Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

Wednesday, August 24, 2016

MDMA (Ecstasy) Vs Antidepressants

A recent article regarding MDMA (Ecstasy) from the BBC Newsbeat team had me drawing comparisons with antidepressants (SSRIs).

According to  researcher,  Professor Philip Murphy, "ecstasy is causing more mental issues." Adding that he "is worried that increasingly strong ecstasy will harm users ability to remember things efficiently."

Murphy goes on to say that ...

"The danger is much greater now than it was in the late 1990's The risk now of young people using stronger ecstasy is higher in terms of being able to regulate emotion and your ability to think clearly."

For a nanosecond I thought Murphy was talking about antidepressant use.

Let's just take a look at his findings and compare them with findings to popular antidepressants that, remember, have been granted a licence for use.

Ecstasy health risks
It can make you anxious, frightened and paranoid
It tightens your jaw muscles and can make you gurn
It raises your heart rate
Long-term use can cause depression, heart disease and liver and kidney damage.

Now, lets look at the risks associated with antidepressants.

SSRI health risks
Moodiness, anxiety, crying, nervousness, restlessness.
Grinding your teeth, especially at night.
Rapid heart rate.
Long term use may cause Depersonalization, liver damage. Antidepressant use has also been linked to thicker arteries, which could contribute to the risk of heart disease and stroke.

These are just a handful of risk with SSRI's - Compare the two lists and ask yourself why one drug is legal and the other isn't.

Ironically, MDMA was first synthesized by Merck Pharmaceuticals in Germany in 1912.

Let's go back to the researcher, Professor Philip Murphy.

Professor Philip Murphy has been researching the drug for nearly 20 years and says he's worried about the supply currently on the market.

"The danger is much greater now than it was in the late 1990s," he says.

Again, one can associate this statement with antidepressants given that sales since the 1990's have shot through the roof as Dr's prescribe them for everyday problems ranging from marital issues to grieving the death of a cat.

Parents will obviously be concerned at the growing use of ecstasy in the UK. Those same parents should also heed the dangerous side effects of antidepressants, a list of which is considerably bigger than ecstasy.

It's also rather bizarre that coroners will thoroughly investigate claims that ecstasy can induce suicide yet rarely do when carrying out inquests on people who have killed themselves whilst on an antidepressant. One such inquest was that of  Ben Stollery who, at the age of 18, took ecstasy. He was found hanged by a river bank near a canoe club. A toxicologist who found traces of MDMA in the teenager's blood, saying the teen may have suffering the effects of "Suicide Tuesday", a term used for people who use recreational drugs on a Saturday then kill themselves when they fully come down from the high the following Tuesday.

The toxicologist, after a verdict of suicide was returned, said,  "On the balance of probabilities, I do believe his state of mind was influenced by MDMA and the comedown part of this drug."

For a concise list of coroner inquests where antidepressant use has been mentioned but not investigated by the coroner go to antidepaware website here.

The benefits of using ecstasy has been described by some users as giving them a high and making them feel overwhelming empathy.

I recently wrote to both the British and European drug regulators (MHRA and EMA) and asked them to list the benefits of taking an SSRI. Once I get a response I will post on here.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this - many a true word spoken in jest.

Contains profanity.

Bob Fiddaman.

Monday, August 22, 2016

David Brent: Prozac

As a writer of all things pharmaceutical it was good to see Ricky Gervais include the side effects of the antidepressant Prozac in his latest movie, David Brent: Life on the Road.

It was a subtle line but one I picked up on (given the nature of the work I do) - Brent, Ricky Gervais' comic creation, took Prozac and became addicted to it, it also made him gain weight. Fantastic to see Gervais highlight this, even if it was lost amongst his many other one-liners that were, at times, cringe worthy.

There's even a scene where Brent pays a visit to his therapist, being oh-so careful with what he says to her (probably because he doesn't want to be labelled and drugged again)

David Brent has moved on from Wernham Hogg, he's no longer boss, although he does claim to be his own boss - he's still totally un-PC, he's still unaware that he's totally un-PC.

We see the introduction into his life-long ambition - hitting the road with a makeshift band, Forgone Conclusion - all in it for the money with the exception of wannabe rapper Dom Johnson, played brilliantly by Doc Brown - He's black by the way, something that Brent explains when introducing him to his manager back at the office, where incidentally he has his own parking space (I won't spoil the subtle panning of the camera that reveals the parking space names)

I sat in darkness watching the 96 minute movie. There was times when I felt guilty for laughing at the handicapped and racist lines but they are what made Brent, Brent. He's awkward to have around because you just don't know what he's going to say next or, more importantly, who he is going to offend next.

He's a lovable dreamer who, unlike too many people, actually chases his dreams - for that you have to stand up and salute him.

David Brent is a fictional character yet we all know someone like him - It's the delivery of Gervais that makes Brent such an appealing character - or rather the pauses and facial expressions. Comedy, at times, is best delivered with those moments of silence, something Gervais has mastered the art of.

Brent is a tragic character yet he is someone that we can't live without - he reminds us of how we all, deep down, want to be loved and how we, at times, miss what's going on around us in search of our dreams.

The songs played by Forgone Conclusion, with Brent on lead vocals, are hideously embarrassing, they would be, given that Brent penned the lyrics. If there were a cushion in the cinema I would have put it in front of my face for the song, or rather the lyrics, he chose to perform about the "handicapped" - The introduction of which was uncomfortable, given that there was a guy in a wheelchair in the sparse audience.

David Brent is still wanting to be loved - he's still a chilled out entertainer.

He's still annoyingly funny and for 96 minutes he made me forget about the real world that I find myself submersed in on a daily basis.

I'd have a beer with him any day of the week. (And I wouldn't need paying)

Catch David Brent: Life on the Road when you can ~ Keep repeating, "It's only a movie, it's only a movie..."

Bob Fiddaman

Tuesday, August 16, 2016

Antidepressants Saved My Life

Following on from yesterday's blog post, Antidepressants: The Apathy and Ignorance, I have another issue that needs addressing.

There's many people who add comments to Twitter, Facebook and media article threads regarding the dangers of antidepressants. I've seen comments that suggest the authors of the said pieces are scaremongering or are irresponsible for making claims that antidepressants can induce psychosis that can, in turn, lead to acts of suicide and homicide.

The best is the comment used by many, "Antidepressants saved my life."


The issue I have with this is that, to date, there is no scientific evidence of this claim yet when you ask those who write about their lives being saved by antidepressants if they can back up their claims the only evidence they will use is along the lines of, "Yeh, take me as an example - I wouldn't be here today if it wasn't for Prozac, Seroxat, Zoloft etc".

That's the science behind their claim?

It's no more convincing than claiming that Jesus saved your life. It's a personal belief and not backed by any study by the pharmaceutical industry.

Here's the rub...

There are, however, studies that show antidepressants increase suicidal thinking yet these are, in the main, brushed aside by those who make claims that their lives were saved. Even the warning leaflets that accompany these pills warn of an increase in suicidal thinking - but guess what? There are no claims on these leaflets that the medication will 'save lives.'

Powerful marketing and an ignorant and apathetic public will claim that all medications have side effects but they are missing the point.

FACT: Antidepressants do not save lives, to suggest that they do is irresponsible.

Next time you see these claims, feel free to add the picture (below) - I designed it myself using a Google image I grabbed.

No doubt those who make these wild claims will take umbrage and may even suggest you are scaremongering and stopping people from taking their medication - almost every article, if not all, in the media usually carry some sort of disclaimer after running stories about antidepressant induced suicide/homicide. Do not abruptly stop your medication, they tell us, followed by, "Talk to your doctor."

Your doctor will no doubt tell you to ignore the conspiracy theorists - Just ask him for the proof that antidepressants save lives, the actual studies and not patient claims.

Watch him/her squirm and fob you off with silliness. Then ask him/her for the studies that show that antidepressants increase suicidal thinking.

You'll probably be escorted out of the building.

Bob Fiddaman

Monday, August 15, 2016

Antidepressants: The Apathy and Ignorance

A few weeks ago a guest post on David Healy's blog prompted a reply from me. The post, eloquently written by Sally MacGregor, was, in essence, a discussion about convincing the people whose attitudes toward antidepressant induced psychosis is, at best, apathetic.

I've experienced this many times, particularly on social media where people, or friends from yesteryear (that we don't see anymore) would rather post a photo of a cute kitten or puppy then disseminate information about antidepressants causing kids to kill themselves or women having to abort fetuses because of antidepressant induced birth defects.

I see it on a daily basis in comment sections of newspapers too, one in particular caught my attention.

It's from The Independent and the author of the piece is Katinka Blackford Newman who recently launched her new book, The Pill That Steals Lives: One Woman's Terrifying Journey to Discover the Truth about Antidepressants.

Katinka's post, featured in, The Independent, throws out the question of recent acts of violence and she, quite rightly, asks if these recent spate of attacks across Europe may be down to psychiatric medication.

The response in the comment section was typical of the apathy and ignorance that accompanies such questions.

One commentator, who clearly misses the point, writes...

"Do the independent trawl the world looking for loonies who can fill a few columns with their farcical after day I despair at how far this paper has fallen."

Another, somewhat more articulated response than the above commentator, writes...

"This is pretty irresponsible! A very tiny minority of people who take these drugs ever have a psychotic break. 

"Correlation is not causation. And I think the author is thoroughly confused about this. 

"It's bad enough to have a mental illness and experiencing the stigma without stories like this in the news: now the medicine is going to make us into mass murderers? Please. "

There's many more.

So, it's left to the choir once again to try to convince the ignorant and apathetic that they are not armed with all the facts and such negative responses to an article, whether they believe it to be true or not, really doesn't solve anything.

It left me wondering how many of these commentators actually go off and do their own research before leaving such comments - it reminds me of the scene from the movie, Dumb & Dumber where Lloyd Christmas, played by Jim Carey, covers his ears because he just does not want to take on board what his friend, Harry Dunne, played by Jeff Daniel's, is telling him.

These same commentators should be asked the question, What's the difference between ignorance and apathy?

Then again, they'd probably answer, I don't know and I don't care.

The comments left in the Independent article remind me so much of that scene from Dumb & Dumber, so much so that it's left a burning image with me for the rest of the night.

Bob Fiddaman.

Wednesday, August 10, 2016

A Week of Madness

The following needs few words. It's a post, one of my first, where I shall just use photos and link to the original stories.

Enjoy these rib tickling attempts at defining how depression and other psychiatric illnesses are diagnosed. Moreover, how the drugs used to treat these apparent illnesses, work.

1. The Priory Group prescribes “medication to restore the chemical imbalance in your brain’s limbic system” 

2. "Chemical properties of these drugs (SSRI’s) are restoring resilience in the brain."

3. Eye test gives flicker of hope to psychiatric patients

Talk about moving the goalposts!

Bob Fiddaman

Tuesday, August 09, 2016

2012 Sierre Bus Crash - Further MHRA Correspondence

Last month I wrote to both the British and European drug regulators regarding recent evidence that has surfaced in Douglas De Coninck's book, De busramp in Sierre: 1 Pill, 28 Dead. In short, the book centres around the 2012 bus crash that happened in the Sierre Tunnel, A9 Autobahn, Valais, Switzerland and alleges that the driver, Geert Michiels, 34, was in a destructive relationship and had also been medicated with GlaxoSmithKline's Seroxat. The generic name for Seroxat is paroxetine and it is better known in the US and Canada by its brand name Paxil and in Australia and New Zealand as Aropax.

My email to both medicine regulators can be read here (Email to Medicine Regulators Regarding 2012 Sierre Bus Crash)

The MHRA have now replied. As yet I have still not received a reply from the European regulator.

The MHRA reply is below ~ My follow-up questions follow the two page MHRA letter.

Click image to enlarge.

My reply to their response...

Dear MHRA,

Thank you for your recent correspondence.

I have some follow on questions that may or may not be deemed to fall under the Freedom of Information Act. If they do, then please treat them as such.

The study you refer to in your last correspondence with me, 'Suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment: systematic review and meta-analyses based on clinical study reports' showed that a number of clinical study reports were used of a wide range of antidepressants, one of which was fluoxetine. These reports, according to the published paper, were obtained from European and UK drug regulators.

Q1: You claim in your letter sent to me, ref GENQ-00113734, that Sharma's findings were "consistent with the outcome of previous regulatory reviews."
Given that fluoxetine was one of the antidepressants used in the Sharma study, do you still maintain that it is a safe and effective treatment for use in adolescents?

Q2: In the third paragraph of the letter you sent me you state, "With regards to your comments on the Yellow Card Scheme, this is a national scheme that collects reports for reactions occurring in the UK and therefore we cannot complete a report based on the book reference you have provided; De busramp in Sierre: 1 Pill, 28 Dead. As part of their pharmacovigilance responsibilities however Marketing Authorisation Holders are expected to monitor medical and scientific literature which discusses potential side effects to their products and to report these to the relevant national competent authorities as appropriate."

Now that you have been made aware of the De busramp in Sierre: 1 Pill, 28 Dead book, will you, as a regulator, be making any efforts to contact the Marketing Authorisation Holders regarding the findings of the author?

Q3: In Sharma's study the authors state that they had "only partial access to appendices with no access to case report forms, the harms could not be estimated accurately."

Based on this statement, have the MHRA or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency had complete access to all appendices and case report forms?

If yes, could you please forward me all appendices and case report forms that Sharma et al never had access to.

