Seroxat Secrets: “I really have to question the honesty and integrity of that website” – 3

Let’s finally put this one to bed shall we?

I went back this morning to the UK Depresssion Forum to look for yesterday’s thread and to see if my membership of the forum had been allowed.

To my surprise the entire thread had been removed and I was still not allowed to join the forum to tell ‘Jake’ that I had deleted the post he took exception to.

I spent some time re-reading what ‘Jake’ wrote and I have to say that I am left with the impression the whole thing has been written by a professional – it flows, it makes logical (albeit flawed) arguments and the grammer is perfect – it’s not a piece of writing done by someone who’s suffering from any kind of mental health problem and who is taking paxil.

What it is is a piece of professional writing that has had time spent on it and has been crafted. From memory I think there was about an hour between the post of Jake’s and the one it was responding to – I have to say what’s written down is FAR more than an hour’s work. Either that or the man is a genius.

There is not one single typo in it.

Not one.

The grammer’s perfect and the spelling and punctuation are great.

I think the members over at the UK Depression Forum should be asking some questions about their American friend ‘Jake’.

And he questioned my honesty and integrity!

17 Responses to “Seroxat Secrets: “I really have to question the honesty and integrity of that website” – 3”

  1. RB Says:

    I think is might be safe to assume that ” Jake” could be a mole or a troll, it wouldn’t be beyond GSK’s capabilities to plant Fake pro-Seroxat Supporters on Internet forums.Im pretty sure it has been done before on the Paxil Progress Withdrawal forum. And it would be of particular benefit to GSK if they could descredit execellently informative and truthful websites such as this one , as I’m sure much of the information provided here and the questions which this information undoubtedly raises is farily uncomfortable for GSK. “The constant gardener” may have been a fictional tale based around the sinister behaviour of a “fictional” pharmaceutical company. But it is actually closer to reality than most might think. Pharmaceutical corporations such as GSK and the like are as unscrupulous, underhanded and devious in their dealings as any Criminal Ganster ever would be. Nothing will stop their profits from rolling in. Apart from maybe a “boycott” …😉

  2. Matthew Holford Says:

    Karen Menzies tells me that the pharmos are known to keep an eye on the internet, if you ever doubted it (this is known from internal correspondence, revealed under disclosure laws, in the US). They keep publicly quiet about all the criticism that’s flying around, but, as you may imagine, they don’t like it. All the more reason to do it, I reckon!

    Given the business with Paul Flynn’s EDM’s, it doesn’t really take a massive intellectual leap to imagine that there might be pharma-friendly (or pharma-employed?) users on these forums. Please note that Jake is an administrator, on UKDF, which has to cast doubts on the integrity of the site, as a whole.

  3. admin Says:

    There is no doubt that Jake and the UKDF now lack any real integrity. Most of the admin group are American and most of them are early members of the forum – so they started a UK forum? Or they took it over?

    It’s a shame because I’m sure the majority of members are honest sufferers – they’re just being spoonfed the Big Pharma line. I’m sure someone somewhere thinks it’s all very clever – ‘viral marketing’.

  4. Matthew Holford Says:

    Well, like I wrote before, I got barred, but only after I’d exchanged PMs with Jake, who accused me of dogmatism, and refusing to discuss [his] “facts”. Just take a moment to savour the irony of that. OK. He gave up after I pointed out that I couldn’t trust anything that came out in support of GSK, because of its propensity for producing ghostwritten “academic analyses” of its drugs. So, with GSK propoganda on one hand, and a bunch of contradictory stuff on the other, I was obliged to make up my own mind…

    Another couple of days went by, before I received UKDF’s ‘mail (I’m back online on Wednesday, as if I cared).

  5. Matthew Holford Says:

    I would like to make a public apology to Jake, as I have just been banned from UKDF for the “personal attack” made on him, above.

    Eavesdroppers rarely hear any good of themselves, Jake.

  6. admin Says:

    Jake – keep lookin in – you just might learn something.

    Fancy engaging in a debate about Seroxat with me? – you know drug company marketing – I know the facts.

    Just look around you here and use the links…

  7. matty Says:

    I have to say I take offence at your comments regarding UKDF. I’m a moderator on the site. I’m British.

    You question my integrity. Yet you don’t know me. You don’t know the history of the site, or it’s members. Yet you feel qualified to question our motives and our honesty.

    Yet by your own actions you have managed to damage the confidence and trust of people who look upon the forum as a safe haven.

    I hope you’re really proud of yourselves

  8. admin Says:

    Matty – I’m just interested in letting people make up their own minds about things. I (and others here) merely reacted to what Jake wrote in response to one of the (ex)members of your own forum.

    I stand by my opinion of the copy that was posted on your forum by Jake – it is to all intents and purposes a press release.

    I’m here, ready and waiting to enter into any kind of rational discussion Jake (or you) might want to have about Seroxat or anything to do with it.

    Do you agree with what Jake wrote?

  9. admin Says:

    And another thing Matty, you wrote this:

    “You question my integrity. Yet you don’t know me. You don’t know the history of the site, or it’s members. Yet you feel qualified to question our motives and our honesty”.

    So what you’re saying is it’s OK for Jake to say exactly the same things about me and Seroxat Secrets – because if you look back you’ll see that’s what started this.

    I ask again – do you agree with what Jake wrote?

  10. matty Says:

    First of all part of my physical problems that you know about are attributable to GSK. And I do question their methods and operations and interactions with healthcare trusts.

    But as far as Anti Depressants are concerned I’m not qualified to comment on their effectiveness, or side effects.

    I have gone through the whole drugs catalogue when it comes to finding effective meds that can cope with my other medical conditions, and the vast amount of meds I take to stay alive.

    I’ve taken seroxat, I know others who have taken it. some like yourself suffered major problems others swear by it. It’s the same with Prozac. I can’t take it. It winds me up I want to go for a run at 3am. I take sertraline now. My PHCT will not change it. because it was a hard fought battle to find a suitable AD that left me with the ability to function given my medical problems.

    As far as these meds are concerned. I may be naive but it appears to me that if it works for that person. Give it to that person.

    But I do not think there is a single person in the world would stop taking AD’s in a heartbeat if there were an alternative.

    As for other peoples comments on meds. I believe I’ve only ever commented on meds or treatments I’ve taken. If I got a bad reaction I’ve told people. If I put weight on same thing. I was once prescribed a new anti depressant. it listed 25 side effects. I got 28 of them.

    Seroxat didn’t work for me. In so much as my depressive disorder remained unchanged. And to be honest as it was way back in 1992. I can remember being started on a half a tablet per day. But I have no recollection of any side effects but thats not to say there weren’t any. 92 was a traumatic year because of my accident and it’s knock on effects. I’d rather not remember.

    I had similar problems with pain meds. I take a drug that my local health authority has banned. The pain clinic consultant had to get permission to prescribe it.

    My sister in law took seroxat. And she had a similar “no improvement” Her husband a gulf war vet. Took it he doesent hit people now. My only answer to that is these drugs, have a lot more to do with an individuals chemistry, than I can comment on.

    Now because of the nature of my profession. I have worked for most of the drug companies how have operated in the
    UK. I’ve also worked for shipyards, soap, and cleansing product manufacturers. Car manufacturers, Hospitals in fact any where pneumatics are used. I’ve probably worked there.

    Did you know Searle Laboratories had a contraceptive pill factory in the North East. Check up on this if you like. In the late 70s there was hell on.Guys there were starting to grow breasts. I promise it’s true.

    Now thats as much as I want to say on the matter.

    I still believe that by posting Jakes comments right or wrong. You have damaged our forum for it’s more vunerable members. Some who are afraid they’re going to end up as starts on your website.

    Matty

  11. matty Says:

    Like I say I have nothing more to say on the matter. I’ve told you my opinion for what it’s worth. I am neither intellctual enough or quick witted enough to want to get involved in arguments about stuff I know nothing about. Or have no wish to know anything about.

    You think you were justified in your actions. I don’t. Thats all there is too it. Thats not going to change.

    To me it has nothing to do with seroxat, paxil or any other drug or medication. and I’m certinly not going fishing around the WWW to compare writing styles.

  12. Matthew Holford Says:

    matty,

    I had an argument with Jake, which Jake ducked out of. I was then barred, initially temporarily, but as soon as I made this public, I was barred permanently.

    So, as I understand it, I got barred, because Jake couldn’t maintain a debate outside the parameters of his own understanding. Have I got that wrong, at all? The chronology is correct, I know that much.

    Now, presumably there was some discussion, to which I was not privy, in between the end of mine and Jake’s PMed discussion and me being barred? And Jake got backed, because he’s a moderator, or because you know him better, or what? How do you think that looks to me?

    You’re right, of course, I don’t know you. I only know what happened. I don’t even know if you cast a vote. Frankly, it’s a matter of supreme indifference to me.

    Matt

  13. Halva Says:

    Matthew,

    You weren’t banned because you had an argument with Jake. People disagree all the time. You were banned because you publically accused Jake of being a GSK plant and said that UKDF lacked any credibility or integrity.

    If you had taken the time to read the posts in the medication forums, you would have seen a fair amount of evidence of Jake’s relationship with Seroxat. It’s been far from a wonder drug to him. It has, however, been the best of a number of unsatisfactory alternatives.

    UKDF is a support group. We have never been and never will be pro or anti drug. Regardless of the dangers or benefits of Seroxat, we have no wish to be held accountable by people who stopped taking medication because they saw a petition on the site and figured it was endorsed by the group.

    We’re also hardly dominated by Americans in the back pocket of the drug companies. The ratio of UK to US-based admins/mods is 5:4.

    I understand how the situation looks to you. Consider our point of view though. From this side of the fence it looks like you threw your toys out of your pram and attacked an organisation and people who have tried to be helpful and understanding to you – see the thread on your son’s school for an example – because someone disagreed with your agenda.

  14. admin Says:

    Halva – I’m sorry about all this but the bottom line is that Matthew put up his petition thread on UKDF. Jake responded -with a drug company press release – and then Jake had a go at me and Seroxat Secrets.

    THAT is how it started.

  15. Matthew Holford Says:

    Halva,

    I challenge you to quote me as saying that Jake is a GSK stoolie. The ‘mail that was sent me to tell me I was banned cited a personal attack on Jake. Again, I challenge you demonstrate the truth of that assertion.

    I don’t care if Jake is attached to GSK, or not. He was defending Seroxat valiantly, then he dropped it, then I was barred temporarily. I mentioned that on here, I was banned permanently. I challenge you to disprove that chronology.

    UKDF barred me (temporarily) before I even mentioned it, on here. I challenge you to demonstrate that that is not true. Halva, I challenge you: what exactly, did I get barred for, initially? I posted the links to the petition, I responded to anybody who had anything to say on the subject. I challenge you to demonstrate that I have been abusive, at any stage, either on UKDF, or on here. Then I was barred. I accused UKDF of lacking integrity, but only after I’d been barred. I think that that is a pretty reasonable observation: you’re supposed to be a support forum, and yet I was barred, apparently for refusing to back down in a debate.

    Your members are probably wondering what it was that I did to get barred. I’d like to know, too. You claim to offer a safe environment, and yet how should one feel safe, when one may inadvertently begin a debate, either on a topic, or in way, which falls foul of the collective sensibilities of the administrators?

    On the issue of American representation on UKDF: you have me confused with Roger, I think: I never discussed that.

    I say again, you barred me, before I even mentioned UKDF, on here. “Threw [my] toys out of the pram”? “[My] agenda”? Jeez, Halva, can you hear yourself?

    Matt

  16. Halva Says:

    Until I read these two posts above, we were under the impression that “Admin” and “Matthew Holford” were the same person – the person who posted the petition over at UKDF.

    Reading the posts of “Matthew” I can see that he didn’t accuse Jake of being a GSK employee.

    Your account was suspended temporarily on the 23rd because one of our moderators brought to light the post “Seroxat Secrets: “I really have to question the honesty and integrity of that website” – 3 February 22nd, 2007 — admin” followed by some of the uglier stuff comparing Jake to an alcoholic in denial. It was assumed that you wrote that post. We then waited until all mods and admins could vote on the situation.

    It may be a matter of supreme indifference to you but, personally, I would like to offer my apologies for what I wrote above.

    Halva

  17. Matthew Holford Says:

    Accepted.

    Matt


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: