What will be the long term effects of taking Seroxat…?

I wrote this 10 years ago… Still no answers

seroxat secrets...

I often wonder this… what’ll happen 10 or 20 years down the line…?

When I look back on my time on Seroxat, with hindsight I can see the terrible harm it did me then. I can see how it slowly changed ME – the person I was, the person I am… it made me someone different. That is scary. It harmed me physically as well while I was taking it, but at the time none of my illnesses were connected to Seroxat by Doctors.

As for withdrawal, that hit me quite badly. My memories are not clear at all, but I kept a diary during that time and it makes for frightening reading. I don’t pour over it but sometimes I’ll have a look and be instantly transported back in time. But that’s not what I want to talk about.

I’m thinking about the future.

In 2007, I hope that…

View original post 126 more words

2016…

Happy new year to you all – here’s to a big 2016… and who knows what might happen in the next 12 months!

As ever, this time of the year prompts one to reflect on the past – and also to think about the future – and generally just have a bit of a ramble which is what this is.

I don’t really use Facebook very much but I have seen a group there – Paroxetine Paxil Seroxat Withdrawal – which seems to be a very supportive community and I would suggest you take a look if you haven’t already.

Two things stood out for me while reading the posts on the group’s page.

Firstly, it really is beyond belief that Doctors are STILL prescribing Seroxat/Paxil in 2016. Surely by now, Docs around the world should be aware of all the problems surrounding Seroxat. Glaxo’s manipulation of the drug trials and the way the company hid negative data is no longer a secret – have a look here  and here

Secondly, it seems that healthcare ‘professionals’ have little or no idea how to advise the best way to withdraw from Seroxat. Again, in 2016, there is no excuse for this – neither is there an excuse for any Doctor to deny that patients may well suffer from terrible problems when they try to stop taking Seroxat.

Of course, Glaxo has (in)famously never offered any kind of meaningful withdrawal advice – to do so would be an admission that there is a huge problem with Seroxat… and that would would be bad for business. And we can’t have that, can we?

When I withdrew, I used the 10% rule (and liquid Seroxat) – I never reduced by more than 10% of my current dose and I stabilised for a long time between reductions, waiting until I felt strong enough to try the next reduction. I never put any time limit on the process, rather kept telling myself at least I was moving forward, no matter how slowly. It took me 22 months to stop completely and then a few years

I’ve been writing this blog for quite a while now, so apologies as I’ve just noticed some links in my posts have ‘died’ over the course of the years – I still like to think there’s a lot of good info available here on Seroxat Secrets.

So, deep breath, here we go – it’s another year coming up!

How addictive is Seroxat?

All this talk about Seroxat addiction and withdrawal reminded me of a post that I wrote back in 2007… I think it would be very interesting to see the data from the studies that Dr Wheadon spoke about while under oath in California.

Especially given what we now know about the lies GSK told about Study 329.

seroxat secrets...

You might think that after all the years of doctors and patients all around the world saying Seroxat is highly addictive – oops, sorry, causes dependence and severe withdrawal reactions – that Glaxo would simply undertake the definitive study to prove us all wrong and to show the world once and for all really how safe and non-addictive Seroxat is…

Well, the truth is Glaxo could have done this years ago but it has not. Why? I leave that simple question to you to answer.

In fact, the official Paxil prescribing information (produced by Glaxo, current version) confirms this by saying:

DRUG ABUSE AND DEPENDENCE
Controlled Substance Class: PAXIL is not a controlled substance.
Physical and Psychologic Dependence: PAXIL has not been systematically studied in animals or humans for its potential for abuse, tolerance or physical dependence…

Again, I ask Glaxo why have no systematic studies been done? Why not…

View original post 356 more words

Fortitude Law & the Seroxat Group Action in the UK

It’s been going on far too long – and it’s not over yet.

I’m talking about the High Court action against GlaxoSmithKline that is being taken by a group of UK patients who are determined to finally have their day in court confronting GlaxoSmithKline.

It’s a long story and goes back 10 years or more. It’s also a complicated story and one which I am sure will be told in full one day.

You can find the full details of the Seroxat Group Action here at the Fortitude Law website:

Following the halt of the Seroxat Group Action in 2010 when public funding was withdrawn, Claimants determined to continue with their claims for compensation have turned to Fortitude Law. We are now set to return to Court and confront GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Ltd. with evidence of the harm they suffered as a consequence of having become dependent upon the antidepressant, Seroxat. Fortitude Law is working with Counsel Jacqueline Perry QC and Niazi Fetto, 2 Temple Garden Chambers, London to represent 105 Claimants in their High Court claims.

Patients were reassured by their GPs that unlike other antidepressants, they would be able to stop taking Seroxat whenever they wanted. Instead, over 6,000 individuals advised their GPs that each time they reduced their dose they suffered bizarre and debilitating symptoms not previously experienced. These symptoms often included impulsive suicidal thoughts, thoughts of self harm and uncharacteristic aggressive behavior. Their withdrawal symptoms were so severe that the only way they could be avoided was to return to their previous daily dose. 

To see the genesis of this litigation, which first commenced with the BBC’s Panorama Programme ‘Secrets of Seroxat’ first shown in 2002, visit news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/2310197.stm

 

What I believe – 2

I’m reposting this for a couple of reasons – the first is that I haven’t written anything for a while (that’s an understatement!) and secondly, if that’s going to be the case again, I think this is the perfect post to greet anyone who may arrive here for the first time.

It still amazes me that people are still being prescribed Seroxat in 2015 – and also that so many Doctors still seem to be ignorant about the possible problems that many patients can have when the try and withdraw from this drug. That’s not to mention the problems associated with long-term use of Seroxat.

Glaxo thinks it’s all gone away…

seroxat secrets...

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 Seroxat is addictive.

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

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 doctors have taken large sums of money from Glaxo to lie about the efficacy and safety of the drug.

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.

Believe me – I know what I’m talking about.

View original post

What I believe

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 Seroxat is addictive.

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

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 doctors have taken large sums of money from Glaxo to lie about the efficacy and safety of the drug.

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.

Believe me – I know what I’m talking about.

The Antidepressant Era: the movie

No apologies here, this article (and videos) have been lifted straight from David Healy’s excellent website.

It’s important that as many people as possible have the chance to read the piece and take time to watch the film.

As far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, I can tell you from first hand experience that the industry still believes in its own hype… do more, feel better and live longer is Glaxo’s strapline and no one in that company thinks there’s even a hint of irony in that.

Now for Dr Healy’s piece:

The Antidepressant Era: the movie

The Antidepressant Era was written in 1995, and first published in 1997. A paperback came out in 1999. It was close to universally welcomed – see reviews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 . It was favorably received by reviewers from the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps because it made clear that this branch of medical history had not been shaped by great men or great institutions but that other players, company people, had been at least as important.

Nobody objected to it, perhaps because at this point I had not agreed to be an expert witness in a pharmaceutical induced injury case. There were likely no PR companies who had a brief to manage Healy. I knew before The Creation of Psychopharmacology came out in 2002 that the response to it would be very different.

Disease Mongering & the Myth of Lowered Serotonin

Many of the ideas in The Antidepressant Era had appeared earlier. The idea that a lowering of serotonin (chapter 5) was a marketing myth and had nothing to do with science, first appeared in my doctoral thesis in 1985, and later in Psychopharmacological Revolutions in 1987. The idea that companies market diseases as a way of marketing medicines (chapter 6) first appeared in 1990 in Notes toward a History and The Marketing of 5HT.

The Antidepressant Era in turn contained many of the elements of Pharmageddon – the key role of the 1962 amendments to the Food and Drugs Act which, through product patents, prescription-only status for new drugs and the role of clinical trials, have created modern healthcare.

Is Valium a better drug than Prozac?

In 2000 I was approached by Duncan Dallas, an independent television producer from Leeds who wanted to do something critical on the antidepressants. Prozac was still at this point widely seen as a miracle of modern medicine, rather than an inferior drug to older antidepressants. Bioethicists and social scientists were still lining up to herald the creation of the New Man through modern genetics and modern psychotropic drugs.

Saying that what we were witnessing was a triumph of modern marketing rather than modern science caused a frisson in most circles. There were no natural allies – not in psychopharmacology or biological psychiatry but not in social science circles either.

But this is what Duncan wanted. The Antidepressant Era, the movie, opens with some of the hype around SSRIs, has astonishing footage of Roland Kuhn and Alan Broadhurst, two of the key people behind the discovery of imipramine, and outlines the overthrow of the benzodiazepines and their replacement by antidepressants.

It shows how rating scales and screening are used in psychiatry to create problems for which a drug becomes the answer.  It was the first program to wheel on stage the marketing men who created the social anxiety campaigns that sold Paxil, and it outlined the role of DSM III in the creation of depression.

Duncan’s version has a wonderful artistry. The book opens with a quote from George Oppen’s The Skyscraper. The “movie” closes with the same quote.

The Building of the Skyscraper

The steelworker on the girder
Learned not to look down, and does his work
And there are words we have learned
Not to look at,
Not to look for substance
Below them. But we are on the verge
Of Vertigo.

