So Seroxat causes birth defects and damages babies born to mothers prescribed it, it’s banned for those under 18 because the clinical trials show that it increases suicide and self harm in kids. Young adults (under 23) are also supposed to be monitored for suicidal ideation as it’s known to trigger suicide in this age group, many people can’t come off it because of severe withdrawals, and now they say it damages the elderly, however anyone over 23 and before old age is fine to take it? … do they really expect us to believe that?
Up to half of the UK’s elderly population are prescribed at least one medication with anti-cholinergic properties, which include antidepressants, antihistamines, sleeping pills and antipsychotics.
Those with more severe effects include the antidepressant Seroxat, a drug for an overactive bladder called oxybutynin and schizophrenia drug clozapine.
As a result the drugs may trigger side-effects including dizziness, sedation, confusion, delirium, constipation and blurred vision, which although uncomfortable for young users may aggravate existing health problems in the elderly.
A number of studies found the drugs were linked to a deterioration in physical function, while others showed a ‘negative effect’ on cognitive function.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2712755/Drugs-taken-half-OAPs-cause-mental-physical-decline-Global-study-warns-hidden-risks.html#ixzz3AzgwUzhN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
I find it mildly amusing how some people- such as Mr Bad Pharma himself- Ben Goldacre- call blogs like mine- conspiracy theories. All my blog posts are backed up with research, and anyhow- most of my blog posts are news articles, and factual reporting from established news outlets (Reuters, The Guardian, Forbes etc). My contribution is usually just a commentary, an illustration of context, or an opinion on facts which have already been established. If Ben Goldacre (and others) think my posts are conspiracy theories, then they must also think that BBC Panorama generates conspiracy theories about GSK and Seroxat, or maybe they think that the US Department of Justice made up the allegations against GSK leading to the largest healthcare fraud and felony in US history? Maybe Ben (and those of his ilk) think that the whistleblowers themselves invented the allegations of mass off label prescribing, fraud and bribery of doctors and psychiatrists?
If Ben wants to research himself, and find out what GSK employees think of their employer’s behavior, he need look no further than the opinions and thoughts from GSK drug reps (and other employees) on the Cafepharma online forums:
“… let’s talk about the since less maiming and killing of children with GSK marketing tactics. Heck even add that they were aware, bud hid the data. We could always talk about the rat infested dump in P.R. that was a GSK manufacturing facility. You could also talk about the billions of dollars GSK cheated on it’s taxes during the Zantac days. Also you could speak about the deaths of children being tested with GSK vaccines in foreign countries. There is so much evil, hiding behind, helping people to do more and live longer…”
“I agree with the central question and it makes me angry. How can AW say that all those who are guilty of past misdeeds are gone, when he, himself, was there the entire time? Furthermore, he had a high-level position in respiratory marketing.
Adding insult to injury, MB, one of the primary whistle blowers, wrote the book on questionable marketing and sales tactics. He should be in jail. It’s an absolute travesty that he will benefit financially for doing (and encouraging) the very things he accused GSK of doing.”
07-26-2014, 07:16 AM
Posts: n/a Re: FBI Interviews Glaxo Employees“Doesn’t matter. Corruption is just part of the way GSK operates. It’s amazing how long they have done it, might have to pay a few bucks in fines every now and then, and then keep on doing it! It won’t stop until the Feds put somebody in jail. But, they REAL culprits will always get away. They will sacrifice a flunky to save their own asses!”
“Once you don’t care anymore and you call their bluff and do nothing you realize they got nothing on you. More and more people are just not working anymore. No incentive too. GSK is helpless to stop it. Company is starting to rot from the inside out. Corruption and lies never result in success. “
“The laundry list of sins committed by GSK corporate put this company into a death spin. We got in so deep to the justice department that we had to voluntarily initiate this Patient First night mare that obviously doesn’t work. No one can claim that is succeeded on any level. As a result, we have a sales force that isn’t permitted to sell. We have no incentive to sell anything. Especially Breo which has a commanding 1% market share coming up on a year since launch.
This company has lost all ability to create success. The culture is toxic and it starts at the top. Sadly, in this job market- most of us have no where else to go so we’ll ride this out to the end. Which sadly doesn’t look like its that far away.
I wish Hollywood got to write the end of this story. The GSK executives that committed all of these crimes will end up like Gordon Gecko- In prison.”
“This is just another example of GSK’s complete inability act ethically on any level. It is just one embarrassing scandal after another for this management team. There have been so many now… it is hardly possible to keep track of them all.
The bottom line is that if this back alley dealing dirt bag would have kept his dick in his pants like a moral married man- there would be no way to catch him on camera taking ol’ one eye to the optometrist in China.
Sometimes karma shows up in the oddest ways.”
“You are taking it as gospel that what GSK are claiming is true. Have you not learned anything over the past 20 years about this company?
They also said Paxil was safe and effective in kids and also backed Avandia to the hilt.”
“Take off your rose tinted glasses and read between the lines.
This “We were bribed first” is nothing but a defence to keep Reilly out of jail. Follow the trail – Emails sent to top GSK execs (including Witty) – GSK hire a private detective (without actually telling him about the bribery accusations and sex tape). – Private detective investigates who GSK believe to be the whistleblower (GSK’s Head of Government Affairs, Vivian Shi) – Private detective can’t find anything on her.
GSK then tell private detective about emails and sextape – shortly after the private detective is arrested (He’s still detained in China)
Witty knew about the allegations yet decided to sanction $20,000 for Humphrey to investigate Vivian Shi (to see if she was the whistleblower)
As head of the company he should have been more concerned about the allegations of bribery,
surely $20,000 could have been spend on investigating the allegations rather than who was behind the allegations?
After they couldn’t find who the whistleblower was they decided to investigate the allegations, they found no wrong-doing – wow, that was some investigation given that the Chinese authorities found a hell of a lot of wrong-doing.
Let’s not forget Witty’s reaction when this story first broke.
“Sir Andrew Witty said bosses at the multinational pharmaceuticals company’s London headquarters knew nothing of the millions of pounds in bribes allegedly being paid to doctors and health officials to boost sales and raise prices.”
Knew nothing? He was sitting on a sextape and emails accusing his company of bribery, yet, he ‘knew nothing.
Are you following this or do you want me to draw pictures?”
Posts: n/a Re: Any other shitty 3rd world countries we can bribe?
Screwing over the poor is nothing new. As a group, they are the easiest to expoit because they are desperate. GSK knows that their best return on investment with bribes is in the 3rd world. You can buy health officials for 10 to 1 over a developed nation.
If we are going to be criminals, we better damn well be the best at it!
If this is what we are getting caught doing- just think of how much more is going on that hasn’t come to light yet!?
Before the internet/digital age, historically powerful and influential institutions and corporations, had more or less complete dominance over the spread of information, and also how that information was shared, filtered, disseminated and interpreted. The discourse around that information, and knowledge, was invariably generated and shaped by elite organizations, powerful news media, the agenda of government and big business etc. In the past 15 years, with the advent of the internet, and subsequently, the development of a world wide digital social media apparatus (which includes Facebook, blogs, twitter etc), the traditional landscape of how (previously controlled) information, ideas and ‘messages’ circulated is now completely subverted. Nowadays, we have something of a more level, democratic, and ‘fairer’ playing field in regards to access to infinite streams of information. Easy access to sophisticated digital tools -which previous generations could only dream of- have (for better or worse) brought us all together in an online interconnected universe.
Some people don’t like this new democratic system. They haven’t quite come to terms with the reality that the world wide web has given every individual access to the online discourse; a digital universe where ideas and opinions can flow freely. An online space where a tweet can become an international news-worthy talking point, or where a lone blogger can have a global presence. People don’t take information at face-value anymore, they research it themselves online, they ‘google it’, ‘google it’ again and ‘google it’ some more until they find what they are looking for. In this new online digital world anyone with an internet connection can challenge established dogmas, ideologies and systems that they disagree with. The world of information and knowledge is no longer filtered through traditionally narrow channels. Knowledge is no longer under the control of the few. In this new world- dissent from twitter, youtube and Facebook can aid revolutions in the middle east (like the arab spring) or help websites advocate transparency for our governments and hold them to account (WikiLeaks).
Anyone can set up a twitter account, or create a blog, and anybody can engage with the new digital discourse. We can all debate each others views, challenge prejudice and ignorance, and have our own views challenged too, and hopefully help make the world a fairer, more democratic place to live. This is surely good for society, the evolution of culture, and mankind in general isn’t it?
I created this blog several years ago, because I was prescribed a dangerous, defective drug called Seroxat for depression in my twenties and I wanted to warn others of the possible dangers of SSRI anti-depressants and the perils of psychiatric diagnoses. I should have received talk-therapy at the time, and I would have been fine, but such is the mental health system that I was not provided with an option apart from drugs. Psychiatric drugs are highly profitable and psychiatry is only too eager to put us all on them. The drug company, GSK, hid the side effects of addiction, severe withdrawal, aggression and other side effects in order to make a profit (dead patients from dodgy drugs aren’t good advertising for business). Suffice to say, after finding this fraud out, I became a little pissed off. As you would …
After a long and arduous withdrawal, I began (with the magic of the digital internet) to research the drug I was prescribed (Seroxat/Paxil), the drug company who unethically created it (GlaxoSmithKline) and the system (Psychiatry) which allowed this sinister injustice to happen to me. What I discovered on my quest to understand why and how a defective drug like Seroxat comes to market, initially disturbed me greatly. I just couldn’t believe the level of corruption and deception in psychiatry. I was shocked and horrified at the faustian pact between psychiatry and the drug companies. I was disgusted at how psychiatry willingly sold out (and thus sold us- the patients- down the river too), and in the process also sold their monopoly on the human condition to the drugs industry. I was appalled at how doctors ignored patients’ complaints of side effects. I was dismayed and disappointed that the people I thought were there to help me possessed such power to harm me. I was hurt that my vulnerability could be exploited in such a cruel, sadistic and inhumane manner. I realized that we live in a very precarious world, where there are sinister forces that will use, abuse, and exploit your vulnerability for monetary gain or to maintain the status quo, or their own status. I learned that drug companies are callous and that psychiatry (like the Catholic church) is in deep denial. I learned that many people are being harmed by both, and grave injustices to vulnerable people continues, but in this blogging mis-adventure, most importantly- I discovered that there are others who share my views, and that online, those views can be heard.
Undoubtedly, some psychiatrists will dismiss me and my blog, as ‘anti-psychiatry’. This is a mere semantic charade. It’s a trick which psychiatry tries to use when people like me (ex- psychiatric service users) educate ourselves, begin to speak out, and in the process challenge their dogma, and quite often we ruffle a few feathers too! I am not anti-psychiatry, I am anti-psychiatric deception, misinformation and lies. I am pro-patient, and anti- psychiatric harm. If anything, most critics of psychiatry that I know of- lean more towards the hope of psychiatric ‘reform’ than the complete destruction of the profession. Most of us just want to be heard.
Psychiatry deeply needs to reform and it needs to engage with its critics, but (like that other arrogant ideological dogma -the Catholic church) it is extremely stubborn and it treats criticism as threats (and critical voices as flames- which need to be stamped out). Until psychiatry learns to adapt to criticism, particularly from ex-service users, it will continue to be seen as aloof, cold and devoid of compassion. Psychiatric reaction to criticism often has the opposite effect, instead of shutting us down, and quelling debate and dissent, some people damaged by psychiatric drugs shout louder. Oftentimes, people don’t appreciate being condescended to or having their experience debased and invalidated, particularly from the very regime that did the damage. Mainstream psychiatry’s reaction to criticism from service users, or those unhappy with drug treatments, is comparable to how the Catholic church reacted to abuse victims. It’s understandable that psychiatry would be intensely defensive, but that doesn’t justify it.
That last point- brings me finally- to Psychiatrist Simon Wessely. Over the past few weeks I have written a few critical blog posts on Simon Wessely; highlighting some things which I feel need to be highlighted. I wrote these posts mainly because I have a highly critical eye- and a critical ear. Therefore, when I hear or read misnomers, misinformation, red herrings and inaccuracies in the current mental health discourse, I feel the (democratic) need to challenge and to express my opinion on it. I feel, as a former psychiatric service user, and a former psychiatric drug user, that I have a valid and legitimate voice in this arena… but evidently some don’t feel the same.
Simon is an extremely influential psychiatrist. He has access to massive news dissemination networks like the BBC, The Guardian etc. Simon has the backing of powerful organizations, with governmental contacts, and political sway. I am just an independent mental health activist, a nobody, with a small blog and a small twitter presence, how could anything I draw attention to be of any significance to someone with such a large and powerful influence?
