Family double death horror

I’ve just seen this terrible story in the Daily Mirror:

A father is believed to have returned home yesterday evening to find his two young children murdered and his wife with her wrists slit.

Emergency services were called to the home in Wandsworth, south west London, but the 10-week-old baby boy and one-year-old girl were pronounced dead at the scene.

A post mortem is due to take place today although reports have suggested the children showed no signs of injury and may have been smothered.

A woman in her mid-30s, believed to be the man’s wife, was arrested over the deaths and is being questioned by detectives today.

She is understood to have self-harmed but did not require hospital treatment.

Police are believed to be investigating the possibility that the mother was suffering from post-natal depression.

In cases like this, I believe one of the first things to establish is what (if anything) the woman was being treated with for her depression…

The authorities simply must start to take notice about this issue and the public deserves to know if there is a connection between acts of extreme violence and drug treatment – I believe that antidepressants can cause extreme violence.

All too often in the past, it seemed that the only other people in the world who would ever begin to entertain the possibility were people such as Michael Moore and Dr Peter Breggin in the USA – and in England David Healy, Andrew Herxheimer and David B. Menkes, who co-authored a paper on the subject in 2006 – Antidepressants and Violence: Problems at the Interface of Medicine and Law.

If you want more information, then you can read follow up with these links (or just type ‘Violence’ in the search box on the left of your screen:

What made Raoul Moat do it

Nebraska shooting – antidepressant connection yet again?

Lost in translation – were Anti-Depressants Involved In Finland School Massacre?

A brief history of school shootings

The Finland Massacre

SSRI stories

Antidepressants and violence

As I’ve said, there has to be a proper investigation into this issue – and I believe that the drug companies (such as Glaxo) know the problem exists, but have done nothing about it as it would have affected their profits.

 

Glaxo – a simple challenge for you…

It’s been a while since I wrote anything as I’ve been very busy with my day job.

Happily, others have continued to write – I’ve just read a post over at Seroxat Suffers about Glaxo in New Zealand and the Patient Information Leaflet that comes with Aropax (Seroxat).

According to Glaxo (only in New Zealand, though):

Depression is longer lasting or more severe than the low moods that everyone has from time to time. It is thought to be caused by a chemical imbalance in parts of the brain.

AROPAX corrects the chemical imbalance and so helps relieve the symptoms of depression.

Sorry, but I have to throw the gauntlet down to Glaxo on this one… I think in 2012 it’s fair to say that the chemical imbalance story has been discredited completely.

But, Glaxo, if you can tell me what the correct level of Serotonin is in a human brain, then I’ll listen.

If you can measure how much Serotonin I currently have in my brain, then I’ll listen.

If you can then demonstrate how much 20mgs of Seroxat will raise my brain serotonin level by, then I’ll listen.

But the problem is that Glaxo can’t do any of those – the idea of a ‘chemical imbalance’ causing depression – and even the term ‘SSRI’ – was invented by marketing and PR companies, simply to sell a drug.

To use a technical term, it’s complete bollocks.

 

 

If you don’t want to believe me…

I think we all know the internet is overflowing with all kinds of dubious sources of ‘information’ sources.

I’m a patient who suffered greatly at the hands of GlaxoSmithkline and decided to tell my story by creating this blog. As such I freely admit that I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, unbiased.

I see what I do as trying to counter (in some small way) the spin and lies that Glaxo routinely produces every week of the year.

I also hope I may be able to help some people understand what’s happening to them if they are suffering from Seroxat addiction and are trying to withdraw from the drug.

But if you don’t want to believe me, then can I suggest you look at the new blog written by Dr David Healy – Dr Healy being the internationally respected psychiatrist, pyschopharmacologist, scientist and author. I can’t recommend this blog enough. Go there now!

And for the record:

I believe Seroxat is defective and dangerous.

I believe that Glaxo has hidden clinical trial data that shows exactly how dangerous a drug it is.

I believe that something must be done to help people who suffer terrible problems with withdrawal, as they desperately try to stop taking Seroxat.

I believe that Seroxat is addictive.

I believe that Seroxat can cause anger, aggression and violence.

I believe that doctors have taken large sums of money from Glaxo to lie about the efficacy and safety of Seroxat.

I believe that GlaxoSmithKline puts profits before patients – their wealth before our health.

I took Seroxat for 9 years and it took me 22 months to withdraw from the drug little by little.

Maybe you should believe me – I do know what I’m talking about.

Yet more on Ian Hudson and the MHRA

Another old post here about Ian Hudson playing fast and loose with important public health matters – how that man is still in his job in 2012 is beyond me.

Interestingly, I’ve just found this old article from the BMJ, 29 January 2005

Select committee angry over absence of drug regulator from session

London – by Lynn Eaton

Members of the House of Commons select committee on health appeared angry that they were not able to question one of the employees of the United Kingdom’s drug regulatory authority at a session last week looking into the influence of the drug industry.

Although several senior figures from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency attended the session, the committee said that it would also have liked to have heard evidence from Ian Hudson. Dr Hudson is a member of the agency’s executive board and was worldwide director of safety at SmithKline Beecham from 1999 to 2001, having worked for the company since 1989. Dr Hudson joined the agency’s predecessor, the Medicines Control Agency, in January 2001 as director of the licensing division.

MPs wanted to question Dr Hudson about the company’s drug paroxetine (marketed as Seroxat in Britain and as Paxil in the United States). They were particularly interested in evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of the drug in people under the age of 18. In June 2003 the agency advised doctors that patients aged under 18 should not be prescribed the drug.

Committee members were told that Dr Hudson could not attend the session because he was at a London meeting as a representative of the Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use, a part of the European Medicines Evaluation Agency.

“It would have been useful if Dr Hudson had been here, as he was at SmithKline Beecham and his department was responsible [for drug safety],” said Mr John Austin (Labour MP for Erith and Thamesmead).

The agency’s chairman, Alasdair Breckenridge, told MPs he had been a member of the scientific committee of SmithKline Beecham from 1992 to 1997, when he resigned. He fiercely defended his involvement with the committee and denied any knowledge of the issue of the safety and efficacy of paroxetine.

The agency’s chief executive, Kent Woods, also giving evidence to the committee, said that Dr Hudson had assured him he had no direct personal involvement in this safety issue. “However, because of his role in the company [SmithKline Beecham] he doesn’t get involved [in discussions on Seroxat],” said Professor Woods.

Speaking after the meeting, the committee’s chairman, David Hinchliffe, who was clearly angry at the committee’s inability to question Dr Hudson, said his understanding was that Dr Hudson was invited to attend.

However, Professor Woods, also speaking afterwards, said that some discussion with the committee secretariat about who would attend had taken place and that the agency had received a clear statement from the committee about whom it wanted to see, which did not include Dr Hudson.

Professor Woods and Professor Breckenridge also sought to reassure the committee that measures were now being taken by the agency to monitor new drugs more closely. Both reiterated the views of earlier witnesses that the public needed a better understanding of the risks and benefits of all drugs.

Professor Breckenridge admitted that the agency had “suffered from not being professional enough” in its communications. “We are determined to change that,” he said, explaining that the agency has just appointed a communications director.
I hope you noticed the paragraph in bold – “Speaking after the meeting, the committee’s chairman, David Hinchliffe, who was clearly angry at the committee’s inability to question Dr Hudson, said his understanding was that Dr Hudson was invited to attend”.

But what I find strange is that if you want to download this PDF – Witnesses for Thursday.pdf – you’ll see that it appears that Lord Warner (then Health Minister) and David Hincliffe had a phone conversation on the Monday morning before the hearing and agreed exactly who was going to attend from the MHRA… and you will see that Ian Hudson is not mentioned as a witness.

I’m confused – who’s lying then – Lord Warner or David Hinchliffe? and why?

I have emailed my concerns to members of the Committee who were there, asking questions that day, but so far I have been ignored – more than once…


The MHRA, Ian Hudson and the House of Commons

Just to follow on from yesterday’s post about the MHRA and its links to Big Pharma, I thought this might be of interest.

Below is an old post I wrote, specifically about Ian Hudson and the way he avoided giving evidence to the House of Commons select committee – he just didn’t bother to turn up – he said he had a ‘prior engagement’.

How very convenient.

A short while ago, I wrote a post about Dr Ian Hudson. Hudson is currently the MHRA’s Director of Licensing – but the job he had before he joined the agency was at GlaxoSmithKline – he was their Worldwide Director of Safety and we know from his CV that one of the drugs he had “significant involvement with” was, in fact, Seroxat…

In my previous post I bemoaned the fact that Hudson had decided to go elsewhere on the day he was expected to be questioned by the House of Commons Health Select Committee about Seroxat safety and trial data.

The MHRA has been questioned about the secret data that Glaxo kept hidden for more than a decade.

The MHRA replied that they were “confident that neither Professor Breckenridge nor Dr Hudson had prior knowledge of the data discussed in Dr Breggin’s report.”

Does the MHRA really expect us to believe that Glaxo’s Worldwide Director of Safety, who had a “significant involvement in Paroxetine” (Seroxat), did not have full knowledge of ALL the trials and data that appertained to this particular drug?

Does Ian Hudson expect us to believe this?

He was their Worldwide Director of Safety and Seroxat is one of GSK’s biggest ever blockbuster drugs… hmmmm?

This stinks.

The Murdochs and Glaxo – the parallels…

I’ve been following the News International story with great interest. What surprised me today is the news that people think it’s wrong that James Murdoch paid off Gordon Taylor (£700,000 according to some estimates) and  included a gagging order in the agreement to stop the truth from coming out. Of course, Murdoch did this long before the details of the case were in the public domain, so he was spending big in order to try and avoid exactly what’s happening at this very moment.

There seems to be outrgage that someone would do such a thing… well, I’ve got news for you – Glaxo has been doing for years and still does..

Here’s an old post from 2007:

Buying our silence

Buying our silence – that’s what it’s all about when Glaxo opens its cheque book to ‘settle’ litigation. It has nothing to do with putting right a wrong or making sure that patients are not harmed in the future – Glaxo is simply protecting its own interests – while never admitting it did anything wrong.

Glaxo always denies it was in the wrong. “We believe we acted appropriately,” said Glaxo spokesman Mary Ann Rhyne in one case the company settled. “We deny liability. We have taken this action to avoid protracted litigation and the costs associated with that. We haven’t admitted any liability.”

In another case, GlaxoSmithKline once again admitted no wrongdoing as part of another settlement. “We’ve agreed to this settlement to avoid the delay, expense and uncertainty of litigation,” said Mary Anne Rhyne, a company spokeswoman. However, though Glaxo doled out $65 million in this case, it refused to admit guilt. Paragraph 22 of the final Order in that case, dated April 22, 2005 states:

“Neither this Final Order and Judgment, the Settlement Agreement, nor any of its terms or the negotiations or papers related thereto shall constitute evidence or an admission by Defendant, that any acts of wrongdoing have been committed, and they shall not be deemed to create any inference that there is any liability therefore.”

The US government has hit the jackpot with Glaxo. On September 12, 2006, the Huffington Post reported that Glaxo had agreed to pay more than $3 billion to settle charges by the IRS that the company under-reported profits to avoid paying US taxes.

However, here too, in true Glaxo form, the company denied any guilt and said it only paid the $3 billion to settle the case to avoid protracted litigation. That’s $3 billion… but we never did anything wrong!

You can read more about these cases here.

Maybe you see a pattern here – HUGE payouts, but only to avoid protracted litigation.

Yeah, right.

The other common thread in Glaxo’s settlements is the gagging of individuals. The agreements people sign – under subtle but nevertheless very real duress – try to ensure silence.

Typically you will not be free to carry on making public comments about Seroxat or addiction to it. Perhaps you might be forced to take down your website or stop blogging on the subject… perhaps you will not be allowed to talk about withdrawal from the drug in public… basically you’re paid to go away and shut up.

Importantly, you’re NOT paid anything for all the suffering and harm you have experienced – you’re simply paid to go away and shut up. These agreements are all about protecting companies like Glaxo – rather than trying to help injured patients. And then to rub salt into the wound Glaxo asks the court to seal any incriminating documents – it doesn’t work every time though.

What I can’t see is why Glaxo, if they really have nothing to hide, can’t settle with people but NOT gag them – why should a payout from Glaxo be dependent upon our silence… what kind of warped quid pro quo are we talking about here.

This leaves just one question: Alastair Benbow takes money from Glaxo – why can’t he be made to shut up?!

Explaining the rise in antidepressant prescribing… or not?

Ben Goldacre pointed out this new research in the BMJExplaining the rise in antidepressant prescribing.

It seems the research shows that the rise in antidepressant prescribing is nothing to do with new prescriptions, rather it’s due to more people being on the drugs for longer “The rise in antidepressant prescribing is mainly explained by small changes in the proportion of patients receiving long term treatment.” [It should be noted that the research is 5 years out of date already as the years covered are 1993 – 2005].

Hmmmm.

If that’s the case, I wonder if any research has been done into possible harm due to long-term SSRI use – by Glaxo maybe? Or Pfizer perhaps?

I wonder if patients find, when they try to stop taking SSRIs, they can’t because they have become addicted to the drug?

From the research: “…A key question remains: if the changes in antidepressant prescribing are accounted for by changes in the proportions of those in receipt of long term prescriptions, does this represent appropriate prescribing for those with chronic and relapsing disease according to current guidance or does it arise from a failure to discontinue antidepressants in those with milder illness, or both?…”

But no mention of addiction.

A very important point to be made here is that all too often, SSRI withdrawal symptoms are wrongly diagnosed by doctors as the underlying disease returning – so they simply put the patient back onto the SSRI.

From the research again: “Antidepressant prescribing is much higher compared with 10 years ago. This increase is not because of an increase in the incidence of new cases of depression, a lower threshold for treatment, an increase in the proportion of new cases of depression for whom antidepressants are prescribed, or an increase in the duration of the prescriptions written for new cases of depression. Rather, the dramatic changes in antidepressant prescribing volumes between 1993 and 2005 seem to be largely because more patients are on long term medication and this group consumes the most drugs. In order to better understand the rise in antidepressant prescribing, research needs to focus on chronic prescribing and policy needs to focus on encouraging appropriate high quality monitoring and review of those patients who become established on long term prescriptions.”

And still no mention of addiction…

It seems to me that the researchers need to see beyond the simple pattern of prescribing and look to the real reasons behind the long term use of SSRIs.

Posted in Glaxo, SSRI. 1 Comment »
Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 90 other followers

%d bloggers like this: