the case and reviewing CCTV footage of Shane Clancy on the night of the tragedy. She is, like many in this case, offering her own opinion. Casey, and her supporters, will argue that she is in a position to offer such evidence because she is a professional psychiatrist. End of the day Casey has offered an opinion that cannot be backed up with any scientific facts. She cannot prove, one way or the other, that her diagnosis of Shane Clancy is correct.

Casey also touched upon her links to the pharmaceutical company Lundbeck in last night's documentary. Lundbeck manufacture the antidepressant that Shane Clancy was prescribed.

Shane's mother, Leonie Fennell, had, back in 2011, highlighted a possible conflict of interest between Casey and Lundbeck [here]

Not only does Casey not believe that citalopram may have been the cause of Shane Clancy's out of character behaviour, she also believes that antidepressants do not cause suicide. [4] Something that, I believe, is an appalling and dangerous statement given the warnings placed on the packets of SSRi's such as citalopram.

The family and friends of Sebastian Creane and Shane Clancy will always have to deal with their loss, it will never go away. Both parties will also battle with the many unanswered questions. All parties concerned will try to seek justice. On one side of the fence we have those that refuse to believe the evidence that SSRi medications can cause homicide and suicide - on the other we have parents who refuse to believe that their son could commit such a heinous crime.

On a personal front, and to add some weight to my argument, I became suicidal when withdrawing from another SSRi, namely GSK's Seroxat. I also became aggressive and, totally out of character, went out one night seeking confrontation. The area I chose was a country park in Birmingham. I wanted violence and I didn't much care about the consequences of my actions if I would have had my thirst for violence quenched. [5] Luckily, there was nobody walking through the darkened country park during the early hours of that particular morning. Had they have been then I, myself, may have been the subject of much debate and maybe Casey, or any other psychiatrist for that matter, may have been convinced that I had a chemical imbalance in my brain that made me mentally ill.

In truth, I was prescribed Seroxat for "work-related stress"

Shane Clancy was prescribed citalopram because he was dealing with matters of the heart, a relationship split with his girlfriend.

I don't think for one minute that either of us were mentally ill.

Airing a documentary on such a subject was a brave move by TV3. It was very brave of Leonie Fennell, Nuala, Jay and Dylan Creane and Jennifer Hannigan to appear in front of TV camera's, by doing so they have people talking, writing, debating, insinuating. No statements, as far as I am aware were given to the programme-makers by H. Lundbeck A/S. I find this quite astonishing given that in one of their own citalopram studies 14 patients taking citalopram attempted suicide or reported suicidal ideation compared with 5 patients taking placebo,” [6]

As always, my thoughts are with both parties here. I cannot imagine what it must feel like to lose a child, particularly in such circumstances. I sincerely hope that one day the truth will out and that those left to pick up the pieces will one day be able to embrace that truth and find the minutest bit of comfort from it.



Bob Fiddaman.




[1] Court Finds Prozac and Xanax Cause Criminal Conduct

[2] Mother forgives husband for stabbing their twin daughters to death while driven crazy by Prozac and is fighting to have him freed from jail

[3] Judge gives woman probation in Incline Village husband's slaying after children request it

[4] "Antidepressants Do Not Cause Suicide" - Patricia Casey [VIDEO EVIDENCE]

[5] The Evidence, However, Is Clear, The Seroxat Scandal [Paperback]

[6] Forest Under Fire



Sunday, March 09, 2014

Is Patricia Casey the Chosen One?



Controversial Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey


Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, is at it again.

Once again she has come out and spoke about mental illness and antidepressant use. Casey, who has received much criticism from a number of bloggers over the years, is quoted in today's edition of The Irish Sunday Times.

Tomorrow evening TV3, an Irish television station, are airing a special documentary that looks deeper into the death of Sebastian Creane, 22, who was stabbed to death on August 16, 2009, by Shane Clancy, 22, who then killed himself at the Creane family home in Bray.

An inquest into the death of Shane Clancy revealed an open verdict, in other words the evidence given at the inquest was insufficient for the Coroner to return a verdict of suicide.

The TV3 documentary, 'A Search for Justice – Death in Bray', is set to cause much controversy with the families concerned and one has to ask why this case from 2009 is being regurgitated.

Patricia Casey, who asked to give evidence at Clancy's inquest but was refused by the coroner, is featured in the documentary along with members of the Clancy and Creane families.

The Irish Sunday Times today quoted Casey, it was a quote that made me choke on the toast I was eating at the time.

Casey claims that research literature "is not in any way convincing" that the drug [citalopram] can lead someone to kill. "I do not think it was the drugs", Casey told program makers, adding, "I believe it was a psychiatric illness he [Clancy] was suffering from."

Well, good to see that Casey is only offering her belief and no hard physical evidence to back up her claims.

This pretty much sums up Casey's chosen profession, psychiatry, a profession based purely on belief and...well, nothing much else really.

Casey never met either Creane or Clancy whilst they were alive yet, in this instance, she is offering her own diagnosis of 22 year-old Shane Clancy.

Does Casey have samples of Shane's blood or a frozen urine sample? Maybe Casey has a strand of hair and has ran a series of DNA tests that show Clancy had a "psychiatric illness"?

How can Casey, who has in the past claimed antidepressants do not cause suicide [Video below] diagnose a dead person?

Here's one way of looking at it.

Patricia Casey has been chosen by God to work his miracles. She can see what others can't see because God has given her this special power... in fact Casey doesn't even need to see those sickened by mental illness, she has a gift [given to her by God] that allows her to find diseases in dead people that previous professionals missed. Clancy was seen by three separate doctors prior to his death. None of them diagnosed him with a psychiatric illness...then again, they were not chosen by God to perform the miracles that Casey can.

Then again, even Satan can induce miracles [Check out the Book of Revelation for proof of this]

Today, and even in 2009, we have pharmaceutical companies who manufacture powerful SSRi type medications, openly admit that patients taking their drugs [particularly those up to the age of 25] have to be monitored as suicidal thoughts are known to be caused by the medication. Even drug regulators around the world have had to concede this one simple fact. Casey, however, does not acknowledge this.




Here's another way of looking at it.

Patricia Casey is wrong. Patricia Casey is burying her head in the sand. Patricia Casey likes the attention. Patricia Casey has a conflict of interest where the drug citalopram is concerned. [See here and here] Patricia Casey has a mental illness [Delusional disorder] whereby she cannot tell what is real from what is imagined.

So, has she been chosen by God to perform psychiatric assessments on dead kids or does she, herself, have some kind of mental disorder?

The TV3 special runs tomorrow evening. Sadly, due to contractual reasons, people outside of Ireland will not be able to see this. That shouldn't stop us from giving an opinion though. I mean, Casey can give opinions about dead kids she never once saw...so why can't we?

I have chosen my words carefully in this blog post. Casey, you see, has a habit of setting her lawyers on people who disagree with her. Case in point being the mother of Shane Clancy, Leonie Fennell.

Back in 2011 Casey took umbrage to a post that appeared on the Leonie Fennell blog. Casey's law team, Brophy Solicitor's from Dublin, sent Fennell a letter, the crux of which claiming that Casey had her reputation "destroyed or attacked" as a result of comments left on Fennell's blog [Letter here]

Fennell replied to Casey's solicitors who, in turn, wrote back to Fennell...

Dear Ms Fennell,
We refer to our letter to you dated 22nd June.
It is extremely disappointing that your reply to this letter consisted of you posting it on your blog along with the comment in bold “I will never be bullied, intimidated or silenced by Lundbeck or Professor Casey”.
We need to point out to you that when our client first came to us, we advised her that the comments you have now removed from your blog were seriously defamatory and that she would be quite entitled to issue legal proceedings against you. She did not wish to do so because she has enormous sympathy for the tragedy you have suffered.
You have removed the defamatory comments from your blog but you now accuse our client of bullying you and trying to silence you. This is despite the fact that we specifically stated that our client did not want you to remove your blog but only wanted you to remove the defamatory comments you made about her. What part of this constitutes bullying? What part of this constitutes an attempt to silence you? Are you saying that the simple fact that you received a solicitor’s letter asking you to remove certain defamatory comments which you subsequently removed, constitutes intimidation?
We must now insist that you remove this sentence from your blog as it is absolutely clear that our client is not trying to bully you or intimidate you or silence you. What she is trying to do is to protect her good name and she will not allow herself to be defamed again. We hope you will accept that the allegation that our client is a bully and that she is intimidating you and trying to silence you is both wrong and extremely damaging for her.
We have strongly advised our client that she should issue proceedings to prevent this repetitive defamation but once again our client has said that she does not wish to do so given the background to this case but she absolutely insists that you remove the defamatory comments that are appearing on the website at the moment and confirm that you will not repeat any defamation in the future.


Yours faithfully,
BROPHY SOLICITORS

As an outsider looking in it looks to me like Casey will never accept that antidepressants can cause suicide, it also seems apparent, to me at least, that Casey's beliefs about Shane Clancy's state of mind on that fateful night back in 2009 had nothing to do with the medication he was taking, despite overwhelming evidence from drug-makers and drug regulators that oppose her belief.

So, I'm throwing out three questions for Casey and for readers of this blog.

1. Has Patricia Casey been chosen by God to perform miracles through him?

2. Can Patrica Casey prove that Shane Clancy had a psychiatric illness?

3. Does Patricia Casey have some sort of delusional disorder?


TV3’s “A Search for Justice – Death in Bray” will feature interviews with Jennifer Hannigan, Seb’s parents Nuala and Jay Creane, Seb’s brother Dylan and his girlfriend Laura Mackey as well as Shane Clancy’s mother Leonie Fennell.

Judging by the media reports and TV critics it looks as though the documentary may portray Shane Clancy as nothing but a murderer. This saddens me a great deal because research and personal experience [6 years on Seroxat] has shown me that these drugs can turn even the most gentle, placid of people into monsters.

My condolences are offered to all of those concerned in this tragic series of events.


Bob Fiddaman.



Sunday, September 25, 2011

Lundbeck Under the Spotlight



The parents of Shane Clancy, the young man prescribed citalopram, who committed an act of homicide before taking his own life, recently met with pharmaceutical giant Lundbeck. The meeting was covertly recorded and both Leonie and Tony, Shane's parents, have now had the audio enhanced and published it in full on their blog.

It's a fascinating insight into how big pharma show skill in the art of deflecting questions put to them.

Both Leonie and Tony have showed tremendous courage in getting this out to the public. I, for one, applaud them. You should too.

Full audio recording and transcript can be found HERE

Fid 


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


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE


Saturday, September 03, 2011

Lundbeck 0 Leonie Fennell 1

Shane Clancy - Citalopram induced homicide/suicide


Here is a shining example of a normal person, with no skills in the legal field, cross-examining two officials of the pharmaceutical company, Lundbeck.

Leonie Fennell is a mother who lost her son to Cipramil [Celexa in US] - She sticks it to Lundbeck...and they just don't know how to answer her line of questioning.

The audio recording, which will be uploaded to Leonie's blog at a future date, has now been transcribed, part of that transcription is now available.

Leonie asked Lundbeck official, wannabe psychiatrist, Dr Masden, if a months supply of citalopram [brand name Cipramil/Celexa] is too much to give to someone who is depressed. Masden is obviously skilled in the art of deflection as is evident from the exchange with Fennell HERE

Here we have a grieving mother confronting officials of the pharmaceutical company who manufacture the antidepressant her son took.

I would seriously recommend that Lundbeck do not take this woman for granted. She can and will kick your ass.

Leonie Fennell...I salute you.

Fid 


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


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE



Friday, August 05, 2011

Irish Hound Sniffs Out Paper Trail of Dr Harry Barry [Ireland]

Irish doctor, Harry Barry



Irish hound Leonie Fennell has been sniffing the paper trail left by Irish doctor, Harry Barry.

Leonie, whose son, Shane, took Cipramil [US Brand name - Celexa] for just 17 days before killing himself and another young man, is causing a bit of a stir within the dark walls of psychiatry in Ireland. Last month she was sent two letters from Brophy Solicitors who were representing their client, Patricia Casey [Psychiatrist]. Apparently Casey took umbrage to what Leonie wrote on her blog, leoniefennell.wordpress.com.

Today, Leonie has made some startling associations between Irish GP and author Harry Barry and Lundbeck, the manufacturers of the antidepressant Cipramil.

She has also made me aware of Lundbeck's "Mental Health Barometer” - Here's the blurb straight from Lundbeck:

Lundbeck Mental Health Barometer has researched Irish peoples’ attitudes towards depression, anxiety and mental health as well as the stigma and misunderstanding that pervades in this area.

As specialists in psychiatry, Lundbeck is committed to education and raising awareness through the provision of information which will enhance the perception of people living with mental health issues in the community.

The Barometer shows us that friends and family would listen and be sympathetic to someone with depression, but still view the GP as the best person to provide assistance. However, most people still find it difficult to discuss depression with a healthcare professional.

This research also confirms there is still a lack of understanding about depression and mental health in Ireland. In order to remove the stigma of depression we must undertake to educate about it – what causes it, who is affected by it and how it can be overcome. Only by bringing this conversation into the open can we hope to bring about real understanding of this condition.

I used to have an old weather barometer...that was never accurate either!

Her post and her announcement that she is to meet with Lundbeck officials, can be read HERE

In the meantime...

There will be a fair amount of cloud around for most places to start Friday morning. This will be breaking though and so some bright or sunny spells will be coming through for most. There is the risk of a few showers over western Ireland.....




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 
 








Wednesday, July 27, 2011

**Breaking News - Family of Shane Clancy Let Down By the Irish Medical Council

Shane Clancy - Victim of Cipramil


In August 2010 the parents of Shane Clancy made a complaint to the Irish Medical Council [IMC] about their son's treatment from the Doctors he saw in his last 17 days.

The basis of their complaint was “Why were these doctors not aware that when a person starts an antidepressant, there is a markedly increased risk of suicide ideation and also that there is a certain percentage of people who can react violently and deadly to this medication?”. They also wanted to know why Shane was allowed to get a prescription for a months supply of this drug and if this is common policy, then surely this practise should be revised.

The IMC have now conducted a preliminary hearing. The response to Shane's parents can be viewed on the Leonie Fennell Blog HERE


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 
 







Saturday, July 23, 2011

Lawyers of Psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, Pile on Pressure for Grieving Mother


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


Last month I wrote about Leonie Fennell, the mother of Cipramil victim Shane Clancy, and how she had received a letter from Brophy Solicitors, a law firm representing Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey.

Fennell had posted a series of articles on her blog, Leoniefennell.wordpress.com, that linked Casey to Lundbeck, the pharmaceutical company that manufacture the SSRi Cipramil.

Casey has, in the past, supported the use of SSRi type drugs and, according to Fennell, has publicly stated that there is no evidence to suggest that antidepressants can cause suicide or homicide. Fennell's son, Shane, who was prescribed Cipramil, had took the life of a young man before stabbing himself in the chest [19 times].

For a psychiatrist to contact solicitors over someone who has an opinion is a strange move. Casey either thinks the Leonie Fennell blog reaches out to millions or thinks she is important enough to suppress the opinions of what people have to say about her. Fennell posted the threatening letter from the law firm on her blog HERE.

Fennell removed the offending comment back in June but it appears Casey's solicitor's won't let the matter drop.

Yesterday Brophy solicitors wrote once again to Fennell.

It is extremely disappointing that your reply to this letter consisted of you posting it on your blog along with the comment in bold “I will never be bullied, intimidated or silenced by Lundbeck or Professor Casey”

It's disappointing that the client they represent holds the views that there is no evidence to suggest that antidepressants can cause suicide or homicide...when there is much evidence to suggest that they do. I don't see LeonieFennell employing the services of solicitors to quash Casey's claims.

We need to point out to you that when our client first came to us, we advised her that the comments you have now removed from your blog were seriously defamatory and that she would be quite entitled to issue legal proceedings against you. She did not wish to do so because she has enormous sympathy for the tragedy you have suffered.

I find this very odd. Fennell removed the comments and that should have been it. Even by their own admission, Casey did not wish to issue legal proceedings against Fennell - begs the question why Brophy solicitors felt the need to write again? Maybe the next few paragraphs of the letter will explain why?

You have removed the defamatory comments from your blog but you now accuse our client of bullying you and trying to silence you. This is despite the fact that we specifically stated that our client did not want you to remove your blog but only wanted you to remove the defamatory comments you made about her. What part of this constitutes bullying? What part of this constitutes an attempt to silence you? Are you saying that the simple fact that you received a solicitor’s letter asking you to remove certain defamatory comments which you subsequently removed, constitutes intimidation?

We must now insist that you remove this sentence from your blog as it is absolutely clear that our client is not trying to bully you or intimidate you or silence you. What she is trying to do is to protect her good name and she will not allow herself to be defamed again. We hope you will accept that the allegation that our client is a bully and that she is intimidating you and trying to silence you is both wrong and extremely damaging for her.

It's unusual for a law firm to ask questions in a letter, Brophy's have asked three!

1. What part of this constitutes bullying?
2. What part of this constitutes an attempt to silence you?
3. Are you saying that the simple fact that you received a solicitor’s letter asking you to remove certain defamatory comments which you subsequently removed, constitutes intimidation?


Quite why Brophy's, or indeed Casey, wish to pursue this matter has bamboozled me. If Casey thinks one person's opinion can damage her reputation then she needs to join the long list of psychiatrists whom have been the subject of various opinions over the years, the long list of pharmaceutical companies that have a vast army of critics and even bloggers whom have each had to endure various mud-slinging critics because their opinions don't fit in with the blinkered views of the small minority who support the use of SSRi type drugs in children and adolescents.

What is wrong with any person offering an opinion that he/she feels intimidated and bullied by a letter? Wasn't that the effect that Casey wanted? Send a letter to the blogger and let's hope she removes what she has wrote about me - why else would such a letter be sent out?

The final paragraph answers the three questions above:

We have strongly advised our client that she should issue proceedings to prevent this repetitive defamation but once again our client has said that she does not wish to do so given the background to this case but she absolutely insists that you remove the defamatory comments that are appearing on the website at the moment and confirm that you will not repeat any defamation in the future.

Yours faithfully,

BROPHY SOLICITORS

What we have here is the good cop/bad cop scenario. Casey playing the role of the good cop whilst Brophy's appear as the bad cop, at least that's the way I see it.

What does Casey have to gain by taking a grieving mother to court? Does she honestly believe that highlighting the opinion of a blogger will make the matter go away? Does Casey think the letters will do the trick and stop Shane Clancy's mother from offering an opinion?

I can just picture it. The Irish newspapers awash with headlines, 'Irish Psychiatrist to Sue Grieving Mother', Irish Psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, "I Am Not A Bully"'

I'm not a lawyer, nor am I in a position to offer any legal advice but I'd bet my left nut that the last thing Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, wants is her name plastered all over the Irish press, she won't like the journalist's who dig and find and make association to her connections with Lundbeck. They will and I am sure they will print their findings too. If Casey thinks the opinion of a lone blogger is tarnishing her good name then the audience that awaits her if she does decide to pursue a case of defamation will do far more damage.

Are Brophy solicitors going to issue letters to other bloggers that have commented, do they wish to silence the opinion of everyone and anyone?

They may wish to look at the laws of Wordpress.com, where Leonie Fennell's blog is hosted.

Defamation, liability: WordPress.com is an internet service provider. We are based in the US, as are all of our servers. As such we are covered by section 230(c) of the US Communications Decency Act which states that internet service providers are not held liable for content (such as allegedly defamatory, offensive, inaccurate, or harassing content) that is posted on the sites they host for their users. We host millions of web sites for our users and are not able to control or police the hundreds of thousands of blog posts our users create every day. However, if you have a complaint about one of our blogs, please follow our complaints procedure.

Rather than put pressure on a grieving mother with an opinion maybe Brophy's time and money would be better spent following the procedure set out by Wordpress.

Short-cutting this procedure serves only one purpose as far as I can see, I'm of the opinion that Casey/Brophy's are intimidating and trying to stifle.

If my opinion is deemed defamatory then Brophy's, or indeed Casey, may debate with me.

Brophy's latest letter to Leonie Fennell can be read in full, HERE.

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 
 








Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.