Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

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

Friday, June 23, 2017

Prozac: Three Blind Mice

Three blind mice, three blind mice,
See how they run, see how they run,
They all ran after the farmer's wife,
Who cut off their tails with a carving knife,
Did you ever see such a thing in your life,
As three blind mice?

Most believe the author of 'Three Blind Mice' was a teenager named Thomas Ravenscroft. The origin of the words, according to many historians, stem from Queen Mary the Ist staunch Catholic beliefs and her violent persecution of Protestants. The reference to 'farmer's wife' in Three Blind Mice refers to the huge estates which she, and her husband King Philip of Spain, possessed. The 'three blind mice' were three Protestants who were convicted of plotting against Queen Mary I - she did not have them dismembered and blinded as inferred in Three blind mice - but she did have them burnt at the stake! 

Ah, don't you just love the morals and ethics of religion! Fighting for something that just cannot be seen or heard. It still goes on today, with the latest of all beliefs, Islam. History shows that religious books have been responsible for many deaths, or rather the way religious scriptures have been interpreted. The irony is that religion, as a whole, claims to be about bringing peace and unity. History shows us otherwise. The Quran is the last of all the holy scriptures, so what we see playing out now is just a repeat of what has gone before it.

Which brings me nicely to a recent study carried out on mice in Japan. The study, just like religion, is trying to show something that just cannot be seen or heard. The study, sponsored in part by Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. Ltd., showed that mice pups, that were bred to mimic the distinctive behaviors and brain abnormalities seen in autism, experienced dramatic improvements in their social interactions and communication patterns, that are a hallmark of the autism, after drinking their mother’s milk which had been spiked with the antidepressant Prozac for 19 days.

Furthermore, according to the study, "newborn mice got a daily injection of Prozac in their first six days of life, the treatment appeared to restore normal vocalization patterns and reduce anxiety-like behaviors well into adulthood."

The study is littered with assumptions and the general consensus of it seems to point toward a chemical imbalance that both humans and mice allegedly have when falling foul of symptoms of mental illness. One would think that if you are going to use mice in a study that have been specifically bred with a brain disorder then one must look at the methods used to impair them. However, the study doesn't do that, or at least it doesn't go into detail about what was used to initially impair the mice pups.

It claims to show that Prozac cleared whatever was induced in the mice so, in essence, this could just possibly be one drug counteracting another drug.

The spin in this study is obvious. The authors have induced a series of brain abnormalities in mice pups then made claims that these abnormalities are almost identical to the abnormalities found in people with autism.

Here's the irony.

Toxic exposures during pregnancy, such as the use of antidepressants, can disrupt brain processes before birth and shortly afterward.

So, if antidepressants can disrupt the brain process before and after birth, why not treat that with, um, another antidepressant!

It must have been a slow news day at the Los Angeles Times whose Health Corespondent, Melissa Healy, ran with the study. Her reporting is littered with assumptions, Prozac, she claims, "is thought to elevate mood and quell anxiety by increasing the availability of the neurotransmitter serotonin in the spaces between certain types of brain cells."

The key word here is "thought." Anything that follows it can, and should, be taken with a pinch of salt. It's clever marketing because our eyes are drawn to the science when, in actual fact, there is no science, it's just supposition.

Furthermore, Healy goes on to say, "Research on humans suggests that, during early brain development, those who will go on to develop autism have unusually low levels of serotonin in critical areas of the brain."

Now, here's a game for you all. What is the keyword in the above sentence?

Answers in the comments section or on my Facebook page please.

Science is an intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment. This Japanese study has done none of that.

Don't you just love the morals and ethics of clinical trials and unscientific journalsm reporting!

Full study here.

LA Times article here.

And you think we have problems with religion!

Bob Fiddaman

Wednesday, June 21, 2017

Mother Reveals Shocking Truth Behind Daughter's Death!

Take a good look at the beautiful young woman pictured above. Heather Blower was just 18 when she was found hanging in her bedroom by her sister, Heidi.

Earlier today I was alerted to a post that featured Heather and Heidi's mother, Paula.

I was halfway through the post when I had to stop. Tears were welling and I had to dry my eyes. Anger was also rearing its ugly head because the incompetence highlighted in Paula's guest post is all too familiar.

One would have thought that after 11 years of researching and blogging about this I'd be almost immune to the pain and suffering felt by those left behind when they lose children under such tragic circumstances. The tragedy here is heightened because of the ignorance of apparent health care professionals and a spineless regulator who have been alerted to stories like this time and time again and done absolutely nothing!

Heather was dragged through the system, her mind, body and soul tortured by raving lunatics who chose to ignore obvious signs of antidepressant adverse reactions.

Once dead and with her lifeless body barely put to rest, those same health care professionals thought it their duty to target Heather's surviving sister, Heidi. They offered her antidepressants, this was refused. They then, with their infinite knowledge of  "we know better than you", recommended that Heidi be moved into an apartment because, they told her mom, “you’re stopping her having antidepressants and getting well.”

The guest post is difficult to read, it will make you sad and, hopefully, make you angry enough to share it far and wide. If you have health care professionals in your family or if you have them as friends then you have a moral and ethical duty to tell them (not ask them) to sit down and actually let this sink in.

Paula has shown courage for speaking out, a courage that comes in the face of adversity. It's time for us all to show courage. It's time for us to say enough is enough.

Losing Heather is featured on the brilliant AntiDepAware website here.

Bob Fiddaman

Monday, June 19, 2017

UK Figures See Rise in Antidepressant Use in Under 18's

Data obtained from The Guardian newspaper has revealed that over 166,000 consumers under the age of 18 were given antidepressant medication between April 2015 and June 2016, including 537 aged six or under.

These figures really shouldn't shock and are, more than likely, underestimated. Quite why the Guardian is only revealing statistics for those 18 and under is a mystery. The current recommendations is for antidepressants not to be used in treating anyone 24 and under - so we have a absence of data here.

To offer balance, albeit in the form of professionals with links to the pharmaceutical industry, the Guardian quoted David Taylor, who is a spokesperson for the Royal Pharmaceutical Society. He claimed, “Antidepressants are only used in children in circumstances where there is clear support from robust clinical trials. Adolescents with anxiety, obsessive compulsive disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder may be prescribed antidepressants, and fluoxetine is used in depression.”

Robust clinical trials?

Where are those 'robust' clinical trials he refers to?

Offering balance, Dr Antonis Kousoulis, a clinician and assistant director at the Mental Health Foundation, said the figures show “we are failing to provide a choice of age-appropriate psychological treatments at the point of the need”. He continued, “GPs over prescribe antidepressants often because of the long waiting lists for specialist services,” adding. “But the evidence that these medicines are effective in children is not as comprehensive as is it for‎ drugs for other conditions.”

Surely we can't use long-waiting lists for psychological treatments as an excuse to put children and adolescents in danger?

The National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE) also weighed in with, "antidepressants should be given only to teenagers and children with moderate or severe depression."

This goes against the recommendations of both the manufacturers of these drugs and the limp-wristed regulatory agency who claim to protect the public from harm from unsafe drugs.

NICE also claimed, "Fluoxetine (Prozac), which is sold under the trade name Prozac, is the only drug recommended for younger people, but other medication can be used as second-line treatment if fluoxetine does not work."

Really, other medication can be used?

I've long had a beef about the word 'recommendation'. In a blog post of mine from 2014, "Not Recommended", I highlighted how this term is, in essence, nothing more than a legal requirement. It protects the pharmaceutical industry and the regulator because they can always claim, after an antidepressant-induced death that, they have both warned about antidepressant use in this age group. It covers them legally and the only ones left to blame are the prescribing doctors who, in their defence, will claim there's a long waiting list for psychological treatments so "I had to prescribe something."

What they are prescribing are a series of mind-altering drugs known to cause suicidal feelings and, in many instances, suicidal completion. With comments and advice from the likes of NICE, the Mental Health Foundation, and the Royal Pharmaceutical Society doctors in the UK must be as confused as I.

It's crystal clear, to me at least, that the warning needs to change. "Not recommended" needs to be dropped and replaced with “must not be used” in children and adolescents.

Of course, it would be too much to ask the British drug regulator (MHRA) to come out and oppose the prescribing of these drugs to kids. Recent communications between the MHRA and myself shows MHRA wants citizens to pay them for information regarding suicides in SSRI clinical trials - see MHRA Seek Payment For Info on Deadly Drugs.

If a regulator is reluctant to release the full information about these drugs then what hope do doctors have when deciding whether or not they are safe? Oh, I know, the "not recommended" cop out!

What is startling about these recent figures is that 537 consumers, aged six or younger, were prescribed these mind altering drugs. But don't expect any response other than, "We have warned practitioners that these groups of meds are not recommended for this age group."

The Guardian article can be read here.

Bob Fiddaman

Wednesday, June 07, 2017

Trump Nominates King & Spalding Attorney

Who is Christopher A. Wray?

Well, he's a litigation partner in King & Spalding's Washington DC and Atlanta office.

And who, I hear you ask, are King & Spalding?

Well, they're the law firm who just got spanked in Chicago. They defended GlaxoSmithKline, arguing that their antidepressant, Paxil, did not cause the suicide of Stewart Dolin.

The jury saw through the weak defence and found Glaxo liable.

Prior to joining the firm, Wray served from 2003 to 2005 as the Assistant Attorney General in charge of the U.S. Department of Justice’s (DOJ) Criminal Division, the same department who, in 2012, slammed down a $3 billion fine after GlaxoSmithKline pleaded guilty to a whole host of federal crimes.

So, what duties does one who becomes director at the FBI have to carry out?

Well, he's basically responsible for its day-to-day operations.

The FBI has jurisdiction over violations of more than 200 categories of federal crimes.

So nice to know that one of King & Spalding's biggest and wealthiest clients, GlaxoSmithKline, may now have someone to oversee any future criminal behaviour of theirs.

This shit just writes itself.

Nice move, Don.

Bob Fiddaman

Monday, June 05, 2017

MHRA Seek Payment For Info on Deadly Drugs

Well, true to their word it took the MHRA 20 working days to answer my Freedom of Information request.

As you will see from my response I'm going to need the help of you, the public, on this issue.

My response:

I received your claim that releasing the information requested would be too costly for your office. Given that human lives are at stake (a value far greater than your work hours), I request the following:

1) Please estimate the amount of money you require in exchange for obtaining this information.

2) Please separately estimate the number of hours of work you might have to complete to "research" and answer each of my Freedom of Information questions.

I will set the wheels in motion for public crowd-funding so the answers to these questions can be in the public domain. The same public that have a right to fully informed consent can then decide whether or not they think antidepressants are safe and effective based on the information you seem reluctant to release.

I look forward to working with the public to raise your requested funds.

Bob Fiddaman

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