The Lancet Publishes Scaremongering 'Study' Amid Covid19 Crisis

Published: April 15, 2020
Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic

The Lancet

I've read it.

It's based around one word.

Here are my thoughts.

What the published authors claim:

We explore the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of COVID-19 and set out the immediate priorities and longer-term strategies for mental health science research.

What this blog has found:

Mental health 'scientists' claim:

"As scientists continue to investigate the brains of people who have mental illnesses, they are learning that mental illness is associated with changes in the brain's structure, chemistry, and function and that mental illness does indeed have a biological basis." (1)

This claim has been debunked many times by professionals in the field. See here.

What the published authors claim:

"We urge UK research funding agencies to work with researchers, people with lived experience, and others to establish a high-level coordination group to ensure that these research priorities are addressed, and to allow new ones to be identified over time."

What this blog has found:

Prediction published March 30, 2020 (2 weeks prior to the Lancet paper being published)

It will be claimed that many have detachment-type disorders and new phobias. Mourning the loss of loved ones will continue to be deemed as a mental disorder if that mourning process goes beyond two weeks. Psychiatric 'medication' prescriptions will increase as will cases of autoimmune diseases, ironically caused by some of 'medications' prescribed. (2)

What the published authors claim:

"Discovery, evaluation, and refinement of mechanistically driven interventions to address the psychological, social, and neuroscientific aspects of the pandemic are required."

What this blog has found:

A distinction must be made here between what a psychiatrist does and what a neurologist does.

A psychiatrist claims to focus on and treat symptoms originating in the brain that lead to abnormal voluntary functions, i.e; human behaviours, whereas neurologists focus on and treat symptoms originating in the brain that produce abnormal involuntary functions.

Confused? I was at first until I looked closer.

One treats symptoms that "lead" to abnormal voluntary functions whilst the other treats symptoms that "produce" abnormal involuntary functions.

So, a psychiatrist treats something that isn't fully manifested whereas neurologists treat something that has manifested. They do this by using technology, usually in the form of Computed tomography (CT) or computer-assisted tomography (CAT) scans, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), electroencephalography (EEG), nerve conduction studies and electromyography (NCS/EMG), and lumbar puncture (LP) for cerebral spinal fluid analysis.

Most psychiatrists use the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, Fifth Edition (DSM-5) to diagnose mental health disorders. (3)

The DSM is a manual whereby 'mental health diseases' are voted on by panel members. No technology, such as those used by neurologists, are ever used.

What the published authors claim:

"Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2), the virus that causes COVID-19, might infect the brain or trigger immune responses that have additional adverse effects on brain function and mental health in patients with COVID-19."

What this blog has found:

The above looks impressive until you read that they had to add one word. If you blink you'll miss it. It's a word often used in the field of psychiatry and basically means one of two things - [1] It does [2] It doesn't. It covers both bases but only ever talks about one of them.

The word in the above sentence you are looking for is "might."

The published Lancet article hinges on this one little word, a word that sees authors push for more funding. It's a bit like you or I going to the bank for a loan and telling the bank manager that we wish to borrow money for an investment that may or may not (might) bear some fruit.

The common theme running throughout the Lancet paper seems evident, to me at least.

Imagine, if you will, the scene from Oliver Twist. You all know the one, right?

'Please Sir, I want some more'
(Lancet references to funding)

Like all good articles in the media do, they start off with the main message and finish reiterating that message. This Lancet publication is no different.

"New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading infrastructure."

"Research funders and researchers must deploy resources to understand the psychological, social, and neuroscientific effects of the COVID-19 pandemic."

"We propose a framework for the prioritisation and coordination of essential, policy-relevant psychological, social, and neuroscientific research, to ensure that any investment is efficiently targeted to the crucial mental health science questions as the pandemic unfolds."

"Given the need to develop the research priorities rapidly to inform immediate funding priorities."

(Final paragraph) "New funding will be required to meet these priorities, and it can be efficiently leveraged by the UK's world-leading neuroscience and mental health research infrastructure. The UK must connect with international funders and researchers to support a global response to the mental health and neurological challenges of this pandemic."

If the begging bowl references don't alarm you then the published piece, you'll find, is littered with words and phrases that are designed to scaremonger, more so than the media are doing with reference to Covid19.

It's quite shocking to see some of the tactics used in this paper based on something that may or may not ever happen (might)

Here's just a small example of scare tactics used by the authors:

"The need to maintain high-quality research standards is imperative."

"An immediate priority."

"There is an urgent need."

"Must deploy resources."

"The research community must act rapidly."

"Growing threats to mental health."

"Clear immediate priorities."

"Need to be repeated more rigorously."

"A risk that prevalence of clinically relevant numbers of people with anxiety, depression, and engaging in harmful behaviours (such as suicide and self-harm) will increase."

"The potential fallout of an economic downturn on mental health is likely to be profound."

"A major adverse consequence of the COVID-19 pandemic is likely to be increased social isolation and loneliness (as reflected in our surveys), which are strongly associated with anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide attempts across the lifespan."

"The immediate research priorities are to monitor and report rates of anxiety, depression, self-harm, suicide, and other mental health issues both to understand mechanisms and crucially to inform interventions."

"Data will be vital to determine causal mechanisms associated with poor mental health."

"The digital response is crucial."

"Paramount importance."

Now, if you, like me, have received criticism on Twitter from members of the Royal College of Psychiatrists for raising awareness about the "interventions" they speak of in this Lancet paper, you'll understand why I'm bringing all of the above to the attention of my readers.

This paper is designed to grab funding. Unlike poor young Oliver Twist, they haven't even said, "please."

The covid crisis has been an eye-opener for someone like me. I am fascinated by people-watching. I tend to watch a lot before engaging, I like to weigh up a person. There have been many media reports of people cashing-in during this crisis, you know, local shopkeepers hiking the prices of toilet paper and hand sanitizer. Many people who are ignoring government guidelines are also in the news.

What I've seen from the mental health field is no better than those selfish idiots and greedy shopkeepers as they push their agendas that covid can cause mental health problems. Nope, it will just cause behavioural problems as people adjust to their new normal. It's not a brain disorder nor will it manifest into one. Mental Health big-wigs have seized this opportunity with both hands, hence the need for them to create a problem that isn't there and then try to convince people that it may happen and to tackle it they need funding.

Oliver only wanted more porridge because he was hungry. Mental Health, it appears, want more, much more, to feed their egotistical appetites.

Hey, don't get me wrong, I'm all for sticking someone under a scanner to determine if their brain is or isn't working properly, I just don't think one can determine a brain default by box-checking a guide that was voted on by a bunch of white-coated men who "might" have just been influenced by drug company money.

Multidisciplinary research priorities for the COVID-19 pandemic: a call for action for mental health science can be read here.

Only one of the authors (panel members), Prof Clive Ballard, PhD, reports grants and personal fees ~  from Acadia and Lundbeck; personal fees from Roche, Otsuka, Biogen, Eli Lilly, Novo Nordisk, AARP, and Exciva; and grants from Synexus

Bob Fiddaman

(1) NIH Curriculum Supplement Series 2007

(2) Mother Nature (Mother Earth) and the Invaluable Lesson

(3) How to Diagnose a Mental Health Disorder

Australian Psychiatrist Ian Hickie's Lancet Paper Heavily Criticised

Prof Ian Hickie

Things have gone belly-up down under, it seems.

Psychiatrist Graham Burrows has recently been in the news for prescribing unapproved drugs to his patients, resulting in a class action lawsuit against him.

Yesterday an article appeared on the subscription based online website The Australian Doctor. Professor Ian Hickie had co-authored a review that appeared in The Lancet, a review that has been heavily criticised for failing to reveal Hickie's ties with Valdoxan [agomelatine] manufacturer, Servier.

Hickie has also been accused of down playing the side effects of  Valdoxan, an antidepressant marketed for the treatment of major depressive disorder.

So far six letters, in response to the Hickie review, have been published in The Lancet, all of which are critical. Hickie and his co-author Naomi Rogers have both replied to the criticism.

It comes as no surprise, to me at least, that Hickie is seen promoting the use of a psychiatric medication, he is after all part of the DeLorean Mob [EPPIC], a psychiatric service that can jump into the future to see what lays in store for the patients [adolescents] they treat. In a nutshell [pardon the pun], EPPIC can predict if a child may fall foul of psychosis. No prizes for guessing the kind of treatments used for psychosis these days.

Critics slammed Hickie for not revealing his ties [conflict of interests] in the review, something which he has since changed with his response to the critics. One has to question why he never shared this when he and Rogers submitted the review to The Lancet.

I find it difficult to understand how anyone could take his review seriously after reading the disclaimer at the foot of his latest response. Even more so that the disclaimer has only appeared after he was pulled up about it by the critiques.

IBH [Hickie] was previously Chief Executive Officer and Clinical Adviser of beyondblue, an Australian National Depression Initiative. He has led projects for health professionals and the community supported by governmental, community agency, and drug industry partners (Wyeth, Eli Lily, Servier, Pfizer, AstraZeneca) for the identification and management of depression and anxiety. He has served on advisory boards convened by the drug industry in relation to specific antidepressants, including nefazodone, duloxetine, and desvenlafaxine, and has participated in a multicentre clinical trial of agomelatine effects on sleep architecture in depression. IBH is also supported by a National Health and Medical Research Council Australian Medical Research Fellowship. He is a participant in a family-practice-based audit of sleep disturbance and major depression, supported by Servier, the manufacturers of agomelatine. NLR [Rogers] has received grant support from Vanda Pharmaceuticals, Servier, Pfizer, and Cephalon, and has received honoraria for lectures from Pfizer, CSL Biotherapies, and Servier. She has previously received research funding from Vanda Pharmaceuticals, manufacturers of tasimelteon. She has also received an unrestricted educational grant from Servier. Research studies done by IBH and NLR are mainly funded by NHMRC project and programme grants.

Here's just two letters sent to The Lancet in response the Hickie's review, the other four are similar in content. [1]  [2]

Last year I wrote about Hickie regarding his connections to former Australian of the year and psychiatrist Patrick McGorry - Hickierie Dickory Doc - McGorry Turns Back the Clock

Also - The Defence of Prof. Ian Hickie


"If my calculations are correct, when this baby hits eighty-eight miles per hour... you're gonna see some serious shit." - Dr. Emmett Brown [Back To The Future 1985]

MHRA Come Under Fire From Lancet Editor

 "The operating principle of the MHRA seems to be to do nothing until something goes wrong." -  Richard Horton  The Lancet.

Far be it for anyone to criticize the failure of the UK medicines regulatory agency...they may be labelled vexatious - However, this does not seem to have deterred the editor of The Lancet, Richard Horton.

In an article published in today's Independent, Horton states, "The operating principle of the MHRA seems to be to do nothing until something goes wrong."


His scathing attack comes after Health Secretary, Andrew Lansley, announced last week that there was to be a review of the regulation of medical devices.

Don't hold your breath folks, the MHRA have been criticized for years, they are still in place, still safeguarding human health by monitoring drugs, such as suicidal Seroxat and devices such as substandard breast implants, both of which they were warned about, both of which they did nothing about.

I echo what Richard Horton said although I'd add that even when they [MHRA] do realize something is wrong...they do nothing about it, apart from hold safety reviews with panels of industry-tied relics who tout that benefits outweigh risks...without actually ever trying out the products they review.

The scathing attack from the editor of The Lancet can be seen in full HERE.

Incidently, two questions tabled in parliament today which the MHRA have fence sat on for many years:

Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood): To ask the Secretary of State for Health, what warnings his Department has issued on possible teratogenic effects of the use of benzodiazepines; when such warnings were issued; and on what scientific evidence they were based. 

 and

Eric Ollerenshaw (Lancaster and Fleetwood): To ask the Secretary of State for Health, whether his Department has assessed Seroxat [paroxetine] as being teratogenic. 

I fully anticipate that  the Secretary of State for Health shall contact the MHRA and be given the runaround in his search for the truth.

In the meantime, here's some more evidence of the British regulatory agency causing annoyance. [vexatious].




Another Boob From the MHRA

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part I

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part II "Keeping A Stiff Upper Lip"

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part III - MHRA's Ghosts In The Machine

MHRA In Buck-Passing Specialist Cahoots

MHRA - More on the Mysterious "Ghost Specialists"

MHRA Wishing To Call The Shots



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

"Severe Psychiatric Symptoms Associated With Paroxetine Withdrawal" - The Lancet, 1995

Hey Glaxo...and your highly paid Devil advocates. Whilst in Toronto I picked up a disc full of Paxil articles, studies, case reports etc. I have enough here to keep me occupied for a good few months. The disc has many articles on withdrawal and suicides - it's tough reading, particularly as I have endured the horrific side effects of withdrawal from that toxic drug of yours. It's particularly tough reading because of the suicide articles and papers too. I've also been privy to listen to heart wrenching stories from parents your drug paroxetine has had a hand in causing loss of life too. That irks me somewhat so you'll forgive me for rehashing this old Lancet article, I'm sure.

It was published in 1995, even back then you were denying there was a problem with your wonder drug.

You know, history has a way of catching up with you. It often bites you on the ass...pretty hard. [Cue Devil advocates to start muck spreading via their puppets and/or honey traps]

Two healthy white men, aged 36 and 48 years, participated in a controlled double-blind clinical trial of paroxetine treatment for stuttering. 

Both had a history of brief episodes of minor depression. 

After completing a 6- week treatment period with 50 mg paroxetine, both men went into a placebo phase. In the first case, 2 days after abrupt drug discontinuation, the subject reported hypomanic-like symptoms, including hyperactivity, decreased need for sleep, and irritability that developed into agitation, aggressiveness, and volatility. 

After 2 weeks of fluctuating symptoms, he experienced ego-dystonic impulsive behaviour such as shoplifting and suicidal impulses and gestures. All symptoms abated spontaneously after 2i weeks. 

In the second case, paroxetine was tapered over a 12-day period. The first week of withdrawal was notable for an uncharacteristic feeling of confidence and optimism, talkativeness, and a subjective feeling of sharpened and quickened thought processes. 

During the 2nd week, the patient developed physical symptoms of dizziness, blurred vision, nausea, lethargy, and insomnia. He also reported feeling angry,  irritable, and short-tempered, with some highly atypical explosive vocal outbursts and tantrums. He became preoccupied with homicidal thoughts and plans, initially directed towards acquaintances and later towards his own children. These became so intense and egodystonic that he contemplated suicide.

Physical and behavioural symptoms lasted about 9 days and then remitted spontaneously over 2-3 days.

In these two instances, men without a history of major psychiatric disorder developed severe behavioural symptoms when paroxetine was withdrawn. 

The first few days were characterised by predominantly hypomanic features followed by a period of escalated ego-dystonic aggression, behaviouraldyscontrol, and suicidal intention. This biphasic symptom pattern is reminiscent of the case of fluvoxamine precipitated withdrawal hypomania described by Szabadi.

We believe that the serious behavioural symptoms seen in these cases were adverse effects of paroxetine withdrawal.

Vol 346. July 1995 - The Lancet

GlaxoSmithKline, a leading healthcare company that helps people to do more, feel better and live longer.



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