Patricia Casey and Catholic Suicide

Two things that get my goat.

1. Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey.
2. The Catholic Church.

Raised as a Catholic and put through Catholic schools (until my expulsion) I learned that suppression is the key to the Catholic way of living. I pulled away from the whole idea of the Holy Trinity when I was old enough to, a) have a mind of my own, and b) see sense.

This post is not slamming those who choose to follow the Catholic faith, because, ladies and gentlemen, that's all it is, a faith, a belief based on stories that are centuries old.

Now, it appears, Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, whose stance on antidepressant use is well known, has spoken out on the Irish Catholic website. Once again we see Casey lay claim that “medication is absolutely essential”.

To back her claim,Casey cites a study that found that two thirds of people who died of probable suicide were not taking prescribed medications when they died.

Talk about cherry-picking from that garden of Eden!

Her claim is bizarre, to say the least, particularly when we see daily inquests where depressed individuals have gone on to complete suicide... those individuals having been prescribed the very same medications that Casey deems "absolutely essential."

She can't have it both ways.

Casey's claim comes on the back of a recent article published in the New York Times. The article shows that almost 20,000 prescriptions for risperidone (commonly known as Risperdal), quetiapine (Seroquel) and other antipsychotic medications were written in 2014 for children 2 and younger, a 50 percent jump from 13,000 just one year before (US figures)

Do we see the Catholic church or, indeed, Casey, speak out regarding these appalling figures?

In fact (not faith) a report from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that health care providers had given a diagnosis of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to at least 10,000 children age 2 or 3 and then prescribed medications such as Adderall outside American Academy of Pediatrics guidelines.

If it's happening in America, then it's happening everywhere else folks, such is the stranglehold of the pro-medication psychiatry brigade that exists worldwide.

Casey has gone on record and claimed that "The evidence about suicide is that antidepressants do not cause suicide", a belief (faith) that she adheres to despite regulatory precautions put in place to warn patients that taking antidepressants may, indeed, cause suicidal thinking, abnormal behaviour and, despite Casey's belief, completed suicide.

I find it peculiar that Casey chooses to keep on banging the drum regarding antidepressant use given that global medicine regulators and even pharmaceutical companies warn about the antidepressant/suicide link. Furthermore, I find the Catholic church and their apathetic attitude to antidepressant use to prevent suicide nothing short of ignorant and, as per usual, as unexplainable as the Trinity they seem to hold close to their hearts.

In short, we have an Irish psychiatrist going against facts and a church publishing those views.

If you, like me, shake your head in wonderment at religious beliefs, then you'll probably understand that this recent offering by Casey via the Catholic Church is stuff of fairy-tales. The virgin birth, the resurrection, the miracle man who healed the sick and changed a measly meal into one that could feed thousands and, now, a claim that antidepressants are essential if suicide is to be prevented.

Last time I looked we were in the 21st century, we got this far using science and not because of some bearded guy. Catholics and even Christians may argue that I'm wrong, they would wouldn't they. Their Word, according to whatever denomination you speak to, is the "truth".

Don't get me wrong. Jesus Christ was a decent human-being, he, according to history, was a man of love, he had compassion. Whether or not he was actually the son of God is, and always will be, up for debate - after all, that's what God gave us isn't it, free will.

Casey's beliefs are, in my opinion, perfectly placed. They are published on a website that offers nothing but a personal belief and no scientific evidence whatsoever. Casey is entitled to her views as much as the next person, myself included. But her views must be backed up by scientific evidence and not with her own belief. The subject matter (suicide) and the precaution of it must not be taken as "Gospel" just because a psychiatrist believes it to be true.

Pharmaceutical companies and medicine regulators, in this case the Irish Medicines Board, have a duty too. They should politely ask Casey to show them where they are wrong, it shouldn't be left to bloggers, patients, parents, husbands or wives of victims who have died as a result of antidepressant induced suicide.

If you or I were to make claims that a drug we invented gave humans extra sensory perception, we'd be asked to prove it. If we couldn't prove it then medicine regulators would, more than likely, tell us to stop promoting it in such a way. They should, I believe, tell Casey to either provide them with evidence that antidepressants prevent suicide or to just shut up.

If you're a devout Catholic and you find this rant of mine offensive then please don't start quoting your mythical nonsense to me. I'm up for debate but refuse to engage in anything based on a belief borne out of control and Chinese whispers. That goes for any religion and not just Catholicism.

"Father, forgive them for they know not what they do."

Must fly. I have to get ready in preparation for Santa and his elfs.




Bob Fiddaman.

Related

Patricia Casey Sets the Hounds on Irish Blogger.

Behold! The Voice of Psychiatry Speaks.

Patricia Casey is an Irish psychiatrist who also writes opinion pieces for the Irish media. She, it would appear, is adamant that antidepressants do not induce suicide and, judging by her latest opinion, "Mind and meaning: Antidepressants work," it seems that she feels that the black box warnings on antidepressants have no place, at least I think that's what she is trying to say?

Her opinion piece, published in the Irish Independent (Tuesday 2 June 2015) is a mish-mash of references from various studies where she tries to make her opinion valid - when in actual fact, in my opinion, it makes her look rather silly and, dare I say it, desperate.

I'm unsure of Casey's agenda here? Is she concerned that people with suicidal tendencies aren't taking antidepressants or is she concerned that the black box warning is scaring people from taking antidepressants?

The Irish Independent, it would seem, are not allowing any opposing comments to Casey's viewpoint. One has to ask why?

So, if an opinion piece, written by a psychiatrist, is unbalanced and comments are vetted then, I guess, the only way to respond is via personal blogs. However, one has to tread carefully when writing, nae opposing the views of Casey.

Back in 2011, Irish blogger, Leonie Fennell, received a letter from Casey's solicitors for comments she had made regarding Patricia Casey's ties to pharmaceutical company, Lundbeck. Casey had previously attended the inquest of Fennell's son, Shane, and had publicly made comments about certain aspects of it. Shane killed himself and another young man whilst under the influence of citalopram, a drug marketed and manufactured by Lundbeck.

Fennell posted the letter from Brophy Solicitors on her blog here.

That was four years ago and, it seems, that Casey is still speaking out regarding antidepressant use and suicide, although she has differing opinions than many of the patient advocates who have experienced the negative side of antidepressants.

Her latest opinion piece starts with...

"I have written on many occasions about the over use of medication in psychiatry, particularly for those with "depression". This stems from the fact that "depression" is such a broad church. It is an emotional state that occurs in everybody - the word is used interchangeably with "sadness". It is a symptom that features in many psychiatric illnesses and it is an illness. The fairly crude description of the illness in modern textbooks lacks the nuance to distinguish this from normal sadness in many cases. Yet, every doctor knows that when antidepressants are correctly used in depressive illness, their impact is remarkable and I make no apology for prescribing them in these circumstances."

It, to me at least, is quite confusing. I cannot fathom if Casey believes that sadness is an illness? She also claims that, "...every doctor knows that when antidepressants are correctly used in depressive illness, their impact is remarkable..." - That's quite a statement to make. I mean, has she spoken with "every doctor" or does she just mean that every doctor she has spoken to? Maybe she should speak to the patients who have had negative side effects when prescribed these medications, after all, it's really the patients who are best positioned to offer feedback and not the doctor's (at least the ones she's spoken with)

To back up her beliefs, her latest opinion piece, quotes a study from fellow psychiatrist, Robert Gibbons. It's a study that has, over the years, been quoted time and time again by healthcare professionals who believe in the efficacy of antidepressant use. It's also a study that has been carefully scrutinized and been shown to be deeply flawed. It's a published paper that has "simple mathematical errors", writes retired psychiatrist, Micky Nardo (Source)

Nardo even had his response submitted for publication in the Archives of General Psychiatry, where he wrote...

"This meta-analysis has been widely publicized as disproving both the FDA “black box” warning about potential suicidality and the questionable efficacy of antidepressants in children with MDD. And yet it is marred by inappropriate data selection kept in the shadows, an opaque methodology, obvious arithmetic errors, and an outcome that was greater than the sum of the parts. This is a flawed study, hardly supporting any broad conclusions about the safety or efficacy of antidepressants in youth." (Source)

So, in Casey and Nardo we have differing opinions. Why is it that Casey can't see what Nardo can? Maybe Casey cannot grasp mathematics or maybe she hasn't bothered to look at the discrepancies? These really are questions that need asking and also need answering, be it by Casey herself or by the Irish Independent who publish her opinions.

I don't know why Casey is, in my opinion, so headstrong when it comes to her belief that antidepressants are safe, effective and reduce suicide. I don't know why she is still debating this issue when medicine regulators around the world issued warnings to pharmaceutical companies to update the wording on antidepressants regarding their propensity to induce suicide.

If Casey believes she is right then there really is nothing we, as patients who have suffered at the hands of these drugs, can do. Yes, we can offer our own opinion, yes, we can show Casey that the studies she references are flawed but, at the end of the day, we will always have differing views.

My only problem with Casey's views is that they are published to a wide audience who see her as an expert in the field of mental health and antidepressant use. These same people don't get to see or hear the other side of the debate and the Irish Independent really should investigate any studies that Casey quotes in her one-sided opinion pieces.

So, that's my opinion piece written.


Bob Fiddaman.

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

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.

Tenacity Pays Off For Irish Mom.

Leonie and I. A friend and fellow ass-kicker.

I just love it when the David's are recognised.

I just love to see the Goliath's put firmly in their place.

Irish mom, blogger, law student and thorn in the side of Lundbeck, Leonie Fennell, has just been honoured by the Well-Being Foundation...and rightly so.

The Well-Being Foundation have given Leonie an award so richly deserved for her work in the field of creating drug awareness. Woman of the Year is quite an achievement when one takes into account the brick walls Leonie has been faced with when trying to unearth the truth.

She's swallowed hard and met with Lundbeck officials where she grilled them about their antidepressant Cipramil [known as Celexa in the US] - She even secretly recorded this meeting! Video footage here, audio footage here.

She has met opposition, in the form of threatening attorney letters, from Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey, yet still she continues her pursuit for the truth.

Leonie and I first met a few years back. She and her husband Tony relayed their story to me about their son, Shane. We have since met up a further 3 times where I have met her wonderful family and circle of friends.

I have watched from a distance and witnessed a truly great woman take on the might of the pharmaceutical industry. I have nothing but sheer admiration for any person that shows the strength and courage that shows the world that they will never take things lying down.

Leonie has stood up - she has been counted.

One word.

Proud.

Here's a Podcast I did with Leonie back in 2011.





Leonie Fennell Blog


Bob Fiddaman

The Times They Are Changing...

...or not, as the Casey may be.

Irish Times Columnist and Psychiatrist, Patricia Casey

On Saturday 14th April the Irish Times published an extremely well written account regarding the use of antidepressants. The article, entitled, 'Bitter pills to swallow', should have created much debate, alas the powers that be at Ireland's best selling newspaper seem to cherry pick comments for approval.

The account itself was an unusual step for the Irish Times particularly as it threw up the question that many people have been asking for some time now. Do antidepressants really work? Regulary quoted by the Irish Times, Patricia Casey, seems to have all the answers and, it appears, is wrapped in cotton wool by the Irish Times staff.

I left a comment at the end of 'Bitter pills to swallow', sadly the moderators didn't allow it through. Maybe the mention of Patricia Casey raised a red flag. It seems that anytime an opinion is offered about Casey she threatens with a warning letter from her solicitors. The Irish Times have, in the past, fallen foul of Casey's iron fist. They had dared to allow a comment through that had criticised Ireland's darling of psychiatry, a comment that, apparently sent Casey running to her solicitors threatening the newspaper with legal action. Their apology to Casey came in August 2010 where they wrote:

On May 23rd, a comment related to this article was moderated and published by The Irish Times on its website in the “have your say” section. The comment concerned Professor Patricia Casey. The allegations published in the comment were without foundation and were seriously defamatory of Professor Casey and have caused her great personal hurt and distress. The Irish Times accepts that Professor Casey is an internationally-respected psychiatrist of the highest standing and reputation.

The content of the offending comment is unknown, as is the level of 'personal hurt and distress' it casued Casey. How would one measure levels of personal hurt and distress anyhow? Maybe the same way the field of psychiatry magically measure levels of serotonin in the brain's of their patients?

This isn't the first time Casey has ran to the protection of law firms. Last year Casey didn't like what she saw on Leonie Fennell's blog - Fennell, whose son, Shane, suicided after 17 days on Cipramil [citalopram] had wrote a piece involving a statement from another woman that prompted Casey to turn to her legal team. The opening paragraph of the letter from Brophy Solicitor's reads: "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”.

I can only assume that my comment left yesterday was deemed inappropriate because I mentioned Casey's name. The Times, it appears, wouldn't dare allow a comment through that mentioned Casey - why would they want to go through the legal battlefield again?

It appears that many folk are frightened by Casey, I've spoken to one such person this week, he wishes to remain anonymous, sufficed to say he didn't speak too favourably of her.

Casey, like me, is opinionated. Where she believes that antidepressants cannot cause suicide, I, on the other hand, think the complete opposite. Where she claims there is no evidence that supports the antidepressant/suicide link, I, once again have an opposing view to hers. Quite why Casey believes there is no suicide link is a mystery given that the manufacturers of these drugs have admitted that there are suicide events associated with their products.

Casey, like me, is entitled to her opinions. She's wrong on the antidepressant/suicide link though, so very wrong.

My comment is below. I think it's fair and balanced. Casey, can use the comment section on this blog if she wishes to respond. Any move toward solicitor's offices will be seen, by me at least, as being rather churlish.




An extremely good article, not before time too.


The mainstream press seem to tow the pharmaceutical company line when reporting on antidepressant drugs due, in part, to being cautious as any negative reporting of SSRi type drugs may make those on them abruptly stop taking them.


The industry along with medicine regulators and healthcare professionals claim that the "benefits outweigh the risks" - What are the benefits? Do these drugs actually cure anything or do they merely paper over the cracks?


SSRi's are not just handed out for depression or anxiety - the marketing genius of pharma has branched out and now we see these drugs prescribed for all sorts of human emotion.


It's not okay to feel blue anymore because we are told feeling blue is a mental disorder, it's become as common as a sore throat and runny nose, one only has to look at the prescribing statistics to see this.


We have regulators in place to safeguard human health but are they really doing so? What do they actually do with the thousands of adverse events sent to them by patients and doctor's? Do they follow-up by visiting the GP or patient or do they just add the report to their bulging database of adverse events? We know the answer to this already, right?


Key opinion leaders have a huge part to play too. Those who oppose the over medicating of normality are rarely given their own newspaper columns where those who are pro-antidepressant are given weekly columns promoting the use of these drugs, it's advertising by proxy and really should be regulated.


Case in point being Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey, who is often quoted in The Irish Times where she speaks about the dangers of various mental illnesses and various 'fixes'. I don't see the Irish Times offering the same column inches to those who oppose her views.


In essence Casey's musings come without the black box warning or patient information leaflets, they are sugar-coated, unbalanced and all based without any scientific data.


What surprises me most about this is that the Irish Times always strive to report on the facts, they have to for fear of being dragged through the courts on a defamation charge. The reporting has to be accurate and backed up with evidence. It's the Editor's mantra but one that, it appears, does not apply to the thoughts and scribblings of an influential psychiatrist in Patricia Casey.


Carl O'Brien has offered readers a superb balanced argument in this article, one that is worthy of debate. The Irish Times should give themselves a huge pat on the back and maybe offer regular column inches to those who have a different opinion to that of Casey, what have they to lose by offering a different opinion?

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

Patricia Casey Being Creative

Creativity 

noun 

1. the state or quality of being creative. 

2. the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination: the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts. 

3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability: Extensive reading stimulated his creativity. 

Source: Dictionary.com 

Creativity 

Creativity is associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. 

Source: Patricia Casey, Irish Psychiatrist.

It's difficult to get my head around Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey's latest offering in the Health & Living magazine. In fact, there are two problems in writing about her article, 'The Curse of Creativity', Problem 

1. She may instruct her lawyers to send me an intimidating letter for daring to oppose her opinion, 

and 

2. I may be diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder for offering a creative response to her written work.

On a recent trip to London Patricia Casey ventured inside the National Gallery, in particular Room 45, which houses amongst others, paintings by Vincent Van Gogh .

Casey writes:

The information on the paintings noted that many were painted during his time in the Saint-Paul asylum near Saint-Remy, in the Provence area of France. They showed his genius, evident even in the throes of major mental illness.

Over the years there have been many psychiatrists that use Van Gogh's apparent mental disorder/s as an argument when in truth none of them can actually prove that he did have a mental disorder.

Van Gogh was born with a brain lesion and, as a result suffered from seizures, he also frequently drank absinthe, a drink that was, back then, associated with violent crimes and social disorders.

It is documented that Dr. Gachet, one of Van Gogh's physicians, was thought to have treated his epilepsy with digitalis. This prescription drug can cause one to see in yellow or see yellow spots.

Far be it from me to diagnose someone from all those years ago but the above would suggest that he may not have had a mental illness at all, in fact his brain lesion, enjoyment of absinthe and medication could have made the white-coated head-shrinkers believe that he was mentally disturbed. It's a valid argument is it not?

In fact, a critic once had this to say about Absinthe:

Absinthe makes you crazy and criminal, provokes epilepsy and tuberculosis, and has killed thousands of French people. It makes a ferocious beast of man, a martyr of woman, and a degenerate of the infant, it disorganizes and ruins the family and menaces the future of the country. [1]

Anyway, back to Casey's article...

Casey tells us that the connection between creativity and mental illness has been examined and powerfully answered in a study published in the 'British Journal of Psychiatry'. She adds that the findings of the study show that creativity is associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

In the case of Van Gogh I could oppose Casey's take on the study and put forward the argument that his creativity could have been down to the use of Absinthe [which, back then, was known to cause hallucinations]. Absinthe included a toxin called Thujone and when taken in high doses [quantity] can cause one to see objects in yellow. Or maybe it was the digitalis prescribed to him by his doctor, a drug that can cause one to see in yellow or see yellow spots. Is it just a coincidence that Van Gogh loved the colour yellow whilst being creative with his work?

If one's creativity is associated with a mental disorder then what hope do we have? It beggars the question what Casey believes about the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM], a book based on psychiatrists and their own creative minds in what should be deemed a mental disorder or not. There is no science to what they write, it's all based on creative thinking and judging by what they deem to be mental disorders one can only assume that they have all been on an Absinthe drinking binge.

In years to come I anticipate that the DSM will be placed in the National Gallery of London. Do they have any rooms for Fantasy?

Casey's article can be read in full HERE.



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

Healthy and Living...The Patricia Casey Way

I was recently alerted to a newspaper article penned by Irish psychiatrist Patricia Casey. The article, which first appeared in the magazine 'Healthy & Living', covers the "brain disorder" known as seasonal affective disorder, otherwise known as SAD.

I couldn't conjure up a better name for a brain disorder than this particular one, well, I could but it would never be accepted by the white-coated posse who write the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM]

What better way to tell someone they are sad...by telling them sad is a brain disorder?

Whilst I'm aware that the rolling of the clocks back an hour changes people's moods, I really don't think it's necessary to treat those moods with antidepressant medication, I don't think it should be labelled as a mental disorder either. Furthermore, those that think it is, probably have some sort of disorder themselves.

Sure, these early dark evenings are pretty miserable, particularly when accompanied by the harsh weather conditions of recent years in the UK and Ireland, but should we really be reaching for the medicine cabinet as Casey suggests in her article?

Admittedly, Casey writes about another treatment as well.before she goes down the antidepressant route. Light boxes, where the person with this mental disorder sits and stares at a light. I really cannot envisage a picture more 'sad' than someone sitting alone in a room and staring at a light - that would be enough to send the white-coated gents around with a straitjacket and forcibly inject the subject staring at the light.

There is no doubt that the sun makes us feel happy, the dark fills the majority of us with a sense of fear - even the word 'Dark' has negative connotations, something that the DSM seemed to have pounced upon.

Casey writes about studies from Canada that have shown that when clocks shift backwards the incidence of depressive illness increases, probably mediated by the effect on sleep. It is found in both hemispheres, especially in northern latitudes and is almost unknown in those living within 30 degrees north or south of the equator.

I'm loving that word 'Probably'.

If this is 'probably' down to a lack of sleep then why isn't the sleep problem tackled? Why is it ignored and replaced with a mental disorder?

Long gone are the days when Horlicks was promoted to help you sleep better, ironically Horlicks is manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, the company that apparently helps people do more, feel better and live longer. Judging by their recent $3 billion fine for illegally marketing it's products I'd suggest that they change their tagline to something more appropriate, something like, "Buy more, don't ask questions and live shorter lives."

I digress.

Casey, to me at least, is seen in a bad light [excuse the pun]. Touting antidepressants in a magazine that is widely read in doctor's surgery waiting rooms around the UK and Ireland is nothing short of advertising by proxy.

"Hey Doc, I was here to see you because I have a wart on my toe but I was just reading about SAD in a magazine and it appears I have it!"

"Describe your symptoms for me"

"Well, the clocks went back last week and around 4.30pm my mood changes"

"Yup, sounds like you have seasonal effective disorder to me, have you tried staring at a light?

**Patient stares at doctor and walks slowly backwards out of the door.

Even more preposterous would be the suggestion of antidepressant medication but we...or at least the majority of us, take it as a given that feeling blue, because it is dark, is a mental disorder. Articles, such as Casey's, throw no real light on the root cause [excuse the pun again]

Coming soon to the Healthy & Living magazine, 'Why the moon makes us insane' by Dr Looney.

**Disclaimer:

Casey has, in the past, set solicitors on to people who have different opinions to hers, you can see those threatening letters here and here.

In the meantime, this is for Patricia Casey, it's a poem I penned many years ago, it ended up in an anthology of poetry for children. It kind of explains the dark... and there is no mention of antidepressant medication either.

THE DARK

Don't be afraid as I enter your room
Just let your mind drift like a floating balloon.
I've come to take the remains of the day,
Go deeper little one and let your mind stray.
Dream of the swings over the park,
Hurry now small child for it will soon be dark.
If you wake up you'll have nothing to fear
Just sit up in bed and let your mind clear.
For I am your friend, I mean you no harm,
So don't be afraid, stay cool, stay calm.
Let your eyes wander through my blanket of black
And don't wish me away for I'll always come back.
It's light that is evil as it enters your world,
Ordering you to see things that make your toes curl.
So don't be afraid as your day turns to night
Just remember I'm here to cast out bad light.

© BOB FIDDAMAN

 Casey's article, "Don't be afraid of the dark", can be read HERE

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  

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