MHRA – too little, too late: once again

I’ve just read the new SSRI Learning Module on the MHRA website – the MHRA says “it’s for medical, nursing and pharmaceutical professions, and is suitable for those nearing the end of their formal training or those who have recently completed such training. Also, health professionals will find the module a helpful refresher, for example, at the start of a posting in clinical psychiatry.”

I was looking forward to reading something that I thought would bring healthcare professionals up to date on the dangers of SSRIs and so position the MHRA firmly on the side of patients.

In reality the learning module reads like something a pharmaceutical company would write – you know, like a more detailed Patient Information Leaflet (the leaflet you get in the box with your tablets). Nothing wrong with that I suppose, except from my experience, the PIL really played down the many strange side effects and horrible withdrawal I endured for almost two years – and as it was written by a drug company – about one of its own products – you would hardly expect otherwise.

An interesting point about the Seroxat PIL, for example, is the way it has ‘developed’ over the years – as GSK has been unable to hide the truth from the public over the years, so it has had to rewrite the PIL – have a look at all the different versions here and compare the very first one with more recent versions.

Blockbuster drugs earn pharmaceutical companies billions and billions in pure profit and so the ‘reputation’ of a drug is carefully built and jealously protected.

The truth doesn’t get a look in.

This can also be true of the clinical trials that the drug companies use to get their licences in the first place – perhaps you didn’t know that the drug trials that don’t produce the ‘right’ results (ie positive) for a drug are simply hidden or the trial is abandoned.

Bad results are buried, as there is no law that says drug companies have to submit the data from ALL the trials they undertook. However some trials are needed to submit with licence applications, so sometimes, as in the case of study 329 for Seroxat, the trial is published but the results are misinterpreted in a way that show the drug, Seroxat in this case, to be safe and very effective, when the opposite was actually true.

Anyway, back to the learning module. As I said it reads like something a pharmaceutical company would have written… And then I noticed this line “…This learning module is derived largely from summaries of product characteristics (which, in turn, are based on rigorous evaluation of submitted evidence)….”

And you know who writes the “…summaries of product characteristics…” don’t you?

And you know who submits the evidence [always positive], don’t you?

And you know who undertakes the rigorous evaluation, don’t you?

I think you may have got there ahead of me – the summaries of product characteristics are written by the Marketing Authorisation Holders, who just happen to be… The drug companies… that make the drugs – that rig the trials – that write the PILs – that hide the negative data – that make the billions.

The truth doesn’t get a look in.


8 Responses to “MHRA – too little, too late: once again”

  1. solo49 Says:

    This is good work. One of the many outstanding lies to be found in the below links is the claim that Seroxat restores serotonin levels to ‘normal’, which is the chemical imbalance hoax writ large because no tests are used to define ‘normal’ on any individual basis. From reading the PILS that have successively been crafted over the years, the apparent conduct of their creators is like a person under interrogation who first conceals all of his wickedness but gradually admits his crimes upon the assumption that even if he fully admits them, they will be bound to go unpunished.

    Furthermore, it is no surprise that these medical, pharmaceutical and nursing professionals are being fed this module at the end of their training because by then they will have been thoroughly brainwashed into accepting the ‘medical model’ of mental illness and all the lies, omissions and sense of impunity that goes with it.

  2. Sheila Herd Says:

    I’m gutted about the 4 weeks to withdraw a patient off SSRI’s, what a laugh, it’s taking me about 4 years in total after many failed attempts to come off Lustral over the years, I’m now tapering excrutiatingly slowly off liquid Prozac. This will further reinforce my doctors view that there is something wrong with “me” and not the drug.

  3. annie Says:

    The SSRI learning module is like today’s, non- ultimate pil leaflet.

    And as has been said, what will it look like next time it’s published?

    I know, four weeks to withdraw is the ultimate shaming. If we don’t do it in four weeks then. boy, are we mental cases.

    We are all absolutely and unequivocably incredulous that this ridiculous charade of marketing dangerous drugs with non-evidential criteria has been allowed to go on and on and on…………………… and so say all of us!

  4. Lynn Says:

    A Dr. Joseph Glenmullen has information doctors may accept regarding how long it can take people to get off antidepressants. I have also wondered if the liver cytochrome problem could have something to do with some people’s suffering

  5. solo49 Says:

    Hi Lynn

    Where is that information to be found?

    There seems cause to believe that the good news on
    cytochrome p450 and the activities of enzymes in
    consideration of epigenetic and ‘behavioural’ factors will
    doubtless be that the drug companies minimise and
    perhaps disown their one size fits all chemical imbalance

    But the bad news is likely to be that, pharma’s ‘justification’
    (and don’t they all sing from the same song sheet?) for
    pushing mind altering drugs and even food additives may
    in future involve more invasive genetic experimentation upon
    individuals and use of far fetched ‘epigenical’ language that
    only so called ‘experts’ may be able to understand.

    The ‘expert’ lie and go along to get along assumption on the
    part of ‘trained’ personnel to the effect that people can quit
    seroxat in 4 weeks, provides no plausible basis upon which
    pharma might in future be trusted and I see no reason why
    people should continue to become guinea pigs cum psych
    victims so that pharma can continue to make heaps of dosh
    even as they continue to search for more sophisticated ways
    to hoodwink people.

  6. solo49 Says:

    Lynn, Can you point to where in particular Dr. Joseph Glenmullen might be showing support for citochrome testing or other genetic experimentation for people who may either want to take antidepressants or who may have cause to suspect they are suffering more than others in the process of withdrawing from them?

    • Lynn Says:

      I’m sorry. I didn’t compose my first post correctly. Those two sentences should have been two paragraphs. I am not aware of Dr. Glenmullen talking about the cytochrome thing. He wrote a book to guide people who are having trouble withdrawing from antidepressants. I am sorry I was not clear. The Mayo clinic link has the information regarding cytochrome testing.

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: