UK NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION STRATEGY: An Open Letter

Between us all, we look back now on years and years of trying to raise awareness of the risks associated with SSRI/SNRI drugs - and all that seems to have happened is that prescribing of these drugs has continued to soar exorbitantly. Many of us have lost family members and friends and have seen for ourselves the terrible consequences of the effects of SSRI/SNRIs. Others have experienced for themselves the horrific adverse effects of these drugs and are desperately trying to warn others and to pass on their own expert experience. Many of us have voluntarily undertaken huge amounts of research and made significant contributions - and want to share what we have learned and are learning. Peter Gordon's 'Timeline of |Missed Opportunities' film summarises what has happened since 2002 - and how the National Suicide Prevention Strategy is deeply flawed by the flagrant disregard for the known (and heavily suppressed) risks of these mass-prescribed drugs.

Having been repeatedly ignored, 'blocked' and fobbed off by those with whom we have tried to communicate - we felt a need to share what we now can, and however we can, as a means of public safety education. If those in authority won't do what they are ostensibly employed to do - then we will do whatever we can do ourselves.

Lead author, Marion Brown, is a retired psychotherapist & mediator. Her late husband was a GP, who ran into severe medication difficulties himself (after 20+ yrs on Seroxat) and ended his life in 2011.

OPEN LETTER TO UK GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENTS OF HEALTH & SOCIAL CARE & ALL THOSE RESPONSIBLE FOR PUBLIC HEALTH & SAFETY

ENGLAND, SCOTLAND, N IRELAND & WALES

3 March 2020

UK NATIONAL SUICIDE PREVENTION STRATEGY:  SSRIs/SNRIs and AKATHISIA risks

We write to express extreme alarm at the way our concerns – expressed over more than a decade to a considerable number of individuals and groups, representing various committees, specialities, institutions and departments in the UK – have been, and are being, apparently quashed.

Current ‘expert’ advice on suicide prevention, which is now accepted government policy, is that SSRI/SNRI drugs are prescribed to any patient who indicates they may be feeling suicidal or have suicidal thoughts. Our concern is that SSRI/SNRI drugs can themselves cause such suicidal thoughts/impulses - and also a very serious adverse drug reaction called AKATHISIA, the symptoms of which are so unbearable that they can lead people to end their own lives. This fact is not recognised by governments, the NHS or the public, and is not mentioned in the national ‘Suicide Prevention Strategy’, despite our efforts to draw this important issue to the attention of responsible individuals and departments. Many people ARE INDEED dying avoidable deaths by iatrogenic suicide – when suffering known and/or extreme and unrecognised adverse prescribed drug effects.

Our efforts have been extensive, and most recently resulted in the online publication of a short film compiled by Peter Gordon, retired NHS psychiatrist, with input from several contributors: ‘A Timeline of Missed Opportunities’. This has already been widely shared on Social Media.

https://holeousia.com/2020/01/15/a-timeline-of-missed-opportunities/ 

Please watch this short film - and also read the Replies/Comments section (found at the foot of the blogpost) where further correspondence has been added, including a letter dated 28 Feb 2020 from the UK Department of Health and Social Care (Ref: DE-1204751).

We are sharing this open letter on social media and with the press as we consider this to be a very serious matter indeed – where the lives of countless people are being knowingly and recklessly put at risk by national ‘Suicide Prevention Strategy’ and ‘Policy’. The public – and indeed prescribers - are being cruelly misled. 

We ask specifically that the KNOWN RISKS of SSRI/SNRI drugs in particular (and indeed other medications which can cause akathisia) be fully recognised NOW - and action taken by Governments cascaded to EDUCATE all prescribers, healthcare professionals and the public on how to avoid or mitigate these risks.

Examples of our appeals can be found in this collection of letters published by the BMJ a few months ago. https://www.bmj.com/content/366/bmj.l5102/rapid-responses 

Signed

Marion Brown, Beverley Thorpe Thomson, Peter Gordon, Millie Kieve, Jo Watson, John Read, Peter Gotzsche, Catherine Clarke, Janette Robb, Stevie Lewis, James Moore, Bob Fiddaman, Dierdre Doherty, Kristina Gehrki, Fiona French, Alyne Duthie

--

Further Reading

UK Suicide Expert: Akathisia Can Make People Suicidal

Louis Appleby Knew About Prescription Drug-Induced Akathisia in 2004

Suicide Expert Embroiled in Twitter Controversy

Akathisia Accredited 101 Course (Free sign-up and course)

MISSD (The Medication-Induced Suicide Prevention and Education Foundation in Memory of Stewart Dolin)

Akathisia Alliance

SSRI - Induced Extrapyramidal Side-Effects and Akathisia (J Psychopharmacol.1998;12(2):192-214.review)

MHRA's Ian Hudson Grilled Over Clinical Trial Data

Yesterday [Monday 20 October] UK Parliament broadcast a committee meeting regarding Tamiflu, a prescription medicine used to treat the flu (influenza) in people 2 weeks of age and older.

In January this year, drawing attention to the lack of transparency over the results of clinical trials of the antiviral medicine, stockpiled for use in an influenza epidemic.  The Commons Select Committee concluded that the failure of manufacturers to share the full results of clinical trials with doctors, researchers and clinicians, undermined their ability to make informed decisions about treatments and the use of medicines by the NHS.

Yesterdays meeting probed the lack of transparency further.

It's very interesting particularly as we can see Chief Executive of the MHRA, Ian Hudson, being grilled by Richard Bacon, MP. Hudson was asked just one question but seemed very reluctant to give any straight forward answers.

Basically, the UK government have claimed that it would not be feasible for the full methods and results of clinical trials to be made available to doctors and other healthcare professionals.

Ian Hudson was asked why he thought it was not feasible.

The exchange between Hudson and Richard Bacon, MP reminded me of David Brent, a fictional character played by Ricky Gervais in The Office. Brent, when questioned about his management methods was always evasive - Hudson's response to Bacon's question is so very similar. Whereas Brent speaks of pies and charts, Hudson speaks of Freedom of Information requests and policies...without actually answering the question.

Hudson is being really evasive here, just as he was when giving evidence for GlaxoSmithKline in a video deposition back in 2000. [1]  Hudson, was employed as GlaxoSmithKline's World Safety Officer before eventually landing his role of CEO of the agency that protects the public from unsafe prescription medication.

Time and time again he avoids the question put to him by Bacon, time and time again Bacon reiterates his question, leaving Hudson to waffle on in the style of David Brent. You can even see a man and a woman at the back of the room laugh at Hudson's avoidance to answer a simple question.

Kind of ironic that Hudson is being grilled by an MP whose surname is Bacon, doncha think? :-)


Here's the MHRA's Ian Hudson playing David Brent yesterday [Skip to 17.44.46] [LINK]



Just like The Office there is no canned laughter.



Now compare with David Brent.

[1] MHRA CEO, Paxil and Suicide

Bob Fiddaman.

GlaxoSmithKline: The Era of Transparency

Transparent

: able to be seen through

: easy to notice or understand

: honest and open : not secretive

: characterized by visibility or accessibility of information especially concerning business practices


So, yesterday I, along with others, was invited along to the House of Commons in Westminster to hear a talk given by David Healy. If you are reading this blog then chances are you already know who Healy is, if not, check out his website and list of published books he has written on the subject of antidepressant medication and/or the corruption that exists in the world of the pharmaceutical industry.

I've watched David Healy's presentations many times through the medium of Vimeo and YouTube. Yesterday's was pretty easy to follow for the attending crowd as analogies were often used to hammer home the point that we, as consumers, are being totally misled about the safety and efficacy of antidepressant type medication. Flawed clinical trial results, ghostwritten papers and promised transparency that is, in itself, so murky that it's less clear than the Cumbrian skies that GlaxoSmithKline polluted after being accused of  releasing 773 tonnes of waste chemicals back in 2001. [1]

GlaxoSmithKline were used by Healy as an example yesterday, hey, they are, after all, a British company.

You see, Glaxo have promised to be more transparent with their clinical trial results. Yay, big pat on the back for Sir Andrew. After listening to Healy one would suggest a cow pat on the back for GSK's knight.

It transpired that Glaxo's announcement that they are going to be more transparent is nothing more than a good will gesture in the shape of a chastity belt.

Glaxo are opening their doors to the world, they claim...but only if you have Willy Wonka's golden ticket, only if you are prepared to jump through the loopholes put in place for the sole reason of deterring you from getting to the truth.

What's worse is that the UK government have accepted a proposal put forward by GlaxoSmithKline, a proposal which includes the following:

“We are not in favour of placing anonymised individual patient-level data (IPD) in the public domain in an unrestricted manner…  specific individuals should be provided with controlled access to IPD through carefully managed and secure “safe havens”. Access should be facilitated by an independent gatekeeper responsible for ensuring that the data … makes a useful contribution to scientific understanding”. [2]

In other words, we [GSK] have the information you need but we [GSK] have found a way in which you can't have access to it unless you can prove that the data we provide you would make a useful contribution to scientific understanding... even then, we [GSK] would argue that the only people allowed access would be those who would show favoritism toward our company.

The UK government, which incidentally has a Business Council where GSK's Andrew Witty sits [3] will now have to decide whether Glaxo's proposal is the way forward.

Forgive my flippancy. We are talking about a government who fought tooth and nail not to have MP's expenses in the public domain.

GSK - Ball Squeezing the UK Government

Here's the real deal folks.

Glaxo have cupped the testicles of the British government. They are slowly twisting those testicles, with each twist they are threatening/bribing the UK government - let's face it, Glaxo are the past-masters at bribing, right?

The message is clear from Glaxo, either you do business our way or we will leave these shores and conduct our business elsewhere.

Case in point, the UK Seroxat litigation. Glaxo have settled over 3,000 addiction cases in the US. They won't settle similar claims in the UK because, it's my belief, they have the backing of the UK government, a new chief at the helm of all drug-making decisions, Ian Hudson [4] and a UK legal system that has failed on more than one occasion to bring pharmaceutical companies to justice, not because of incompetent lawyers but because the way the system is designed to offer legal aid, or not as the case may be, to victims harmed by pharmaceutical products.

Invites to the meeting yesterday were sent out to both the MHRA and GSK. Neither of them showed.

Bob Fiddaman


[1] North's top polluters named
[2] “Antidepressants and the Politics of Health”
[3] Cameron’s Business Council: the official line-up
[4] Former Glaxo Safety Officer Becomes Head of MHRA