If no, can you explain how a safety review panel (MHRA or the Pharmacovigilance Risk Assessment Committee (PRAC) of the European Medicines Agency) can make an accurate decision when appendices and case report forms are missing.

Bob Fiddaman.

Related stories.

Did Seroxat Trigger the Fatal Sierre 2012 Bus Crash?

Sierre Bus Crash Revisited

Email to Medicine Regulators Regarding 2012 Sierre Bus Crash

Thursday, August 04, 2016

Monsanto's Roundup - Cancer Link Grows

I very rarely report on lawsuits outside of the pharmaceutical industry. But here's one that caught my attention. More so because the word 'Monsanto' regularly appears in my timeline on Facebook.

Who or what is Monsanto?

Monsanto is an American multinational agrochemical and agricultural biotechnology corporation. According to their website they deliver agricultural products that support farmers all around the world. Moreover, they claim, "Monsanto could not exist without farmers. They are our customers, the lifeblood of our company. More important, they are the support system of the world's economy, working day in and day out to feed, clothe and provide energy for our world."

Nice sentiments.

One of the products they sell is a herbicide called RoundUp, basically it's a weed killer that contains the active ingredient glyphosate. RoundUp is used by many farmers and your average householder.

Here's where Monsanto may not be supporting their farmers.

Lawsuits have been filed across the US alleging that Monsanto has known about the link between glyphosate and cancer since the 1980's but failed to inform the public about the danger. The one thing that caught my attention from the Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman press release is that Monsanto are denying that there is any link between Roundup and cancer.

The cancer link stems from a 2015 report from the International Agency for Research on cancer - or IARC - a division of the World Health Organization. It found glyphosate to be "probably carcinogenic." The report says glyphosate caused cancer in lab tests on animals and found that the chemical damaged DNA in human cells.

Monsanto, however, disagree with the findings and claim they have carried out their own tests and found no link between the active ingredient of RoundUp and cancer.

To date, 26 Roundup lawsuits have been filed across the US by 12 different law firms, A further 200 may follow as Monsanto's motions for dismissal have, in some instances, been denied. (1)

Due to the mounting scientific evidence indicating that glyphosate is a carcinogen, numerous countries have elected to restrict or ban glyphosate, including Roundup.

On December 26, 2015, Californian farmer, Jack McCall passed away after suffering a massive stroke due to complications from a rare version of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. His wife, Teri, has now has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto, claiming exposure to Roundup caused her late husband to develop cancer. (2)

More about Jack McCall and further information regarding RoundUp lawsuits can be found here.

Maybe Monsanto need to take a good look at their labelling and add that RoundUp not only kills weeds and roots... but humans too.

Bob Fiddaman

(1) Mother-of-Three Sues Monsanto Claiming Roundup Caused Her Cancer
(2) What Killed Jack McCall? A California Farmer Dies and a Case Against Monsanto Takes Root.

Wednesday, August 03, 2016

Glaxo's Beef With David Healy Part II

Following on from Glaxo's Beef With David Healy, which I wrote about back in October 2015.

Back story.

In summary, Wendy Dolin has filed a suit against Paxil (Seroxat) manufacturers, GSK, alleging that Paxil caused the suicide of her husband, Stewart. Since filing Wendy has been subject to GSK's defence lawyers subpoenaing her cellphone and text message records, her home phone and her late husband's company phone. King & Spalding, GSK's defence team, have also asked Wendy about her love life and shown the private medical notes of her later husband to her children.

Not content with targeting a grieving wife, GSK have also singled out David Healy, an expert called by Dolin in the case against GSK.

In short, they have claimed that Healy should not be allowed to give evidence in the trial, he's not credible, he has a bias, he's telling people to go out and kill.

It's all hot air, much of which has been cherry-picked from Healy's blog and, in some instances misquoted and misguided - for example GSK's highly paid law team, who must have combed through Healy's blog by borrowing their client's rat-infested flea comb have claimed Healy has said things when in actual fact he hasn't, it's been comments left by others on Healy's blog - so much for crossing the T's and dotting the i's, huh?

Anyway, you get the gist, right?

GSK target the person filing the suit against them then, after failing, they then target that person's expert witness. You just have to love how King & Spalding operate at times.

Well, they failed in getting Healy's testimony thrown out. In fact, they wanted all four of Dolin's witnesses to not have their testimony's aired.

 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.”

One would have thought that was that - but remember, we are dealing here with a pharmaceutical company (and their attorneys) who will try everything in the book when the defence of Paxil becomes so weak.


In 2013 Healy found himself under the spotlight after a patient in his care suicided. This event spurned a review by Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (BCUHB) who, for reasons not known, hired an external consulting Psychiatrist, Dr. Robert Higgo to take a role in the review process.

The review, according to Healy, was meant to examine the circumstances surrounding the incident. Higgo, in his review, accused Healy of misconduct.and submitted his findings to the BCUHB.

In response to Higgo's allegations the BCUHB...

(1) initiated an internal investigation to examine the allegations


(2) sent a referral to the GMC to explore whether there was any misconduct that would raise concern about Dr. Healy’s fitness to practice medicine.

To cut a long story short, Healy was exonerated by the GMC. They concluded...

"As Dr. Healy had stated from the very beginning, that Dr. Higgo’s report was unfounded and that Dr. Healy did not engage in any conduct putting his fitness to practice medicine into question."

So, Healy was cleared. Here's where it gets interesting.

While in America, Healy was tracked down by attorneys who served him with a subpoena, the gist of which was that he should produce all documents concerning the BCUHB and GMC investigations.

No guessing who those attorneys were.

Healy refused, citing that it would jeopardise his employment as a physician and documents that were deemed privileged and confidential by BCUHB.

GSK then filed a motion to the court, basically demanding that Healy produce the documents.

The court asked to see the document in chambers (ie; just them and not GSK) so they could make a decision as to whether these documents were relevant to the Dolin case, moreover, relevant to GSK's argument that Healy's testimony in the Dolin case should be heard.

Healy handed over the documents to the court in July last year.

It was during the courts review of these documents that GSK filed motions for Healy to be dismissed as an expert witness - as previously mentioned, the court denied them this.

But, on and on they go. GSK now wish to conduct a hearing with Healy before the Dolin trial date of January 2017. Dolin, via her attorney, Brent Wisner of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, sent another letter to GSK indicating that...

“ light of the recent ruling by the General Medical Council (“GMC”) clearing Dr. Healy of wrongdoing, this proceeding is no longer necessary or relevant.” 

Furthermore, plaintiff added that if GSK wish to pursue this matter then  she (Dolin) would like to conduct targeted discovery related to GSK’s interactions, if any, with GMC and Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board (“BCUHB”)

Has the penny dropped yet?

The GMC exonerated Healy but now, it seems, GSK want their own kangaroo court to attack him even further.

In a quite genius twist Dolin's legal team have now asked the court that if GSK are granted a special hearing with Healy before trial then they request that plaintiff should be permitted to conduct targeted discovery relating to any influence GSK may have had in BCUHB’s or the GMC’s investigation of Dr. Healy.

In short, Dolin is asking for...

All documents reflecting communications between GSK or its agents, including counsel representing GSK, and Robert Poole, Robert Higgo, Giles Harborne, Matt Makin, Alberto Salmoiraghi, Peter Higson, or anyone at Betsi Cadwaladr University Health Board that mention or discuss Dr. David Healy.

All documents reflecting any payments or monies by GSK or its agents, including counsel representing GSK, to the aforementioned.

They've requested the same documents between GSK and the GMC too.

I wouldn't put it past anyone connected with GSK to find ways to sling mud at one of their biggest critics - I've heard the 'bullet left on a car story' but thought it was just folklore - I'm seriously beginning to think there was merit in that claim from a plaintiff who went up against GSK many years ago... apparently they wouldn't accept GSK's offer, next thing they know, there's an empty bullet casing left on their car...but that's another story.

Who needs John Grisham, huh?

The whole sordid affair, or rather matter of affairs, has me wondering if GSK's UK legal team will go down the same road when defending Paxil in a UK lawsuit next year. Just over a hundred people have filed a group action claiming they suffered as a consequence of withdrawing from Paxil. In 2002 GSK settled over 3,000 similar cases in the United States but, for one reason or another, GSK won't settle with those who make the same claims against them in the UK.

Will they be mud slinging Healy et al again, or bloggers for that matter?

The motion to vacate the 'special hearing' was filed by R. Brent Wisner on August 1.

Author's note.

Researching pharmaceutical companies, in particular GlaxoSmithKline, over the past ten years or so has taught me a few things when it comes to litigation.

1. The pharmaceutical company will defend cases in antidepressant related suicide, homicide, birth defects and withdrawal - even though the drug in question has been proven to cause such adverse reactions - they will, under oath, admit their drug can cause all of the above but will refute that (in the case they are defending) it did not cause x,y, or z to kill themselves or cause induced homicide, birth defects or horrific withdrawal problems.

2. They will drag litigation out for as long as they can, throwing subpoenas left, right and centre - they will object to this and that and will file motions in the hope that plaintiffs attorney's will spend more - thus settle at a later date for a meagre offer - See the Paxil birth defect case - Joanne Thomas v GlaxoSmithKline here and here.

3. They like to show their teeth. It's a way to stop further litigation against them. The actions in the case of Dolin v GlaxoSmithKline is basically a stark warning being sent out to anyone who may have ideas of going up against GSK in the future. It doesn't matter if you lost your child to suicide or had to abort your child due to birth defects caused by Paxil - or if you lost your job and marriage due to horrific Paxil withdrawal - you are dealing with a company that shows no empathy - it's an entity that is psychopathic - it cares not a jot about personal feelings - Grinding its teeth and digging its heels in is just an advertisement by proxy. The message being, Oppose us and we will make your life a complete misery. They not only do this with people who bring claims against them, they do it with expert witnesses who go up against them. One only has to look at the way they have targeted David Healy - it's not just about targeting Healy, it's about sending a message out to other future expert witnesses.

That's my take on things anyway.

Anyone know how the ruckus between David and Goliath finally ended up?

Answers on a postcard to King & Spalding.

Bob Fiddaman


Court document shows how a jury, in 2001, found GSK's Paxil responsible for inducing suicide and/or homicide.

Monday, August 01, 2016

Ian Hudson of the MHRA challenged over the safety of Concerta (Ritalin)

Former Glaxo World 'Safety Officer', Dr Ian Hudson

In an attempt to seek the truth and learn how the regulations of prescription drugs work, Swedish investigative journalist, Janne Larsson, has been, for many years now, corresponding with the British medicines regulator, the MHRA.

Larsson, it appears, is ruffling some feathers at MHRA HQ, none more so than the feathers of the always evasive CEO, Dr Ian Hudson.

You see, the MHRA and Larsson have been going over reports regarding the ADHD drug Concerta, more commonly known as Ritalin.

Head of the MHRA, Dr Ian Hudson, has told Larsson that  “the safety of Concerta is being continuously monitored” - but Larsson is having none of it.

In his latest open email to Dr Ian Hudson, Larsson suggests that Hudson's handling of this whole affair is "scandalous". After reading much of the correspondence between Larsson and the MHRA I must say he has a valid point.

His open email (link at the foot of this post) also calls into question why the MHRA, in particular, Dr Ian Hudson, have not approached Concerta makers, Janssen, with regard to a "distortion of facts" that they presented to the MHRA a few years ago.

Larsson, in his open email to Hudson, points out that Janssen says that Concerta “continues to have a favourable benefit-risk profile for ADHD in children and adults” and that it is authorized for the treatment of ADHD in adults. They also claim that that the benefits of Concerta for adults “are supported by prospective, randomized, active-comparator controlled trials” 

However, Study 3013, the longest of all the Concerta studies, shows something completely different - furthermore, the MHRA, themselves, after reviewing 3013, said, “A causal relationship with Concerta was established for aggression, tics and depression.”

Larsson accuses the MHRA of sitting on this information for over two years.

It's unlike the agency to sit on anything regarding patient welfare. I mean, they have their fingers right on the pulse, huh?

Dr Ian Hudson, is the former World Safety Officer for GlaxoSmithKline (then SmithKline Beecham)

Kind of worrisome that someone sitting on important safety information regarding Concerta used to be in control of safety at one of the most heavily fined pharmaceutical companies known in history.

Here's Janne Larsson's correspondence.

ADHD drugs – MHRA and the Concerta scandal – did this really happen?

Bob Fiddaman.

Back story

Swedish Journalist Takes on British Drug Regulator

Tuesday, July 26, 2016

Sandy Hook Psychiatrist on Trial

I've teamed up with Sheila Matthews of Ablechild to write this. We've previously worked on a project together (See - Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System)

This post, however, focuses on the 2012 Sandy Hook massacre.

This is one of those cases that has many people talking - The Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting happened almost four years ago on December 14, 2012.

20-year-old Adam Lanza fatally shot 20 children aged between 6 and 7 years old, as well as six adult staff members. Before driving to the school, Lanza shot and killed his mother at their Newtown home in Connecticut. Lanza it is alleged, killed himself by shooting himself in the head as first responders arrived at Sandy Hook Elementary.

There's been many theories floating around the internet since the massacre, some suggest it was all an elaborate hoax and that Lanza never existed - some of the material regarding this theory, it has to be said, is quite convincing but not something that I've ever really bought into - I mean were all the parents who buried their children just actors and part of a mass conspiracy?

Crisis actors are apparently used to conduct drills, such as the research hospital located just 8 miles from where Nancy Lanza was last seen alive. However, the conspiracy and hoax believers draw no real facts and appear to make claims they cannot prove, which takes our eye off the ball (See 'Aurora' later in this post)

It's not really something that I'd want to get into as I'm more interested in the medication Lanza was either on or withdrawing from at the time of the shooting.

Step forward Mr Paul Fox (Pictured above) Lanza's last known treating psychiatrist.

Fox threw gasoline into the 'Lanza never existed' fire when he claimed that he had destroyed Adam Lanza's medical notes. He told Police this from New Zealand where he was then practising after leaving Connecticut around 6 months prior to Lanza's carnage.

Whilst there, Fox came under scrutiny after a patient under his care, Nicky Stevens, 21, killed himself. Fox worked for the Waikato District Health Board (DHB) for 19 months before returning back to the US in and around January 2014.

Earlier this year Fox was arrested in Maine and charged with sexual assault and it was alleged that he, between 2010 and 2011 (His time in Connecticut) had a 'relationship' with a patient. This, it is claimed, led Fox to surrender his licence and flee to New Zealand. According to the CT Post...

Fox's case did not come before the Connecticut Medical Examining Board for a public hearing. Instead, Fox and his attorney brokered a deal with the state Department of Public Health's Healthcare Quality and Safety branch and the psychiatrist surrendered his license in Connecticut and New York.

Fox, it has emerged, treated Lanza five years prior to the Sandy Hook massacre. However, it is unknown exactly what that treatment involved. According to Fox he last treated Lanza when the boy was just 15. Lanza was 20 when he carried out the massacre.


Paul Fox's, now 63, relationship with a female patient was initially uncovered by Connecticut state police investigating Lanza’s history in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook massacre. The female, who came forward during Fox's time in New Zealand, has claimed that she had sex with Fox “in his office” and spent time on his sailboat and that the relationship lasted more than a year. The same patient also alleges that one of Fox’s other patients told her that she was "having phone sex with Fox.,"

Today he appeared in court in Danbury, Connecticut for pre-trial on 3 felony counts of sexual abuse another blow to those who claim Fox didn’t exist.

Since the Sandy Hook massacre lawmakers of Connecticut have been calling for more money to be put into mental health services.   Many of the mass shootings globally have a striking common denominator in as much that the assailant (or assailants) have either been taking or withdrawing from some form of prescribed psychiatric medication. In the case of Lanza it is unknown if he was on or withdrawing from medication at the time of the shooting. It's something that one would assume would be easy to find answers to.


Since Sandy Hook, Ablechild, a nationally recognized Non-Profit Organization dedicated to parents, caregivers, and children’s rights, have been at loggerheads with Connecticut state officials after they have refused to release Lanza's medical notes and full toxicology report.

This from Sheila Matthews of AbleChild...

According to the police investigation, Fox told the investigators he had the medical billing records for Lanza stored in the US, the next day when investigators called Fox back to obtain more information, Fox indicated he destroyed the medical records. So, does Fox still have the billing records? Why didn’t the State charge Fox for destroying the records 2 years too early according to Connecticut Law? Also, Fox had an obligation to notify his current and former patients he was discontinuing his practice. Why didn’t the State hold him responsible for the failure to follow that law?

What I find bizarre about this whole affair is the stance Connecticut officials have taken with regard to the release of Lanza's notes. Take a look at this short video that features Sheila Matthews and her attorney. In it, they ask Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Patrick Kwansie, for the release of Adam Lanza's toxicology report. His response is incredulous!

He refused to release the full toxicology report because "It is harmful because then you can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications... stop cooperating with their treating physicians."

Um, yeh, isn't that the point of investigating a product that may or may not be faulty?

What an utterly ridiculous excuse for not releasing the full toxicology report. A report was released earlier but, for reasons unknown Connecticut officials only released the cover note of the toxicology report and not the reports findings.

Okay, thinking outside of the box here. Would Kwansie have released the full toxicology report if parents of those who perished asked him and used the premise that they wanted to know if medication wasn't in his system - they could then go down the mental health road and claim that Lanza should have been on meds - one way or the other, the public have a right to know if any prescription medications showed up in Lanza's toxicology report, be they pro-medication or anti-medication advocates.

It would appear, through his somewhat baffling reasoning, Kwansie is suggesting that Lanza's toxicology report did, indeed, show traces of prescription medication - why give AbleChild the spiel about how harmful it could be to those currently taking medication if Lanza wasn't on medication?

What's the big secret here?

Why are Connecticut state officials so reluctant to release Adam Lanza's full toxicology report ~ there is no logical explanation?

Again, this has fuelled much speculation that the whole Sandy Hook affair was a hoax - but that's a good thing for the state of Connecticut ~ and here's why.


Before I became a writer of all things pharmaceutical I was a ufologist, I studied unidentified flying object reports, read countless books and watched many, many hours of documentaries. I quickly learned that the government had a friend in ufologists in as much that they fuelled the media with stories of unidentified black triangles flying over the skies of the world - the black triangle later became known as Aurora, an American reconnaissance aircraft that was secretly being tested in our skies. What better cover-up than to have members of the public claiming to have seen a black triangular flying object doing things that no conventional aircraft could do (at that time - circa 1980's)

With a public interested in black triangular objects controlled by aliens the government could sit back knowing that any sighting of their secret project would be passed off by a bunch of conspiracy theorists as an alien driven craft.

Same thing, it appears, applies to Sandy Hook. There are literally hundreds upon hundreds of videos on YouTube claiming that Sandy Hook was a false flag event and when members of the public put all their energy and focus into this they take their eyes off the ball - just as they did in the 80's when Aurora was roaming the skies.


It is left to state officials of Connecticut to put Sandy Hook to bed once and for all - it can't be easy for the parents of the children reading stories such as the false flag events and, dare I say it, even this blog post of mine.

There is no reason for the State of Connecticut to hold on to Lanza's full toxicology report other than the one I stated above (Aurora). Assistant Attorney General for the State of Connecticut, Patrick Kwansie's lame attempt at reasoning why was nothing short of shameful. If a product is suspected to be faulty, as many of these psychiatric medications are, then it should be investigated, despite what those (currently on the product) may or may not think or do.

Patrick Kwansie should have, at the very least, looked at the current labelling on these types of medications. To date there have been 22 international drug regulatory warnings on psychiatric drugs citing effects of mania, hostility, violence and even homicidal ideation, and dozens of high profile shootings/killings tied to psychiatric drug use (Source)

There will obviously be more if lawmakers decide that it would be harmful to state facts because it "can cause a lot of people to stop taking their medications".

It's a crazy world we live in, particularly if you live in the State of Connecticut where lawmakers are still rolling out the Aurora model to keep the public misinformed and from the truth.

Bob Fiddaman & Sheila Matthews.

Further Reading

Adam Lanza’s Psychiatrist’s Ethics Violations Raise Questions About the Legislature’s Controversial Mental Health Increases

Sunday, July 24, 2016

1.5 Million

My blog counter tells me that I've gone over 1.5 million hits on this little old blog of mine.

I know it may have been just a few minutes people have spent reading and commenting on my blog, but I’d just like to say thanks. It really means a lot to know that people feel my work is important enough to read and comment on. A million (and a half) thanks to those of you who 'like' and share my work on Facebook and Twitter too - it is down to you people that so many lives could be saved from the harms caused by the group of medicines I write about.

I've made many friends, in the main those people whose lives have been blighted by antidepressants - dealing with their own losses, be that partners, siblings, parents or friends. I've said it before, I wish that our paths had never crossed ~ the only reason I have made friends with this wonderful group of people is down to their tragic loss - I would willingly give up that friendship if they could turn back the clocks and be with their loved ones again.

Attorneys, journalists, fellow bloggers, film-makers, authors and health care professionals have also joined my growing list of friends whilst I've been on this 10 year journey - the subject matter has been overwhelming at times but I've learned how to cope with it all - I'm lucky because writing about a kid killing himself is a lot easier than having to live through that experience on a daily basis.

In the main, I write about Seroxat (Paxil) and the company that market and manufacture it, namely; GlaxoSmithKline. I have also tried to cover many other antidepressant stories through the medium of this blog - My guest posts have proved popular be they on antidepressant addiction, induced suicide, homicide or about birth defects.

I'm not a fan of pharmaceutical companies in general, nor medicine regulators - in fact they should drop the word 'regulators' because they really don't regulate much at all.

I started writing over 10 years ago, it took just under 8 years to reach a million views and just over two to add 500,000 - It has grown, kind of snowballed if I'm being honest and nobody is more surprised than me regarding its popularity - it's been the making of me.

Thank you all once again.

Bob Fiddaman

Failure to Regulate is "Inexcusable"

Sheila and I - 2011 - Los Angeles

If this testimony of parent and co-founder of AbleChild, Sheila Matthews, doesn't move you then you then I don't know what will.

Sheila is passionate about her work - in a nutshell she has been trying to protect the lives of children who fall foul of modern day pill pushers.

This short, yet powerful video testimony should be shared far and wide.

It moved me to tears - please watch to the end and share it.

Sheila Matthews, I salute you!

Bob Fiddaman