Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit


Citizens Commission on Human Rights Award Recipient (Twice)
Humanist, humorist

Friday, December 30, 2011

Actos...No Better Than Avandia



Whilst browsing in a shop the other day I purchased a pair of shoes. The assistant asked me if I would like to purchase a leather care product - Good sales pitch. Obviously, I'd like my shoes the last a long time so purchasing a leather care product would benefit me...and my shoes.

When you or I visit our doctor's we are, occasionally, given bad news. "Mr Smith, I have some bad news for you, I'm afraid you have type 2 diabetes."

The initial shock of hearing such bad news is followed by, "but don't worry, it is treatable."

Years ago, and until recently, doctor's were handing out prescriptions for Avandia, a drug manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline which was recently pulled off the shelves after the European medicines regulator deemed it unsafe, they found that it caused strokes in many of those that were taking it. TheAmerican drugwatch agency, the FDA, didn't feel that it needed to be pulled off the market, opting instead for a more stern warning on the labelling. GlaxoSmithKline apparently knew of the heart stroke link...but decided not to tell anyone until they had made a pretty packet on sales of the drug.

Because Avandia was pulled off the market in Europe and because it received such bad press in America doctor's, naturally, started prescribing an alternative. Enter Actos, a drug manufactured by Japanese giants Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

News of Actos has been circulating recently, and it isn't good. Actos can cause bladder cancer and it's manufacturers knew all along that it could.

My shoe analogy at the start of this post may seem a little odd. But the retailer was warning me that my shoes may become scuffed, hence the offer of the leather care product.

Imagine, if you will, the following scenario.

Doctor: I'm afraid you have diabetes

Patient: Oh no!

Doctor: Don't worry it can be treated with either Avandia or Actos

Patient: Oh fantastic

Doctor: Would you like a heart stroke or bladder cancer with that?

Sounds like a sketch from the Monty Python team doesn't it?

Meantime, people are coming forward because they are now realising that Actos, the drug they took to help their diabetes, has actually made matters worse for them.

A suit, filed yesterday in the State of California, [Los Angeles Superior Court] by Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, P.C. alleges that three California residents and their spouses claim the diabetes drug Actos caused their bladder cancer. The full press release can be read HERE

You can read more about Actos and the bladder cancer link at .http://www.actosbladdercancer.com/




Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Friday, December 23, 2011

MHRA Wishing To Call The Shots

MHRA: "Unless you have enquiries on an entirely different subject, we will not be able to respond to further comments from you."

I've received a reply from someone at the MHRA, once again they failed to add their name to it, preferring to write anonymously or as a ghost spokesperson [how brave]

For those that don't know I wrote to the MHRA regarding their recent recommendations to healthcare professionals in the UK. Their [ahem] innovative SSRi Learning Module tackles, amongst other things, severe SSRi withdrawal and the MHRA recommend to doctor's to seek the advice of "specialists".

In previous correspondence with them I asked just who these "specialists" were. They couldn't answer.

Well, they've made it abundantly clear to me now with their final say on the matter. Make note of the final line of their response.

Dear Mr Fiddaman,

We are responding to your email of 15 December.

Below, we provide responses to your further questions. They should be read alongside our replies of 7 December and 15 December to your enquiries.

1. For the record, just so we are clear, are the MHRA suggesting that severe SSRi withdrawal can now be defined as an illness?

Our introductory remarks make no reference to ‘SSRi withdrawal’. We are simply saying that, when necessary, non-specialist health professionals are able to access appropriate specialist services for diverse range of clinical circumstances.

Summaries of product characteristics list effects that may follow SSRI discontinuation under ‘Undesirable effects’.

2. Do you have instances where a health care professional has sought the advice or requested for an SSRi withdrawal specialist?

It is not in the MHRA’s remit to monitor the practice of health professionals. Details about an individual’s care are confidential between the individual and the health professional.

3. Have the MHRA liaised with health professional regulators to determine whether or not 'specialists' have the required qualifications in treating patients with severe SSRi withdrawal?

The MHRA regulates medicines and healthcare products and provides information on these. It is not for the MHRA to set standards for health professionals’ knowledge and expertise or to monitor them.

4. If I were to randomly select 10 healthcare practitioners and ask them if they could refer an SSRi withdrawal specialist to me and, for one reason or another, they could not provide me with any such specialist, would the MHRA then concede that there are, in fact, no SSRi withdrawal specialists with adequate training that can provide help for patients suffering severe SSRi withdrawal?

This point has been dealt with in our response of 15 December. The organisation of health care delivery does not fall under the MHRA’s responsibilities. Details about how health care services (including some specialist services) are organised and how individuals can access them are described by NHS Choices at http://www.nhs.uk/NHSEngland/AboutNHSservices/Pages/NHSServices.aspx

5. [No specific question asked]

We have responded elsewhere to these comments.

6. Professor David Healy has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Do the MHRA agree with professor Healy's findings?

We do acknowledge that there are some individuals who find it extremely difficult to discontinue treatment with SSRIs and for some it may take many years to stop treatment. We also know that it is not possible to predict those who may be at particular risk of experiencing withdrawal reactions on stopping treatment. However, we have not seen evidence to suggest that a significant number of people will never be able to stop taking SSRIs.

7. You state that the SSRi Learning module was “constructed by MHRA staff and drew on information and evidence in the public domain.”. Please list all references/evidences used.

The introduction to the learning module states:

This learning module is derived largely from summaries of product characteristics (which, in turn, are based on rigorous evaluation of submitted evidence). Supplementary sources such as guidelines from NICE are used to expand on advice on managing specific risks of SSRIs; however, general advice on the management of depression and other disorders is not covered.

The learning module lists key resources under ‘Further information’; these, together with references cited by them, were among the sources we used.

We have responded to your recent emails by providing all the information that falls within the scope of our work. A great deal of information is also available on our website. The answers to some of your questions clearly fall outside this Agency’s role and are not appropriate for us to tackle.

Unless you have enquiries on an entirely different subject, we will not be able to respond to further comments from you.

Kind Regards,

Central Enquiry Point
Information Services
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Tel: 020 3080 6000

My response to this:



How novel. Not content with the word 'vexatious' any more?

So, to recap, the MHRA will not answer any more questions relating to this query because my line of questioning is 'not appropriate for them to answer'. Do you only answer questions that you feel comfortable with?

Let's look at the facts.

The MHRA have conjured up SSRi withdrawal specialists. They remain confident that healthcare professionals can call upon the services of these specialists when faced with a patient who is suffering severe SSRi withdrawal.

When the MHRA have been asked to provide a list of specialists [that they have recommended] they cannot provide any such list.

The MHRA have, at least, acknowledged that there are some patients who may 'take many years to stop treatment'. They do not tell us why or offer any solutions other than recommendations to 'specialists' whom don't exist.

To cap it all, the MHRA are now refusing to answer any more questions on this matter. In truth, they cannot answer the questions because they don't have any answers. Any effort to answer would be an admittance of a failure to protect the public.

I put it to the MHRA that your SSRi Learning Module is deeply flawed and that you have made a huge error in recommending specialists that both you and I know do not exist. You are either buck-passing or lying.

If the MHRA lay claim to SSRi withdrawal specialists being available on the NHS then any queries regarding this claim should be answered with proof. At no time have the MHRA provided me with any proof that any such specialist exists.

My recommendation to the MHRA would be for a recall of the SSRi Learning Module and for them to list specialists for doctors to use. Also to explain to doctors that there are some patients who may take many years to stop taking their medication and to explain the reasons behind this.

It's absurd that an alternative is mentioned...yet not mentioned.

If I were to have a conversation with a food critique who was displeased at food offered to him at 'Restaurant A' and I told this critique that there was much better food elsewhere, he would naturally ask where.

If I stood there with a blank expression on my face and told him, "Um, I don't actually know", he would probably laugh in my face or serve my testicles on a platter with a rich red wine and a nice camembert. He certainly wouldn't see me as an expert on the matter of food.

The MHRA should not be making any recommendations to healthcare practitioners regarding SSRi withdrawal, it takes an expert to do that. Maybe the MHRA should have liaised with the ghost specialists they have recommended for healthcare practitioners to use - in truth, they did not because these specialists simply don't exist. To suggest that they do is akin to burying one's head in the sand and hoping the SSRi withdrawal problem will go away. It won't.

To put it mildly, when the MHRA are criticised they either call their critique 'vexatious' or just refuse to answer any more questions. They are the past masters of deflection and will sit around waiting for a solution to fall onto their laps. If they acknowledge that there are some patients who may take many years to stop taking an SSRi then they should, at the very least, contact the pharmaceutical industry who manufacture these drugs and ask them; a; why it takes so long for this group of people and b; how this group of people can be helped. They don't, they just sit around thumb twiddling and deflecting questions put to them by people who actually know the truth about SSRi withdrawal.

I've gone on record before stating that the MHRA are limp-wristed, that was a few years ago. My recent correspondence with you suggests to me that you continue to be limp-wristed and you continue to ignore the banner you fly under, "MHRA - safeguarding public health."

You are solely responsible for the advice you have handed out to healthcare practitioners re SSRi withdrawal. Your invention of SSRi withdrawal specialists is a matter of great concern to me and one that needs further investigation. I, for one, will seek further advice on how to extract the information I need, be it through government officials [highly unlikely] or the court of human rights.

Your arrogance is staggering and your knowledge on SSRi withdrawal is woefully inept.

Bob Fiddaman


Related articles:

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part I

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part II "Keeping A Stiff Upper Lip"

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part III - MHRA's Ghosts In The Machine

MHRA In Buck-Passing Specialist Cahoots

MHRA - More on the Mysterious "Ghost Specialists"

Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Thursday, December 22, 2011

Jingle Bells [Pharma Version]




Jingle Bells [Pharma Version]

Dashing through the court
With lawyers by our side
Paid to stop and thwart
Cos someone's child has died
Denying all the way
It's not our drugs, you see
Your child was feeling down
Not guilty is our plea

Oh, jingle bells, phrama sells
KOL's to pay
Oh, what fun it is to lie
It really is child's play
Jingle bells, phrama sells
KOL's to pay
Oh, what fun it is to lie
It really is child's play

Earlier this year
We set aside some cash
We're so insincere
Some people call us trash
Our drugs caused heart attacks
And suicide as well
Birth defects, withdrawal grief
But we will never tell

Oh, jingle bells, phrama sells
KOL's to pay
Oh, what fun it is to lie
It really is child's play
Jingle bells, phrama sells
KOL's to pay
Oh, what fun it is to lie
It really is child's play

Oh, jingle bells, phrama sells
KOL's to pay
Oh, what fun it is to lie
It really is child's play
Jingle bells, phrama sells
KOL's to pay
Oh, what fun it is to lie
It really is child's play

Bob Fiddaman 2011

MERRY CHRISTMAS TO YOU ALL





Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Paxil Documentary Set for 2012 Release



Filmmaker Phil Lawrence, who, for 6 months, filmed a fly on the wall documentary about his Paxil withdrawal, has recently announced that his film, Numb, is set for a DVD release in January 2012.

Phil kindly sent me a screener of his movie back in July, review can be read HERE

In the meantime here's a short trailer to whet the appetite.





Visit the official Numb website HERE


Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Sunday, December 18, 2011

Involuntary Transformation - Guest Post From Becky





In the past I have offered people the opportunity to send in stories about their horrific withdrawals from Seroxat. I decided, upon reading their stories that they should appear on my blog 'as is', so to speak.


Tonight the author of the popular blog, Involuntary Transformation, tells her story. It's one that is all too familiar, it's also yet another fine example of dogged determination and sheer tenacity. 'Becks' is added to my sisterhood list. Here's her story.



I am the mother of two wonderful adult sons. My youngest son has needed intensive mental health services since he was in preschool. At this time in our lives, my children were in the State of Washington's foster care system due to my own mental health issues...it is what it is. Isaac was placed in a home where he was severely traumatized and that was when his need for mental health services started.

It has been a long road for our family, and I am so very lucky to have my sons, and feel that being their Mom is the best thing that has happened to me.

I started writing my blog, Involuntary Transformation on September 4, 2010. That was the day that "it" hit me like a ton of bricks. "It" was the fact that crimes committed in which my son was the victimized; were never going to be investigated by the State of Washington. In spite of the struggles over the years in attempting to get appropriate and recommended treatment for Isaac; I had held onto the hope and the belief that justice would not be denied my precious son. I do not know that I no longer believe it possible so much as I have come to know that whether justice is served or not; what is important is that we, have as a family have come through some very painful experiences intact. It is this, above all else, that gives my life meaning and value.

Isaac's need for the psycho-social and cognitive-behavioral therapy recommended for his complex PTSD was ignored; and worse, were substituted with Family Preservation Services. This is a program that is meant to prevent out of home placement---it is not anything like what was recommended, but it was what was provided along with "med management" for years. I can not tell you what it is like to have a child need treatment which is denied to be given drugs which did not help. Drugs that did not "treat" the symptoms of the complex PTSD; drugs which caused further trauma . The PTSD which was caused by being beat up and locked in a closet by a foster parent when he was three.

Ultimately, my son spent much of his childhood being further traumatized by the Child Welfare and the public Mental Health service system which medicates symptoms of distress and symptoms of trauma, whether it helps or not; and then blames victims who do not get better. The failure to get better is the result of lack of proper therapeutic treatment!.

For the first (and hopefully only) time in my life, in the summer of 2010 I did not believe in and could not feel the presence of my creator within myself. I could not believe that forgery, perjury and psychiatric assault were committed and again my son was harmed; and none of these crimes were going to be investigated. My now adult son, who can not effectively defend, protect or advocate for himself, due to the cognitive damage done by the drugs; was victimized by employees of a local Mental Health agency when he sought help; and there was not going to be anything done about it. No investigation, no charges filed for felony crimes committed, NO JUSTICE served.

Until last summer, I had not told our story in a public forum because Isaac did not want me too. After the events at the end of July and the beginning of August, he said it was now alright to share his story. My thinking was that I can make no one do a damn thing, and believe me I've tried! But, I can tell the world what was done to my son; what continues to be done to children, adults and families who seek and receive mental health care. It is not right, and it is not therapeutic, and practiced like it was in the "treatment" of my son, psychiatry is not "medicine."

I am a mother. I am a warrior if need be, for my children. My son spent more that half his childhood in psychiatric inpatient facilities---and was ultimately used in Drug Trials, without consent. The Medical Director of Child Study and Treatment Center gave my son virtually every neuroleptic drug made; and told me I had no say in what he was doing! Federal, State and International Law e.g. the Nuremberg Code say otherwise. Nevertheless, Jon McClellan acted as if he had special authority, and this "research psychiatrist" did not conform with the law or the Ethics Guidelines for Informed Consent of the medical profession when drugging my child. I know now, none of the drugs were approved for pediatric use, and many were not approved for the purpose prescribed. I also am so very aware that I am fortunate many times over that my son survived Jon McClellan’s “treatment” at all.

If my life, and what was done to my son and my family means anything at all, it's meaning for me must be derived from sharing what I have learned and working to keep it from happening to anyone else. I must share what I've learned to hopefully spare another family the same experiences. None of us will ever 'be the same' and life can be bittersweet. I am grateful to know the truth.

Becky
--
...choose for yourself this day whom you will serve. - Joshua 24:15

Read Becky's blog, Involuntary Transformation HERE






Thursday, December 15, 2011

MHRA - More on the Mysterious "Ghost Specialists"




Following on from MHRA In Buck-Passing Specialist Cahoots, the MHRA have now replied to my series of questions. My follow up response can be seen at the foot of this post.


Dear Mr Fiddaman,

Thank you for your recent enquiry to the MHRA.

Our reply of 7 December did not include a reference number as we (in the Central Enquiry Point) only assign reference numbers to requests under the Freedom of Information Act, and to requests passed to our Information Scientists for interrogation of our licensing database. We do not always include a name against our responses because the Central Enquiry Point often channels input from relevant technical experts in the Agency to prepare answers to enquiries. Colleagues in other parts of the Agency have prepared the response to your questions. However, in case it helps, I have included my name on this response.

Responses to each of your specific questions follow some general remarks.

You comment on our learning module on SSRIs. As we have mentioned, the learning module is written for health professionals and it should be read in conjunction with other information which covers the diagnosis and management of the relevant conditions.

Health professionals regularly work with others to give patients the best possible care—where necessary they routinely contact specialist services either for advice or with a request to take over the care of a patient. Once a patient is referred to such service, the specialist will treat the patient and, if necessary, contact other specialists within the network. This mechanism for care applies throughout the NHS whether a patient needs surgery, has cancer or suffers from other physical or mental illness.

The following address your specific questions:

1. You, as a regulator, do not have a list of these so-called specialists yet, without any qualms or vetting them, you are advising doctor's to use their services. Why?

Healthcare in the UK is regulated by several bodies each of which has a specific remit. While this Agency regulates medicines and healthcare products, others register health professionals and set standards for their competence (http://www.chre.org.uk/regulators). It is the health professional regulators who are responsible for setting standards of competence in line with current health knowledge and technology.

2. If I were to ask my GP to consult the RCP and RCGP will they be able to give him a list of specialists in SSRI dependence and withdrawal that he can consult?

A general practitioner will be very familiar with accessing specialist mental health services. These specialist services can then ensure that the patient is cared for by a specialist with appropriate skills.

3. Do you not feel, as a regulator, that you should, at the very least, see what training these specialists have had in the field of SSRi withdrawal?

The MHRA cannot encroach on the role of health professional regulators specifically created to set the standards of behaviour, competence and education of health professionals. The MHRA’s remit and expertise is in the regulation of medicines and healthcare products, not education and training of health professionals.

4. You, at my request, also met with Professor David Healy who has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Have you relayed this information to healthcare specialists, do you agree with Professor Healy's advice or do you think the advice is wrong?

During our discussion with Professor Healy he was clear that the focus should be on highlighting to GPs that withdrawal reactions could be serious and prolonged in some patients and agreed that NICE and the BNF would be reasonable routes. We have liaised with both the BNF and NICE to stress the importance of highlighting the risk of withdrawal reactions in their respective publication and guidance. We provided input into the consultation for the most recent revision of the NICE depression guideline and have also inputted into changes to the section in the BNF on the risk of withdrawal reactions with SSRIs.

5. As I understand, you promised to liaise with Professor Healy should any more concerns arise re SSRi withdrawal. To my knowledge you have not liaised with him since your 2010 meeting with him. Why?

You are correct that we have not had further meetings with Professor Healy since 2010 but this is because no significant new data on the risk of withdrawal reactions and their management that alters our previous discussions has come to light since then and therefore further discussions have not been considered necessary.

1. What input did you receive from the pharmaceutical industry for your SSRI learning module?

No input was sought nor received from the pharmaceutical industry on the MHRA learning module on SSRIs. It was constructed by MHRA staff and drew on information and evidence in the public domain.

2. Please list any grants/funding you, may or may not have, received for your SSRI learning module.

The MHRA receives no external funding for this work. The material has been assembled by MHRA employees as part of their routine work and towards meeting the MHRA’s objective of providing information to healthcare professionals and promoting good practice in the safe use of medicines.

...and my response, sent today...



Follow-up questions to Ref: FOI 11/475

In reference to your 2nd para:

Health professionals regularly work with others to give patients the best possible care—where necessary they routinely contact specialist services either for advice or with a request to take over the care of a patient. Once a patient is referred to such service, the specialist will treat the patient and, if necessary, contact other specialists within the network. This mechanism for care applies throughout the NHS whether a patient needs surgery, has cancer or suffers from other physical or mental illness.

1. For the record, just so we are clear, are the MHRA suggesting that severe SSRi withdrawal can now be defined as an illness?

2. Do you have instances where a health care professional has sought the advice or requested for an SSRi withdrawal specialist?

3. You state that “It is the health professional regulators who are responsible for setting standards of competence in line with current health knowledge and technology” Have the MHRA liaised with health professional regulators to determine whether or not 'specialists' have the required qualifications in treating patients with severe SSRi withdrawal?

4. You state that “A general practitioner will be very familiar with accessing specialist mental health services. These specialist services can then ensure that the patient is cared for by a specialist with appropriate skills.” If I were to randomly select 10 healthcare practitioners and ask them if they could refer an SSRi withdrawal specialist to me and, for one reason or another, they could not provide me with any such specialist, would the MHRA then concede that there are, in fact, no SSRi withdrawal specialists with adequate training that can provide help for patients suffering severe SSRi withdrawal?

5. You state “The MHRA cannot encroach on the role of health professional regulators specifically created to set the standards of behaviour, competence and education of health professionals.” I disagree, if the MHRA are recommending specialists then the MHRA have a duty to patient healthcare that those specialists be adequately trained in the field of SSRi withdrawal. In essence, you are recommending a service that you do not know exists. In a nutshell, you are recommending to healthcare professionals to seek specialist advice from 'specialists' who have had no training or have received no guidelines to help patients suffering severe SSRi withdrawal.

6. You state “During our discussion with Professor Healy he was clear that the focus should be on highlighting to GPs that withdrawal reactions could be serious and prolonged in some patients and agreed that NICE and the BNF would be reasonable routes. We have liaised with both the BNF and NICE to stress the importance of highlighting the risk of withdrawal reactions in their respective publication and guidance.” With respect, the question was - 'You, at my request, also met with Professor David Healy who has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Have you relayed this information to healthcare specialists, do you agree with Professor Healy's advice or do you think the advice is wrong?' I'll ask again. Professor David Healy has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Do the MHRA agree with professor Healy's findings?

7. You state that the SSRi Learning module was “constructed by MHRA staff and drew on information and evidence in the public domain.”. Please list all references/evidences used.








Wednesday, December 14, 2011

GSK Show Their Teeth To Colgate



I'm in shock.

GSK, the company that helps people to do more, feel better and live longer, have actually gone and won a battle.

Glaxo, who normally are on the receiving end of such battles, complained that a rival toothpaste to its Sensodyne was using misleading statements in its advertisements.

Colgate Sensitive Pro Relief claimed "Proven instant relief" and "Superior lasting protection".


Glaxo complained to the Advertising Standards Authority [ASA] citing that the ads could 'mislead the consumer' - The ASA agreed and now the ads have been banned.

This has irony all over it doncha think?

GlaxoSmithKline citing that a product other than theirs can mislead the consumer? I have to admit that when I was first sent this story I rolled onto the floor into a state of apoplexy whilst biting hard on a cushion.

I'll just pick up on one way Glaxo used to advertise Paxil. You will note from the commentary that apart from claiming Paxil is "non-habit forming", they also claim that "a chemical imbalance could be to blame" and that "Paxil works to correct this imbalance"


video


Then we have Glaxo's Poligrip and the fact that a lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of New York on behalf of two couples who alleged that severe and disabling injuries were caused by zinc poisoning from Super Poligrip denture adhesive. More lawsuits have been filed - you see, naughty Glaxo failed to warn the consumer about the levels of zinc found in its product.



Hey, let's not forget GSK's failure to warn consumers that its diabetes drug, Avandia increased the risk of heart attack and death. Avandia has now been banned in Europe. Let's not forget either Glaxo's huge $£billion payout in settlements during 2011, settling 'out of court' for things such as their product causing birth defects.

Hey, as far as I can make out, Colgate were only promoting their product the way Glaxo have promoted theirs over the years. As far as I'm aware, Colgate toothpaste never caused anyone severe withdrawal...or worse still, death!

Those Colgate guys can advertise their wares on my blog if they wish. I'd love nothing more than to promote a product that got GSK bosses baring their teeth.

Big up to Colgate.


The complaint and decision can be read in full HERE

Related Videos









Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Patricia Casey Being Creative





Creativity 
noun 
1. the state or quality of being creative. 
2. the ability to transcend traditional ideas, rules, patterns, relationships, or the like, and to create meaningful new ideas, forms, methods, interpretations, etc.; originality, progressiveness, or imagination: the need for creativity in modern industry; creativity in the performing arts. 
3. the process by which one utilizes creative ability: Extensive reading stimulated his creativity. 
Source: Dictionary.com 

Creativity 
Creativity is associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. 

It's difficult to get my head around Irish psychiatrist, Patricia Casey's latest offering in the Health & Living magazine. In fact, there are two problems in writing about her article, 'The Curse of Creativity', Problem 

1. She may instruct her lawyers to send me an intimidating letter for daring to oppose her opinion, 

and 

2. I may be diagnosed with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder for offering a creative response to her written work.

On a recent trip to London Patricia Casey ventured inside the National Gallery, in particular Room 45, which houses amongst others, paintings by Vincent Van Gogh .

Casey writes:
The information on the paintings noted that many were painted during his time in the Saint-Paul asylum near Saint-Remy, in the Provence area of France. They showed his genius, evident even in the throes of major mental illness.
Over the years there have been many psychiatrists that use Van Gogh's apparent mental disorder/s as an argument when in truth none of them can actually prove that he did have a mental disorder.

Van Gogh was born with a brain lesion and, as a result suffered from seizures, he also frequently drank absinthe, a drink that was, back then, associated with violent crimes and social disorders.

It is documented that Dr. Gachet, one of Van Gogh's physicians, was thought to have treated his epilepsy with digitalis. This prescription drug can cause one to see in yellow or see yellow spots.

Far be it from me to diagnose someone from all those years ago but the above would suggest that he may not have had a mental illness at all, in fact his brain lesion, enjoyment of absinthe and medication could have made the white-coated head-shrinkers believe that he was mentally disturbed. It's a valid argument is it not?

In fact, a critic once had this to say about Absinthe:
Absinthe makes you crazy and criminal, provokes epilepsy and tuberculosis, and has killed thousands of French people. It makes a ferocious beast of man, a martyr of woman, and a degenerate of the infant, it disorganizes and ruins the family and menaces the future of the country. [1]

Anyway, back to Casey's article...

Casey tells us that the connection between creativity and mental illness has been examined and powerfully answered in a study published in the 'British Journal of Psychiatry'. She adds that the findings of the study show that creativity is associated with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder.

In the case of Van Gogh I could oppose Casey's take on the study and put forward the argument that his creativity could have been down to the use of Absinthe [which, back then, was known to cause hallucinations]. Absinthe included a toxin called Thujone and when taken in high doses [quantity] can cause one to see objects in yellow. Or maybe it was the digitalis prescribed to him by his doctor, a drug that can cause one to see in yellow or see yellow spots. Is it just a coincidence that Van Gogh loved the colour yellow whilst being creative with his work?

If one's creativity is associated with a mental disorder then what hope do we have? It beggars the question what Casey believes about the Diagnostic Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders [DSM], a book based on psychiatrists and their own creative minds in what should be deemed a mental disorder or not. There is no science to what they write, it's all based on creative thinking and judging by what they deem to be mental disorders one can only assume that they have all been on an Absinthe drinking binge.

In years to come I anticipate that the DSM will be placed in the National Gallery of London. Do they have any rooms for Fantasy?

Casey's article can be read in full HERE.



Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

Monday, December 12, 2011

GSK - Absolutely Jabulous



I wasn't going to write about this but with various emails and messages on social networks telling me about it I thought I'd better, at least, offer a small snapbyte for cyberspace.

Once again it would appear that GlaxoSmithKline are swimming that great river of Egypt [Denial ~ The Nile] with regard to their Pandemrix vaccine [flu-jab] and its link to narcolepsy, a sleep disorder that causes excessive sleepiness and frequent daytime sleep attacks.

Today's Mail Online is reporting that 6 year old Josh Hadfield is still suffering from the after effects of the controversial jab.

"I’m up with him around four times each night to feed him snacks and also comfort him because he has horrendous nightmares," she said. "He used to be sent home from school every time he fell asleep but now they have set aside an area in his classroom where he can take a nap."

Worringly, the Mail Online is reporting that young Josh is now taking the antipsychotic Ritalin and other antidepressants.

So, let's get this straight. A 6 year old is given a flu jab, he has an adverse reaction to it, a reaction that is so horrendous that he sleeps for most of the day, his school even allow him to take a nap. To combat this, young Josh is given a powerful antipsychotic and, according to the Mail Online, antidepressants, medication that has not been recommended for use in children.

Amazing isn't it. I don't know why they just don't stick young Josh in a glass box with a hamster wheel and some straw.

The story of Josh appeared in the Mail Online back in April this year, it's unknown if he was taking Ritalin and antidepressants back then.

GlaxoSmithKline's Dr Pim Kon, said: "There is currently no evidence at all to suggest there is a causal link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy." She added that GSK are working hard with the regulatory authorities to try to understand what is happening.

Dr Pim Kon is no stranger to controversy. Last year she told the InPharma magazine that European regulators [EMA] were wrong to withdraw its diabetes drug Avandia from the market. Avandia was suspended by the EMA last year because of high levels of heart attack, heart failure and strokes in patients.

I've briefly touched on Glaxo's Pandemrix Vaccine in the past on this blog.

Back in 2009 Switzerland medicine regulators, Swissmedic, restricted the use of Pandemrix because they had not recieved enough data about it. In a statement they announced, that they had received data on the vaccine for adults, but not for pregnant women and very little data for children. "For this reason, Swissmedic has not yet authorised the administration of Pandemrix to pregnant women, children under the age of 18 and adults over 60."


It's unclear whether or not Swissmedic later authorised the use of Pandemrix in children.

Also in 2009 The Environmental Illness Resource announced that Glaxo's Pandemrix vaccine was unsafe to use in those that had environmental illnesses. The full statement can be read HERE.

In 2010 I highlighted a story that had made the Finnish press. According to Nelonen (Channel 4) news, the Chancellor of Justice was investigating if bribery was used in the Pandemrix vaccine trade.

The Nelonen (Channel 4) news reported that the the investigation had begun because two individuals had reported their suspicions to the Chancellor. The investigation targeted the Ministry of Health and THL, National Instute for Health and Welfare. THL had received more than six million euros last year from GlaxoSmithKline, which manufactures Pandemrix. THL has also had a key role in the decision to order Pandemrix to every Finnish inhabitant.

Ironically, the study that now has Glaxo and the medicine health regulators in a tizz stems from Finland. In what seems to be a massive U-Turn, the Finnish government said it accepted a link between Pandemrix and narcolepsy and has promised compensation and support for affected families.

So, nothing to do with the 2010 expose then? I wonder whatever did come of that investigation?

A cynic, Moi?


Watch a special investigation into the Pandemrix/Narcoplepsy link on BBC IPlayer HERE

Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE

**Correction: Ritalin is, of course an amphetamine and not an antipsychotic. [Thanks Judy for noticing the error]


Saturday, December 10, 2011

MHRA's June Raine Sticks Fingers In Her Ears




It appears that I'm not the only one with a gripe against the MHRA.

Dr June Raine, Director, Vigilance, Risk Management of Medicines, MHRA


All Party Parliamentary Group for Involuntary Tranquilliser Addiction [APPGITA] website is sharing an email sent to June Raine by John Perrott.

Perrott points out that Raine, for reasons unknown, refuses to answer his questions regarding Wyeth withholding safety data from the UK Ativan data sheet or explain why it took a further 18 years for warnings to start being listed by the MHRA.

Perrott's email asks further questions of the MHRA, questions that I doubt will ever be answered. What his email does show, however, is that once again the MHRA are under the spotlight for all the wrong reasons and when they are called to task by members of the public they either label them 'vexatious' or just simply refuse to answer questions.

There's me thinking they had a duty and moral obligation to answer queries.

John Perrott's email can be read in full HERE


RELATED: - MHRA In Buck-Passing Specialist Cahoots








Wednesday, December 07, 2011

MHRA In Buck-Passing Specialist Cahoots

Buck-passing:  - The shifting of responsibility or blame to another.
Vague - Not clearly expressed; inexplicit.




I used to liaise with the MHRA. There was a time when they sought my advice on the Yellow Card reporting system. I'm not the only person or organisation they sought help from.

I called it quits with the MHRA when they would not admit that Seroxat [Paxil] was a teratogen. I severed ties with them, save for the odd Freedom of Information request.

Regular readers will know of the recent SSRi Learning Module that the MHRA have apparently devised for healthcare practitioners. I criticized this module in three separate posts on this blog [Links at foot of this article]

What was irksome for me was the buck-passing that was apparent throughout the module. On the subject of severe SSRi withdrawal the MHRA are telling healthcare practitioners to recommend "specialists" to patients.

With this in mind I sent the following to the MHRA:

Can the MHRA provide me with a list of specialists experienced in SSRi withdrawal that are a; in the UK and b; available on the NHS.

The MHRA, as transparent as ever, have replied:


Dear Mr Fiddaman,

You ask for a list of specialists with experience of managing SSRI withdrawal.

The MHRA regulates the quality, safety and efficacy of medicines and medical devices, but it does not regulate health professionals. We do not, therefore, hold lists of individual health professionals of the type you seek.

Health professionals are registered to practice by their statutory regulatory bodies (such as the General Medical Council and the Nursing and Midwifery Council). Those who specialise are further accredited by their professional institutions (such as the Royal College of General Practitioners and the Royal College of Psychiatrists).

Turning to SSRI withdrawal, health professionals have recourse to summaries of product characteristics, which give information on SSRI withdrawal. Further, in July, the MHRA published information on selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors and serotonin and noradrenaline reuptake inhibitors (link below), which has a section on ‘SSRIs/SNRIs and the risk of withdrawal reactions’. It links to several documents on advice emerging from detailed review of evidence on SSRI withdrawal undertaken by the MHRA and its Expert Working Groups.

More recently, the MHRA’s learning module on the SSRIs briefly outlines points for health professionals to bear in mind about SSRI treatment. The learning module, developed for healthcare professionals, should be read in conjunction with other information such as treatment guidelines.

Withdrawal effects vary from person to person and call for individual management guided by advice in summaries of product characteristics and the background information we have published. If necessary, health professionals can request advice from local specialist mental health services.

Because I feel this should be out in the open, I am adding my response to the above on my blog. I feel the MHRA are once again shirking their responsibilities here and simply playing the game of 'pass the buck'.

My response:


Dear Whoever,

Firstly, I apologise for not naming you in person, there was no sig at the foot of the email you sent me. There was also no reference number to quote.

I am well aware of your SSRi Learning module and also aware that you are recommending doctors to advise patients, who are struggling severe withdrawal, to seek 'specialist' advice.

Couple of points.
You, as a regulator, do not have a list of these so-called specialists yet, without any qualms or vetting them, you are advising doctor's to use their services. Why?
If I were to ask my GP to consult the RCP and RCGP will they be able to give him a list of specialists in SSRI dependence and withdrawal that he can consult?

Do you not feel, as a regulator, that you should, at the very least, see what training these specialists have had in the field of SSRi withdrawal?

To be brutally honest, your SSRi Learning Module is, quite frankly, poor advice. You will be no doubt aware of my criticism of it on my blog?

You have, in the past, met with stakeholders with regard to antidepressants [SSRi's] - it appears you have ignored those meetings in favour of what the manufacturers of these drugs have to offer.

You, at my request, also met with Professor David Healy who has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Have you relayed this information to healthcare specialists, do you agree with Professor Healy's advice or do you think the advice is wrong? I would like a straight answer on this please.

As I understand, you promised to liaise with Professor Healy should any more concerns arise re SSRi withdrawal. To my knowledge you have not liaised with him since your 2010 meeting with him. Why?
There is no withdrawal protocol for SSRi's, you can't offer it neither can the manufacturers, it's left, in the main, to former patients who have struggled at the hands of SSRi withdrawal.

In essence, your recommendations to healthcare professionals via your SSRi Learning Module regarding these 'specialists' has been recommended without first researching these specialists. That's poor management on your part and once again you, the regulator, are putting the onus on healthcare professionals to make a decision.

Obviously my next question will fall under the Freedom of Information Act.

1. What input did you receive from the pharmaceutical industry for your SSRi Learning Module?
 2. Please list any grants/funding you, may or may not have, received for your SSRi Learning Module.

To recap:
 Non FOI questions:
1. You, as a regulator, do not have a list of these so-called specialists yet, without any qualms or vetting them, you are advising doctor's to use their services. Why?

2. If I were to ask my GP to consult the RCP and RCGP will they be able to give him a list of specialists in SSRI dependence and withdrawal that he can consult?

3. Do you not feel, as a regulator, that you should, at the very least, see what training these specialists have had in the field of SSRi withdrawal?

4. You, at my request, also met with Professor David Healy who has acknowledged that there are a significant number of people on SSRi's that will never be able to stop. Have you relayed this information to healthcare specialists, do you agree with Professor Healy's advice or do you think the advice is wrong?

5. As I understand, you promised to liaise with Professor Healy should any more concerns arise re SSRi withdrawal. To my knowledge you have not liaised with him since your 2010 meeting with him. Why?

The following two questions fall within the remit of the Freedom of Information Act.
1. What input did you receive from the pharmaceutical industry for your SSRi Learning Module?
2. Please list any grants/funding you, may or may not have, received for your SSRi Learning Module.

Bob Fiddaman.

PS: I'd appreciate a reference number for this continued correspondence.

The reason I am adamant to get to the bottom of this matter stems from the three critiques I wrote concerning the MHRA's SSRi Learning Module which can be read at the following links:


MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part I

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part II "Keeping A Stiff Upper Lip"

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part III - MHRA's Ghosts In The Machine













Jennifer Saunders Side Effects/Depression Battle



I read with sadness today that Jennifer Saunders, the British comedienne and writer, has been having treatment for breast cancer.

As a man I will never quite understand the range of emotions a woman must go through whilst receiving treatment for this illness.

What concerned me about her Harley Street treatment was the use of two drugs.

Tamoxifen and citalopram.

According to The Daily Mail the side-effects of Tamoxifen pushed Jennifer into menopause, which she likened to ‘jumping off a cliff’.

The Daily Mail writes:

She will continue to take tamoxifen, which works by blocking the female hormone oestrogen, for five years but admitted it had left her feeling depressed and unable to get out of bed.

The mother-of-three, who was diagnosed last year, said: ‘You are pushed into menopause like jumping off a cliff… bang!’

She also revealed she was put on anti-depressants after chemotherapy.

Jennifer was given a course of the SSRi citalopram [Cipramil] - I find this astounding.

Back in 2009, at the American Society of Clinical Oncology (ASCO) 45th Annual Meeting, it was revealed that patients who are taking tamoxifen to reduce their risk for breast cancer recurrence should avoid concomitant use of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, of which citalopram is one.

SSRi's are potent inhibitors of the cytochrome P450 2D6 enzyme that converts tamoxifen to its active metabolite, endoxifen. By inhibiting the enzyme, these drugs reduce the blood levels of this active metabolite, and so reduce the efficacy of tamoxifen in protecting against breast cancer recurrence.

I'm a big fan of Saunders and her husband Ade Edmonson, I grew up with them. I hope that, at some point, the Harley Street specialists who prescribed Jennifer citalopram can refer to the studies out there that suggest that SSRi's and Taoxifen should not be mixed.

Daily Mail article HERE


**British drug regulators, the MHRA, post drug safety warning regarding Tamoxifen and SSRi medication [2010] HERE

** Listen to the audio recording of when two Irish parents met citalopram manufacturer Lundbeck to pose questions about the safety and efficacy of their product HERE







Tuesday, December 06, 2011

Who Are You?



It appears the World Health Organisation [WHO] took an interest in myself and Ablechild this morning. Quite what they are looking for is unknown, unless of course they are pissed off that Ablechild will be appearing on CNN this weekend or that I've been covering the media interest that's surfaced over the past week or so?

They seemed to be pretty interested in the Seroxat/Paxil withdrawal guidance I have available for download, will they be endorsing it for me or perhaps offering an alternative? They should ask GlaxoSmithKline for their withdrawal protocol, or perhaps they should ask the MHRA for a list of SSRi withdrawal specialists they claim exist.

I've wrote to the MHRA again asking them to list all the SSRi experts and if those experts are available on the NHS. Ironically, the MHRA paid a visit to my blog about a minute before the World Health Organisation.

You see, the MHRA have devised an SSRi Learning Module for doctors in the UK, it's basically a module of buck-passing and looks, to me at least, as if it was ghost-written by the pharmaceutical industry.

If I wanted to withdraw safely from an addictive drug the last people I would turn to would be an agency that is wholly funded by the pharmaceutical industry, particularly when that drug is GlaxoSmithKline's Seroxat and particularly when that agency [MHRA] have a Chairman [Alasdair Breckenridge] who is a former employee of the Seroxat manufacturer and whose Head of Licensing [Ian Hudson] is former World Safety Officer at Seroxat's manufacturers and whose former Senior Medical Officer [Rashmi Shah] is now a paid expert witness for Seroxat's manufacturer in UK litigation .

It appears to me that these mystical SSRi withdrawal specialists that the MHRA refer to in their SSRi Learning Module, actually don't exist, they are passing the buck to someone...or something that is not answerable.

So, I'm left wondering why the World Health Organisation would appear on my page this morning, a minute or so after it is visited by the MHRA?

Are they going to tell me that I should not offer out withdrawal guidance or are they concerned that the MHRA's SSRi Learning Module is, like their Yellow Card Reporting System, deeply flawed?

Time will tell.

I'm still waiting for an answer from the MHRA, it wasn't a Freedom of Information request so it should only take them a couple of days...even though I sent the email on the 28th November!





Related


MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part I

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part II "Keeping A Stiff Upper Lip"

MHRA To 'Re-educate' UK Doctor's on SSRi's Part III - MHRA's Ghosts In The Machine

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part I of IV

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part II of IV - Witness For The Defence

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part III of IV - Expert Statistician

GlaxoSmithKline/MHRA - When Ignorance Turns To Bliss - Part IV - The Colour of Money




Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE




Monday, December 05, 2011

Psychiatric Drugs In The Media

There's been quite a flurry of activity recently with regard to the mainstream media reporting on psychiatric drugs, particularly in the use of children. We had the UK first with a Channel 4 News Special.



 


Next we had the USA and ABC's flagship current affairs programme, 20/20, reporting on Foster care homes and the use of mind-altering drugs in children, some under the age of 1.

PART ONE



PART TWO


PART THREE



Then TV3's 60 Minutes from New Zealand reporting on the dangers of SSRi medication not only in children...but adults too. [No video but review can be read HERE]

I'd like to say the times are changin'...but there's a bloody long way to go.

Next week Ablechild's co-founders, Patricia Weathers and Sheila Matthews, appear on CNN with their take on the mass drugging of children.

There's a huge spanner been thrown into the works. The people are fighting back...in the name of those your drugs have harmed and killed.







Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE




Saturday, December 03, 2011

ABC 20/20 Confront The Pill Pushers



Over the past week or so ABC News in America have been covering the plight of the thousands of children caught in the loop of the mental health system. These children have each had a poor start in life and have been placed into Foster care because, more often than not, they have been abused by their parents or, in some instances, have had to deal with the death of their parents.

Last night ABC's 20/20 rounded off their investigation with a 10 minute special entitled Confronting Doctors [As yet not available on YouTube]. It was, in essence, a pastiche of their two previous specials from Wednesday and Thursday but featured a more in-depth look at the case of 7 year-old Gabriel Myers.

Gabriel's father was in prison whilst his mother had become addicted to prescription drugs. One day she had drove to a shopping mall with Gabriel in the car and had fallen asleep. She was thrown into prison whilst Gabriel was placed into Foster care. [I use the word care loosely]

During the weeks that went by Gabriel was moved from home to home and saw a number of therapists. He became disruptive, trashing his room. From that point he was assigned to psychiatrist, Sohail Punjwani who, for reasons only known to himself, deemed Gabriel to be in need of psychotropic medication, this after a five-minute consultation  and a diagnosis based on nothing but personal opinion, an opinion that would ultimately result in 7 year-old Gabriel Myers taking his own life by wrapping a shower hose around his neck and hanging himself.

Gabriel's death was ruled as an accident but anyone who knows just how dangerous these drugs can be, not only for adults taking them but children too, will know that putting a child as young as 7 on a mixture of mind altering drugs was the probable causation into him taking his own life. There is overwhelming evidence that shows how these drugs can induce suicidal thoughts. Psychiatrists and the pharmaceutical industry alike will point to the trauma in young Gabriel's life as being the possible reason why he killed himself, kind of hypocritical when you consider for a moment that a child is thrown into a strange place with adults he has never met and children he has never met all the time missing his mom and wondering when he will see her again. Adding fuel to the fire [psychiatric drugs] was clearly not the answer, it was merely a way of suppressing or dumbing-down young Gabriel.

Sharyn Alfonsi of ABC News tracked down Gabriel's psychiatrist and asked him why he had prescribed these drugs to Gabriel.

Punjwani:  "Sad stories happen but that does not mean the doctor is responsible for it because we are in the business of taking care of these children."


Alfonsi then pressed Punjwani and asked him how much time he actually spent with Gabriel. She put it to him that he only spent 5 minutes in consultation with Gabriel.

Punjwani:  "That is untrue."


Later, and off camera, Punjwani conceded that it was possible that he only spent 5 minutes with Gabriel whilst adjusting his medication.

Alfonsi revealed that Punjwani has an arrest record for being in possession of cocaine and to avoid prosecution he agreed to go through a court mandated rehabilitation program.

Comment


The plight of Gabriel is truly tragic, it appears he was removed from one trauma to another, one burning building to another. His case is just a small part of a bigger picture, a picture that the world of the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatry and medicines regulators don't want the likes of you and I to see. It's a secret society where the 3 bodies that know the truth do everything in their power to suppress the truth. It's a wanton neglect of our little people whereby on the odd occasion we get the 'good' psychiatrists speaking out about this mindless form of abuse.

The prescribing physicians should hang their heads in shame, although I doubt very much if they have any conscience relating to the prescribing of these drugs to children who haven't even had a chance to develop a fully working brain. Doctor's, it could be argued, such as Punjwani are the ones with the mental disorders, it is an act of insanity to hand out brain altering medication to children on an assumption, particularly based on such little time spent with that child during consultation.

Insanity
1. The state of being seriously mentally ill; madness. 
2.Extreme foolishness or irrationality.


I think it safe to suggest that anyone who thinks prescribing mind-altering drugs to a child suffering the trauma of being separated from their parents could fall into category 2 [above]

To make matters worse neither the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatry or medicines regulators take accountability for this huge failure, instead, they buck-pass by blaming one another and/or the child's original "illness". Are we expected to believe that young Gabriel Myers actually had an illness, that the majority of children placed in Foster care have an illness?

For too long we, firstly as human-beings and secondly as parents, have ignored the abuse of the mind that these drugs cause our children, we cannot see this abuse because their are no bruises, no broken bones, no bandages. Imagine, if you will, the brain of a small child. Apart from taking a severe blow to the head I can't think of any other way other than prescribing these medications that would cause brain trauma. To numb one's thinking, to suppress emotions such as grief or loss is, in my books at least, abuse.

It has become acceptable to use these dangerous medications on children, mainly, in part, to the massive promotional campaigns by the pharmaceutical industry and key opinion leaders [leading 'relnowned' psychiatrists] who add their names to ghostwritten publications that deem these drugs effective to use in children. As parents we too have a responsibility. A naughty son or daughter does not necessarily mean we have a little Damien Thorn or Regan McNeil on our hands. They should not be labelled with a mental disorder for showing human emotion. Furthermore, they should not be given cocktails of pharmaceutical drugs because they show signs of grief or loss.

The drugging of children in Foster care in America is appalling, it's by no means just an American problem, it's going on in other countries. We have a society that automatically labels unruly children as misfits, brats, we have an industry that labels them with psychiatric disorders. We have, in essence, the perfect set of lab rats to abuse and to make a whole heap of money whilst doing it.

The ABC trilogy of stories is very much the tip of the iceberg. Children in Foster care are 13 times more likely to be prescribed drugs that can cause a bio chemical imbalance than children not in care. It's a startling figure but those not in care who are prescribed these drugs are also in danger.

There are two kinds of bullies, there are those that abuse then there are those that stand back and watch the abuse without intervening. I'll leave the pharmaceutical industry, psychiatry and the medicines regulators to decide on which type of bully they are.

A lot of effort has come from advocates and organisations during the making of this series. It is because of people and organisations whose hearts are in the right places that ABC were able to broadcast across America, they were able to spread the awareness that has been created over the years by a long list of people who bang the drum constantly regarding the abuse of drugging children. The list is long but a special mention goes out to Sheila Matthews of Ablechild, Ken Kramer of Psych-Search and, of course, where would we all be without the Citizen's Commission on Human Rights.

If you are foolish enough to believe that this is the end of the matter, think again, there's a whole new breed of pill-pushing being promoted down under in Australia. If you think it's utterly ridiculous to give a child mind altering drugs because he is deemed to have a mental disorder then what would you think of someone who could predict if your child was going to get a mental disorder in future years and to nip it in the bud put your child on a heap of psychiatric drugs just like Gabriel Myers? Ladies and gentlemen, boys and girls, I give you the time-travelling DeLorean driving psychiatrist, Patrick McGorry.

Part III can be found on the ABC 20/20 website HERE

Related articles:


12 Year-Old Kid Speaks before Senate and Congress about Psychiatric Drugs

U.S. Government Fails to Oversee Treatment of Foster Children With Mind-Altering Drugs ABC News Part I

Billion Dollar Drug Company Law Firm Restructures Connecticut Welfare System

In Memory of Gabriel Myers

Twitter - #FosterChange




Fid


ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK HERE


AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE





Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.