There are words that mean nothing
But there is something to mean.
Not a declaration which is truth
But a thing
Which is ..

Oh, the tree, growing from the sidewalk –
It has a little life, sprouting
Little green buds
Into the culture of the streets.
We look back
Three hundred years and see bare land.
And suffer vertigo.

Downfall – Adolf  Who? 

Its central moment is an astonishing sequence featuring the then President of Hoffman-la-Roche, Adolf Jann, embarking on a rant that looks now like an uncanny forerunner of the famous Adolf Hitler rant in the movie Downfall. The rant that launched a thousand You-Tubes. Adolf Jahn thumps his fist on the table, voice rising, as he angrily tells an interviewer in effect “You – none of you – can do without us – just try”. See section at 20 minutes 50 seconds to 22 minutes.

There is nothing specific to Jann or Roche here. This was and is the common credo of the pharmaceutical industry. This is what the CEOs of GSK, Pfizer, Merck and Lilly are saying to governments today. Healthcare is not sustainable unless we develop drugs that get people well so they aren’t a burden on the State, and if healthcare is not sustainable democracy may not be either. Facilitate us or society as you know it goes down the drain.

It would be a mistake to see this as a horrible modern manifestation of rapacious capitalism. Socialists from George Bernard Shaw in the early twentieth century onwards have turned to biology as an answer to social problems. If we cannot get mankind to agree to change for the better, perhaps we can improve on mankind. This belief powered the efforts of governments to eliminate the unfit from the late nineteenth century through to the eugenics movement and underpins some of our hopes for the New Genetics.

Eugenics looks terrible in retrospect while modern genetics looks like our only hope – but the same impulse underpins both.  There is no better example of what good history is about than this. Anyone writing the history of eugenics should really portray its prime movers in the same light as we now portray the heroes of the the Human Genome Project.

We should always remember that the nominees for the 1937 Nobel Peace Prize included both Gandhi and Hitler. There was a time when one looked at least as likely as the other to contribute to modern civilization.

Revolution’s Little Helper

The same dynamic made Valium look like a very dark drug in 2000 – so that even its name was withdrawn. Prozac in contrast looked like the gateway to the hoped for shiny uplands of the future, when by the mid-1990s Prozac should have been seen as a far darker drug than Valium.

Valium entered a world in which psychiatry in many ways led medicine as it had done for almost a hundred years. Psychiatry was the first branch of medicine to have specialist hospitals and specialist journals. And Valium really did work remarkably well. Far from being simply a superficial treatment it likely led to the disappearance of catatonia and saved a lot of lives.

Valium probably did a lot to stimulate the Revolution of 1968. The conventional wisdom now is that Valium was Mother’s Little Helper and in this role that it played a part in the imprisonment of women in suburbia. In fact, Valium and other benzodiazepines undo conditioned avoidance. They were advertised initially as being among other things useful for salesmen – to overcome their inhibitions. They almost certainly disinhibited many women to speak out against patriarchy. They helped students breach the double-binds that Ronnie Laing and others in the 1960s were preaching were holding back society.

Prozac and the SSRIs in contrast far more often produce an apathy that is destructive to engagement in society as Who Cares in Sweden shows.  Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Efexor, Pristiq, and Cymbalta are far more likely to lead to suicide and murderous violence including school shootings than Valium ever did. And the SSRIs lead to just as many cases of dependence as the benzos ever did.

Tamiflu – PharMessiah?

Are we incapable of learning? Will we always be seduced by the latest PharMessiah?

The Antidepressant Era, the movie, contains an extraordinary comment on just this that no one could have foreseen when it was finished in 2001. It almost looks like the Scriptwriter in the Sky must have inserted the clip of Adolf Jahn telling us that if we don’t facilitate him and Roche society will collapse. We can only afford to keep our economy and society going if he and his company are let develop new drugs.

Well Roche got to develop Tamiflu. Where Valium was the headline drug in the 1980s for the problems a rampant pharmaceutical industry might pose, Tamiflu is now. Governments throughout the Western world stockpiled billions of dollars worth of Tamiflu on the promise that it would prevent the transmission of influenza and other viruses, and would either keep people in work or get them back to work faster, thus saving our economies huge amounts of money.

Except the drug now appears to be close to worthless and to have always been so. It seems that the impression that Tamiflu might help could only have been created because companies can hide the existence of many and in some cases most of their clinical trials and hide the data from all of them, ghostwriting the ones that are published in a manner that keeps all data out of the public domain.

Facilitate us too much and we will lead to your Downfall.

%d bloggers like this: