Paxil Suicide Case Set For Trial

For those who have been following this particular case you'll know some of the methods GlaxoSmithKline's lawyers, King & Spalding, have been using to try and get the case dismissed before it goes to trial.


Background

In June 2010 Stewart Dolin visited his family doctor who wrote him a prescription for Paxil for "work-related anxiety and depression".

Dolin's prescription was dispensed but he received the generic form, manufactured by Mylan.

Six days after beginning his course of the generic Paxil, Dolin left his office shortly after having returned from lunch with a business associate. He walked to a nearby Chicago Transit Authority Blue Line station at Washington and Dearborn in downtown Chicago. As a northbound train approached the station, Mr. Dolin leaped in front of it to his death. Blood tests taken with Mr. Dolin’s autopsy were positive for paroxetine (Paxil)

Stewart's wife, Wendy Dolin, filed suit against GSK claiming Paxil had induced the suicide of her husband. ((Dolin v. SmithKline Beecham Corp. et al., case number 1:12-cv-06403)


Legal Background

First off, GSK argued that Dolin was taking the generic version of Paxil marketed and manufactured by Mylan, ergo they were not responsible for the drug inducing suicide. However, a  U.S. District Judge told Mylan that they would not have to face any trial but said Glaxo was responsible for the generic drug’s design and warning label and would have to face negligence claims.

Since filing, Dolin has been sent more than 30 subpoenas from GSK, they have also made over 70 record requests and have shown the Dolin children their father’s private medical notes. To top it all, GSK’s lawyers have been asking (goading) Wendy about her love life since her husband killed himself.

GSK then turned their attention to four expert witnesses. One of those witnesses, Dr. David Healy, came under heavy fire from Glaxo’s gunslingers, King & Spalding. They had accused Healy of being a radical activist who held an extreme bias against GSK. Furthermore, GSK had probed into Healy’s private life and had, during a 10 hour deposition, talked more about his finances than the actual science behind Paxil and induced suicide.

GSK filed motions to exclude all four expert testimonies from the trial, they were denied these motions by Judge James B. Zagel who, in summary, said...

“I am denying all four of GSK’s motions to exclude. The Daubert criteria are satisfied when a well-credentialed expert provides well-supported opinions that are relevant and reliable.”

Moving Forward

Yesterday (Tuesday Jan 12) Judge James B. Zagel ruled that the suit filed by Dolin should now move straight to trial. Glaxo, via their attorneys, weren't happy and, according to Law360, spent nearly an hour arguing that David Healy, an expert for Dolin, should reveal documents tied to a patient of his who committed suicide. However, privacy laws suggest that Healy could be fired if he were to reveal patient information. One would have thought that Glaxo know all about privacy laws, it was they who told Healy that he could not reveal any information he gleaned by looking at GSK's own internal documents in a previous case against them, a case incidentally that implicated Paxil and suicide. GSK lost that case - Judgement below.

Dolin is represented by Michael L. Baum, Bijan Esfandiari, Frances M. Phares and R. Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman PC and David Rapoport, Joshua Weisberg and Lindsey Epstein of Rapoport Law Offices PC.

GlaxoSmithKline is represented by Alan S. Gilbert of Dentons, Andrew T. Bayman, Todd P. Davis and Heather M. Howard of King & Spalding LLP and Robert E. Glanville, Tamar P. Halpern and Eva Canaan of Phillips Lytle LLP.




Here's Wendy speaking openly about her husband's induced suicide. She speaks with grace, courage and dignity, quite the opposite to how GlaxoSmithKline and their highly paid attorneys have treated her.

Bob Fiddaman.

GlaxoSmithKline: No Smoke Without Fire - Witty Implicated

I love stumbling on court documents, especially when those documents are complaints against British pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline.

GlaxoSmithKline made claims that they were going to be more transparent after the Department of Justice handed down a record breaking $3 billion fine to them back in 2012.

Cynics, such as me, didn't believe them. Looks like this old cynic has been proven right.

Former GlaxoSmithKline biostatistics manager, Alexandre Selmani, has filed a whistleblower lawsuit in a New Jersey state court. The complaint alleges that GSK fired Selmani for alleging dishonest study data was used to promote the effectiveness of a smoking-cessation product, NiQuitin.

The complaint alleges that GSK engaged in an “illegal, deceptive marketing program” to promote the product “without justification” as a “significant advance” in nicotine treatment.

More importantly, than previous whistleblower lawsuits, this complaint implicates Glaxo's CEO, Andrew Witty.

This, from the complaint, verbatim.

In 2012, Seimani discovered that there were numerous mistakes made in the "Smokers Health Project" being conducted by Defendant Kotler, Selmani's direct supervisor and a Director of Biostatistics, at Defendant GSK , specifically the mistakes involved with the Phantom Patch study 53820642 and the Nicotine Film study RH01589, which affected the projects quality. 

As early as the spring of 2012 Selmani brought the mistakes to the attention of Defendant Kotler and demonstrated to Defendant Kotler that his mistakes rendered the results of the project to be unreliable.

In mid-December of 2012, having had no success with Defendant Kotler, Selmani advised the company's then vice president Howard Marsh (hereinafter "Marsh',) via e-mail, that mistakes were being made in the "Smokers Health Project", specifically Selmani showed Marsh that the study on the Phantom Patch 53820642 had numerous mistakes in the statistical methodology which affected the quality of the results. These studies had been conducted by Defendant Kotler.

Within fifteen minutes of Selmani sending the e-mail to Marsh, Marsh responded to Selmani via e-mail which stated: "Whilst it is important to create a culture of technical debate and challenge, it is vital that we do this in a professional manner. I appreciate that sometimes on email the tone of your intent may be misconstrued". Still nothing was done to correct the mistakes. 

On February 18, 2013, Selmani again brought the mistakes in the studies 53820642 and RH01589, to the attention of Defendant Witty, the CEO of the company, specifically, by sending an email advising him of the mistakes in some of the CH clinical studies which had the capacity to cause negative consequences and potential health and safety issues for the general public. In the e-mail, Selmani reported that his current manager, Defendant Kotler, refused to make corrections to the errors in the clinical studies as set forth supra. The errors related to the studies were outlined in the a-mail. They were ignored and the studies were made public on April 8, 2014 in the Journal of Psychopharmacology. 

Selmani sent out various other emails voicing his concerns over the discrepancies, one in July 2013 to James Ford VP Counsel as well as Kenneth James, Head of Research and Development. Furthermore, On June 2, 2014, Selmani sent an e-mail to Defendant Emma Walmsley the company's CEO GSK CH (London, UK). Following this email Selmani was told by Human Resources that he should no longer report to Kotler, however, he was not given another manager to report to.

After 9 months, it appears GSK had a change of heart and told Selmani that he could report to Kotler once again. Unfortunately, for Selmani, it was Kotler who was authorized to conduct his performance review.

No prizes for guessing what happened next folks.

Selmani received low performance scores and was eventually terminated from his employment with GSK on October 17, 2015.

More from the complaint...

Selmani seeks compensatory and punitive damages, attorneys' fees, costs, and such other relief as the Court deems equitable and just.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Kotler, Witty, Kennedy, and Walmsly were deliberate co-conspirators of the aforesaid fraudulent and/or illegal activity.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Kotler, Witty, Kennedy, and Walmsly knew or should have reasonably known of the aforesaid fraudulent and/or illegal activity.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Kotler, Witty, Kennedy, and Walmsly had a duty to properly investigate and/or address the aforesaid fraudulent and/or illegal activity.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Kotler, Witty, Kennedy, and Walmsly failed to properly investigate and/or address and/or report the aforesaid fraudulent and/or illegal activity.

At all times relevant hereto, Defendants Kotler, Witty, Kennedy, and Walmsly, by and through their knowledge of and/or complicity with the aforesaid fraudulent and/or illegal activity, aided and/or abetted the same. 

The full complaint can be found here.


Bob Fiddaman.

Lundbeck: Contradiction in Terms

One of the more popular posts on this blog over the past couple of years has been a guest post by Scottish mom, Cheryl Buchanan. In short, Cheryl aborted her fetus at 23 weeks because she was told that its chances of survival were slim due to several defects.

A series of other posts by Cheryl and myself have appeared on this blog and now, it seems, the mainstream media in the UK have taken an interest. All good, I hear you cry - I guess so, it's good when stories like this are highlighted in the British press but, to be honest, journalism isn't what it used to be. In fact, the article, published on Jan 10 in The Express, leaves more questions than answers, questions that really should have been asked by the reporting journalist, Paula Murray.

Her article highlights Cheryl's plight and also tries to offer balance in the shape of a quote from Lundbeck's Medical Director, Dr. Andrew Jones.

Dr Andrew Jones, Medical Director with Lundbeck, said citalopram should not be prescribed during pregnancy unless "clearly necessary and only after careful consideration of risk/benefit".

However, he said there was "considerable evidence" to show that women who stop taking antidepressants during pregnancy are more likely to suffer a recurrence with "greater risks to the woman and her unborn child than the potential risks of exposure to the medication".

Dr Jones added: "We are familiar with Ms Buchanan and have supported her with the information she has requested. It is always a tragic situation when one loses a child. We will not comment on her personal case in public but the safety of Lundbeck’s antidepressants is supported with the large amount of data that has shown no evidence of an increased risk of birth defects associated with treating pregnant women with citalopram."

I left a comment on the Express article suggesting that Jones was having his cake and eating it, sadly, for some bizarre reason, that comment has been removed. Kind of weird given that the journalist in question was given the links to Cheryl's story that have appeared on my blog over the past couple of years.

Why didn't the journalist ask Dr. Jones for the  "considerable evidence" that shows that women who stop taking antidepressants during pregnancy are more likely to suffer a recurrence with greater risks to the woman and her unborn child than the potential risks of exposure to the medication?

Why didn't the journalist ask Dr Jones about the citalopram animal reproduction studies where it was shown that citalopram has been shown to have adverse effects on embryo/fetal and postnatal development, including teratogenic effects resulting in in decreased embryo/fetal growth and survival and an increased incidence of fetal abnormalities (including cardiovascular and skeletal defects) (Source FDA)

Furthermore, why wasn't Jones pushed for an answer in defining the terminology, Possibly, Probably or Certain? There's a whole new can of worms there for anyone seeking that Pulitzer.

Contrast the citalopram animal reproduction studies with the claim of Dr Jones that women who stop taking antidepressants during pregnancy are more likely to suffer a recurrence with "greater risks to the woman and her unborn child - it's a theory folks, one that has been blown out of the water many times by other academics. The citalopram animal reproduction studies is the actual science here and really should have been picked up by the reporting journalist.

Dr Jones is towing the company line, ie; he's keeping lawyers at bay and expectant mothers at risk - throwing in the line, "citalopram should not be prescribed during pregnancy unless clearly necessary and only after careful consideration of risk/benefit", is nothing more than a mandatory disclaimer used by pharmaceutical companies, they know their drugs are being used in pregnancy yet they just sit back and allow it to happen because they believe the prescribing physician is in a better position to judge whether or not the patient will benefit from the drug. Lines such as " women who stop taking antidepressants during pregnancy are more likely to suffer a recurrence with "greater risks to the woman and her unborn child", will always persuade prescribing physicians that antidepressant drugs are a must for depressed mothers - even though this statement is merely a theory.

Begs the question why Jones failed to mention the citalopram animal reproduction studies to the investigating journalist.

Meantime, Cheryl Buchanan remains in limbo and her child, through no fault of her own, remains dead.




Bob Fiddaman.

Back Stories

Citalopram Birth Defects (Guest Post)

Are Lundbeck Luring Pregnant Mothers With a Red Apple?

Lundbeck: Possibly, Probably or Certain about Celexa Birth Defects?

For Ziggy

Bob Fiddaman

The Black Dog at Aston Villa

It's great being a writer, thoughts just come to you when you least expect them, having the ability to change those thoughts into words is not something that everybody has. Practice makes perfect, if you sit and wallow in the thoughts and don't do anything about it then the thoughts will, eventually, fade into oblivion... or they may just consume you.

It's hard going up against mainstream beliefs, especially when those beliefs come from professionals - their argument is, and always will be, "What qualifications do you have to offer such an opinion?" In my case, it's experience. Ten years (almost) of writing and researching antidepressants, pharmaceutical companies and medicine regulators, a large chunk of which has been taken up researching British pharma giant, GlaxoSmithKline, their antidepressant, Seroxat (Paxil) and also researching the British drug regulator, the MHRA.

Close family and friends of mine will know that I am an Aston Villa supporter, all though these days more of an armchair fan, critic. If you know your football (that's the game played with a round ball and the feet) you'll know that Aston Villa currently sit at the foot of the Premiership, having won just one game all season. It's depressing times for all concerned.

Ah, there's that word, 'depressing'.

It got me thinking.

The players and staff at Aston Villa Football Club can't be having it easy, low on confidence and morale, pressure from a strong opinionated set of supporters, ridicule in the press. The loyal fans will also be feeling it. Going to work on a Monday and facing rival supporters of other Midland clubs isn't easy, particularly when all those clubs are having decent seasons.

So, take this scenario - Aston Villa player or backroom staff member, or indeed a fan, has a mild form of depression (who wouldn't) - Now, it's the job of the 'professional' physician to determine just how bad that depression is and to treat it accordingly. "Don't worry, things will get better", really doesn't seem to be an option here, anyone who knows their football will know that Aston Villa are on their way down to the lower league come May.

So, is a lack of confidence or morale treatable?

Yes, of course it is - yet we don't see your modern day footballer sitting in a waiting room at their local doctors. Sorry, these guys are millionaires, so the likes of you and I wouldn't experience that in any event.

Today saw Aston Villa visit lower league Wycombe Wanderers, a full strength starting eleven managed to draw with the minnows (said with respect) - The aftermath of yet another heartless display saw a small minority of Aston Villa supporters air their anger toward club captain, Micah Richards, then later, at the whole team as they boarded the bus to take them back to Birmingham. Both incidents have not gone unnoticed, both being filmed and spread across the internet. I won't provide the links to the footage - you can work it out for yourselves what the reaction was.

So, it would appear that, in this case, the fans are the first to crack. Pent up frustration, anguish, irritability finally rearing their ugly heads after today's match at Wycombe. As a human I fully expect that those Aston Villa players who aced the onslaught of abuse will, tonight, be feeling somewhat stressed out and full of low self-esteem. I'm not one to jump on the bandwagon and say that a professional footballer's wages help soften the blow of such feelings. They are, like me and you, human. It's the fans who put them on the pedastal and make them bigger than what they actually are.

So, two sets of humans (fans and players) both sets experiencing personality changes that we have, for years, been told are signs of depression or anxiety disorders. Our apparent treatment comes in the shape of a pill, an antidepressant that, we are told, can make frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem magically disappear.

Now, I am not comparing someone's deep depression with losing a football match, be they fan or player - what I am suggesting, however, is that any human being can overcome frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem. In the case of Aston Villa players it would be to go on a winning streak - this will have a knock-on effect and will please those fans who feel the need (rightly or wrongly) to hurl abuse.

So, why do pharmaceutical companies spend billions of pounds promoting antidepressants for the very same traits mentioned above when, in actual act, all that is needed is a confidence boost?

Have we become so distanced from those 11 men kicking a round piece of leather around, nae, have they become so distanced from us? Truth is, they are humans experiencing stressful times, yet more stress when fans add to their woes by hurling abuse... and not an antidepressant in sight - rightly so.

Frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem are not, as pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists tell us, brain diseases. They are not chemical imbalances - they are a set of feelings brought on by a set of circumstances.

Aston Villa's backroom staff will, no doubt, be telling all players that the fans are understandably angry and not to pay too much attention to them as it will hinder their confidence. No doubt the backroom staff will, over the coming weeks and months, be working on boosting morale, confidence and banishing low self-esteem. They will do so by using psychology and not pharmacology.

There's a lesson to be learned here for health care professionals who dish out antidepressants at the drop of a hat to your average human with similar sets of circumstances to all those connected with Aston Villa Football Club.

I'll say it again, frustration, anguish, irritability, stress and  low self-esteem are not, as pharmaceutical companies and psychiatrists tell us, brain diseases.

I'll leave the final words to Bill Shankly, probably said with tongue firmly in cheek but if you are a football fan you will understand exactly where he was coming from.

"Some people think football is a matter of life and death. I assure you, it's much more serious than that." - Bill Shankly

Bob Fiddaman
Villa fan.

MHRA: Back Slaps All Around

The British drug regulator, the MHRA, recently announced glowing highlights for the year 2015, two of which lay claim to their adverse reporting system (Yellow Card)

Dig deeper and you will see the system, despite the self-congratulatory back slaps, is deeply flawed.

Here's why.

MHRA: "We Now Consider This Request Closed"



Bob Fiddaman.

Comic Relief and GSK Form Five-Year Partnership

It's one of those headlines that one would think is parody. You read it right folks, "Comic Relief and GSK Form Five-Year Partnership."

Comic Relief is, in essence, a charity founded in 1985 to try and tackle the famine in Ethiopia. It takes up much of the BBC broadcasting slots under the guise of Red Nose Day, beginning in the afternoon on CBBC, a channel aimed at children, and usually runs throughout the night and early hours of the morning. It's a pastiche of comedy clips featuring world renowned comedians from all over the globe. Their mission - to "bring about positive and lasting change in the lives of poor and disadvantaged people, which we believe requires investing in work that addresses people's immediate needs as well as tackling the root causes of poverty and injustice."

Earlier this year I reported on another children's charity, namely, "Save The Children". I wrote a number of emails to them as I was concerned that a charity, whose main focus was children, had entered into a partnership with a company who had knowingly put children at risk by covering up the suicide link caused by one of their products, Paxil. The series of emails, including responses from Save The Children, can be read here. In short, they told me that they were well aware of Glaxo's history but decided to press ahead with the partnership because, "these risks are outweighed by the benefits of the partnership in helping us achieve our ambitions for children."

GSK are no strangers to Comic Relief. In 2002 they donated $200,000 (Australian) to Comic Relief and announced a fund-raising program in which its drug sales people would visit doctors dressed as clowns. At the time, many accused Glaxo's fund-raising program as having some similarities to its advertising for one of Australia's top-selling anti-depressant drugs. That drug is called Aropax, better known as Seroxat in the UK and Paxil in the US and Canada. (Back story)

Your normal every-day average Brit would take their hats off to Glaxo, particularly with the announcement that they are going to inject £17 million, alongside Comic Relief's £5 million into a fund that will help fight malaria and "improve health" in five malaria endemic countries in sub-Saharan Africa and Asia. (See official GSK press release)

It's obvious that GSK will no longer promote Seroxat via smokescreens but the irony is that since 2002 GSK have paid out compensation to victims of Seroxat, including over 3,000 people who became addicted to Seroxat, over 800 women whose children were born with serious heart defects because of Seroxat, and also being found guilty of Seroxat causing, in part, the death of Donald Schell and his family members.

On the surface GSK's £17 million donation and 5 year partnership with Comic Relief seems generous, however, it should, I believe, carry a cautionary disclaimer.

Here's the reason why - Alastair Benbow: The Devil is in the Details

Nothing more needs to be said.


Bob Fiddaman.

2016: The Role of Others

Aside from Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, and Boxing Day, I spent this period of festivity alone. Great to catch up on House of Cards with the brilliant Kevin Spacey and Robin Wright, in between many episodes of Ghost Adventures (probably the best programme on TV) and trips down to the local bar with residents of the surrounding area, most of whom are pretty much oblivious to the work I do (and have been doing for almost 10 years)

April this year (2016) is the 10th birthday of this blog, it all started with a blog post of mine regarding the British drug regulator, the MHRA. Since then it's been a journey of learning, a journey of acceptance, a journey of grieving the loss of parents, children, husbands and wives - my grief shared in unison with those who are left behind to pick up the pieces that a death in the family brings.

10 years.

I've held meetings with the British drug regulator, been threatened by GlaxoSmithKline's lawyers, had online stalkers, doppelganger blogs, Facebook and Twitter pages. In between, I've lost my mother, Teresa, and my best friend, Benn (my 10 year-old Rhodesian Ridgeback/Boxer cross) I've had a number of relationships, none of which worked out. A book published and two human rights awards. I've even tried my hand at fiction writing, a manuscript that sits waiting to be finely tuned if or when I get the time.

It's been 10 years that has opened my eyes to the murky world of the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatry and apparent medicine regulators, all of whom have enlightened me, all of whom I have a lack of faith in.

Online advocates have come and gone. This kind of work can be mentally exhausting, it's akin to having your soul raped when you read about another teen who has killed themselves because their prescribing physician couldn't be bothered to research the brand of antidepressant. Or another child born with serious birth defects, again for the same reason. Big pharma denies individual suicide links, medicine regulators sit and shrug their shoulders believing that they have done everything in their power to warn and moderate reported side effects of antidepressants - in truth, they haven't, truth is, they never will.

2016

For me, this new year is about the role of others. There is a choir and has been for the past 10 years, since the conception of this blog, we sing the same hymns whilst others, for reasons unknown, sit and pretend to sing, they open their mouths but nothing comes out - they go home after the sermon and, well, leave the dirty work to the likes of Healy, Whittaker(MIA), Fennell, Antidepaware, Lynch, Truthman, Buchanan, Witczak, Matthews, Ann Blake Tracy, the CCHR**, myself, hoping (in vain) that we can pull the rabbit out of the hat and bring a halt to these needless deaths, truth is, we won't, not alone at least.

What we, as advocates, can achieve is hampered by the shoulder shruggers, be they medicine regulators or family, friends and those faceless Facebook friends who "like" a post within seconds of you posting it on your page, the type that read a headline without reading the actual content. I don't blame them for not reading, this stuff is heartbreaking and can leave one carrying around the grief of many people, sometimes taking that grief to bed, sometimes allowing it to spill into our everyday lives - yup, we have lives too, we don't just sit at home writing and researching antidepressants and corruption, We, just like those who choose not to bang the drum, have our own lives and families, relationships to deal with. I think, sometimes, that people forget that.

It's a feeling of pride when I see my name mentioned with those above, they have each put thousands of hours of work into making sure that this problem reaches the masses. It's all voluntary, it's all down to doing what they believe is the right thing to do.

I'm unsure if Healy,Whittaker, Fennell, Lynch, Truthman, Buchanan, Witczak, Matthews, Ann Blake Tracy, the CCHR et al think along the same lines as me when it comes to the role of others? I don't know if they think that others should be playing a part in voicing their opinions, meeting with regulators, congress - doing unselfish acts for, in part, the people that sit back and prefer to post fluffy bunny pics on their Facebook walls or the latest Hollywood gossip on their Twitter walls.

An old friend of mine once told me that they don't read my work because it's upsetting. As a writer I understand the sentiment, as a human, I don't.

The problem of antidepressants cannot, nor should not, be sugar-coated. Sharing a link on Facebook or Twitter is all well and good, but it's debating with those who still disbelieve that there is a problem that is they key. I don't want people to agree with everything I write. I'm sure the same can be said for the advocates I mention above. Debate is good, it's healthy, it's a snowball that will get bigger and bigger as it gathers momentum but it needs more snow, different snow, not the same snow.

As parents we all have a duty to protect children - those who work within the fields of the pharmaceutical industry, regulators and psychiatry, collectively known as the Pharmafia, fail in this one simple duty. I don't expect anything but negativity from them - it is they who are the problem and it is us who are the solution.

The problem cannot be resolved by ignoring stories because "they upset you or spoil your day" - boo hoo - try stepping into the shoes of the parents who have lost kids to suicide then ask yourselves if you really think you are doing enough to help a future generation of children and their blinkered parents.

We all know it's Christmas because we were each told the story of Jesus Christ. Christmas isn't about him any more, it's about over indulging and debt (Bah Humbug).

He was a good guy, he spread love amongst his fellow humans... then again, he had no foe to deal with in the shape of the Pharmafia.

If you are going to make one New Year's resolution this year, spare a thought for those who have loved and lost, those who have probably spent Christmas crying because their son, daughter, mom, dad, husband or wife, isn't around any more, all because they were prescribed an antidepressant that induced their death. Then, spare a thought for the anguish and frustration they feel because all they see and hear day in, day out, is the same people banging the drum about this problem.

Let 2016 be the year that YOU make a change. Nodding your heads in agreement isn't enough. Get your hands dirty.

Your online presence is of the utmost importance.

Wordpress

Blogger

.

Mayor Vaughn: I don't think either of one you are familiar with our problems. 

Hooper: I think that I am familiar with the fact that you are going to ignore this particular problem until it swims up and BITES YOU ON THE ASS! 

Scene from the movie, Jaws.

Bob Fiddaman



**Many more to mention, they all know who they are.

Top 10 Posts for 2015

These are the top 10 most popular posts from my blog this year. Two guest posts make the number one and two spots which I'm very pleased about.



#10 - UK Serious Fraud Office and the GSK 3
I name the three individual GSK employees currently being interviewed by the UK Serious Fraud Office.

#9 - When Pharma Use the Defence of the FDA
I engage with Duchesnay's market analyst, Danny Martel regarding the Kim Kardashian promotion of Duchesnay's morning sickness medication, Diclegis.

#8 - Did Seroxat Trigger the Fatal Sierre 2012 Bus Crash? 
My own investigation and take on the Sierre 2012 Bus Crash.

#7 - Psychiatry Taking the Biscuit
One sided media and the bizarre thoughts of media psychiatrists.

#6 - Kim Kardashian on the Pharma Payroll
Socialite promotes morning sickness pill with no mention of side effects.

#5 - Co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz Germanwings
My take on the Germanwings Flight 9525 disaster. This was written before we knew about the medication the co-pilot was taking.

#4 - Reanalysis of Glaxo's 329 Study Goes Public
My own take on the 2015 reanalysis of Glaxo's 329 Study by the RIAT team.

#3 - British Medical Journal Add to Glaxo's Woes
BMJ invite me along to a press conference regarding the reanalysis of Glaxo's 329 Study

#2 - Seroxat Withdrawal Diary (Guest Post)
This guest poster wishes to remain anonymous, his story is familiar. His story is a classic example of what is not being done to help people suffering Seroxat addiction.

#1 - Prozac Took My Child (Guest Post)
With almost 16,000 views this guest post by Stephanie Lynch is one that is both tragic and informative. It's also very sad.




Bob Fiddaman

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.

Glaxo: Made In England

Sing to the tune of 'Made In England' by Elton John (Video at foot of post)

I suggest you click play on video then read the lyrics. If you feel brave enough then sing-a-long :-)

"Made In England"

Lyrics by Bob Fiddaman

They was made in England out of SmithKline and Beecham

They've had a quit-me Frenchman, and a 'love-me' Witty

They've got lots of money and that pack of Paxil

Oh that sweet numbing drug and the KOL's to pay.

Oh, they was made in England

Oh, they was made in England

They was made in England out of SmithKline and Beecham

Sold shares in a market citing we are like no other

Saying 'transparent' for stocks and shares

Oh that sweet numbing drug and the KOL's to pay

Oh, they was made in England

Oh, they was made in England

They was made in England from a fierce Diablo

But some Yankee lawyers had a way about them

Glaxo denied all problems, and showed their middle finger

Found guilty of fraud with a 3 billion dollar fine.

Oh, they was made in England

Oh, they was made in England

If you're made in England, you're built to last

You can still say 'Glaxo' and everybody laughs

But the joke's on them, they never read the song

There's no secrets that time does not reveal.

Oh, they was made in England

Oh, they was made in England

Merry Christmas to Glaxo, their lawyers, and their Key Opinion Leaders!

Bob Fiddaman

Life After Antidepressants

If you, like me, have experienced life on antidepressants and you, like me, no longer rely on having to mask and paper over life's problems, then you'll know that life after antidepressants can be so much more fun and enriching.

Some months ago I looked up an old friend of mine (she'll kill me for using the word 'old' in this sentence - ah, sod it, that's twice I've mentioned it now)

She, like me, endured the harsh reality of being prescribed Paxil (known as Seroxat in the UK). Her body, however, was medically abused, her dosage being a staggering 90mg of Paxil per day.

Eventually she weaned herself off, more antidepressants and antipsychotics being added to the mix to substitute the weaning process of the Paxil. More withdrawing and withdrawal problems arose with these substitutes but she eventually managed to kick them all in to touch and move on with her life.

She, just like me, is a writer, she writes fiction and, unlike me, writes it brilliantly. Could she have written such powerful pieces whilst under the influence of psychiatric medication? I doubt it. Antidepressants do everything but make our minds clear, substituting life's problems with a fog where within lies a complete lack of compassion and empathy. To write well one must have both compassion and empathy. I'm pleased to say she has both.

She has since suffered yet more of life's problems, this time though she has battled through them and not gone down the route of medication. People who have experienced horrific withdrawal reactions to these types of drugs rarely go back to them. We are the fortunate ones because, through research, we learned that the withdrawal effects, bouts of sadness, insomnia, anger etc were not, as many professionals suggest, the "illness" returning.

I've been privy to a new novel she is writing, it's in its infancy yet already it's a work of art, particularly when I pay attention to the detail she uses, detail that under the influence of psychiatric medication, could not be seen yet alone described.

Her eyes are open, her mind has found its creativity again and because of that she is, I believe, on the right road. She is laughing again, she is giving as good as she gets again.

She's alive, her mind, body and soul.

The irony of this is that she was offered antidepressants recently. A recent life problem that, could seemingly be fixed with a drug that would merely numb her. Yes, it was tough in the beginning but months down the line, and without the aid of mind-altering drugs, she's fighting fit and telling a story in such a unique and gifted way that will, I'm sure, be ready for public consumption at some point in the near future.

My life after antidepressants turned out pretty much the same. I wrote a book about Seroxat, had it published then, some months ago, completed a fictional book about love, life, angels and demons. Sadly, I don't think, in its current format, that its good enough to be published but I can always go back to it - maybe my "old" friend can offer me some guidance?

Life after antidepressants is so much clearer. You can see the road ahead, a road that looks appealing when faced head on. There's no fog on the road but there's plenty of compassion and empathy, you pick both up as you walk along.

'Midge' is alive and kicking thanks to her horrific experience of psychiatric drug withdrawal, without which she'd probably be stuck in the middle of the mist, confused, feeling unloved, feeling guilt and feeling nothing but hopelessness, particularly if her recent offering of medication had been taken on trust.

Love, light and peace to all those who have broke free from the demons that are antidepressants, an extra dose of love, light and peace for those of you still trying to break free from the pharmaceutical shackles.

The timing is always right to look up friends from the past, if only to wish them well. You never know, your voice may just be what they need, theirs may just be what you need too.




Bob Fiddaman