Simon sent me an e-mail recently, but because he stated boldly that it was a -
“PRIVATE E MAIL’
I am hesitant (out of mere common courtesy) to post it in its entirety,
However, I will publicly respond to Wessely here on my blog, as to be honest, I feel I have a right to express my response whatever way I see fit (it is the 21st century digital age after all).
I understand completely why you decided to block me on twitter, however I will not block you as I believe in a democratic, adult discourse about psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. I know my questions must have bothered you, as I’m sure you don’t often take it upon yourself to e-mail ex-psychiatric service users who disagree with much of your views. However, I do find it ridiculous when you say that you ‘don’t find the possibility of a meaningful discussion’ with me because you have not in any way even attempted to engage with anything I have to say on my blog, or on twitter. Therefore, any chance of a meaningful discussion has been nil from the beginning.
I am anonymous because I choose to be, and also because the issues I raise evidently can sometimes cause some controversy. You are a public figure firmly connected (and protected) by the establishment which you represent, I am not. I am an accidental mental health activist, I get no accolades, awards or pay for my work. There are over 650 blog posts on this blog, most pertaining to corruption and fraud within your profession and the pharmaceutical industry (an entity which props up your profession). If you should care to read some of them, particularly the ones on Seroxat, you might gain an insight into what I do and why I do it.
I have questioned some aspects of interviews, and views you have expressed, in mainstream media outlets such as BBC Radio 4 and The Guardian, and I feel I have a democratic right to do so, particularly when I feel that some of the information being disseminated is either wrong, misguided or will cause harm to vulnerable people (by that I mean people suffering from ‘mental health’ issues).
Your views reach huge audiences, mine are modest at best. I could chat all day with you, or discuss endless things about psychiatry, the nefarious influence of the drugs industry, academic bias, cognitive dissonance and ‘mental health’ but you have made it clear that you do not wish to engage at all with me -apart from perhaps sending me ‘PRIVATE e-mails that contain more than a tone and whiff of something ‘veiled’ – therefore Simon I wish you well.
An anonymous ex- psychiatric service user, Seroxat Sufferer, and long time blogger,
(who actually has an education but doesn’t need letters and a litany of statuses after my name in order to stress my importance and superiority)
Which anti-depressant’s were prescribed to Martin Strain? What dose was he on? and for how long? It’s the anti-depressants and psych drugs which are pushing people over the edge. I know- as I was on them- people like Simon Wessely won’t warn you about the suicidal side effects of anti-depressant’s (you’ll have to rely on others to do that). Psychiatrists like him are hired to defend psychiatry, not patients- people like him will always blame the depressive ‘illness’ which is akin to blaming the individual, because it is close to impossible to separate depression and the individual experiencing it.
This morning, Adrian Strain spoke articulately, intelligently and movingly about his son Martin, his suicide, mental illness and the catastrophic shortcomings in the system. He buried his son yesterday, who was 34.
The story of this young man’s life and death was as ordinary and as extraordinary as every individual life. But for reasons that no one could quite understand – and how his parents must have tried, for he had attempted suicide before and had been ill off and on for nearly 10 years – there was the public man, a prankster, kind and fun, and the private one, the depressive.
Every fortnight since his illness had forced him to stop work in April, Strain explained, his son went to his GP to be signed off. Every fortnight the doctor gave him another prescription for antidepressants. He was referred to specialist care, the ironically named Improving Access to Psychological Therapies programme, which is one of the big new changes intended to improve care for the mentally ill. The first appointment they could get for him was four months hence.
http://www.ssristories.org/ (check out these two sites on SSRI related suicide, side effects and violence)
University of Liverpool professor tells reporter Tom Belger why it’s time to rethink society’s approach to depression, in the wake of the suicide death of actor Robin Williams.
How could a man as successful as Robin Williams be so tormented by depression that he took his own life?
The apparent contradiction has generated debate following the actor’s suicide, and the announcement he was suffering from “severe depression”.
But for one Liverpool professor, the actor’s case highlights serious flaws in the way we think about mental health.
“It’s all too easy to assume mental health problems must be a mystery biological illness, random and essentially unconnected to a person’s life.
“But start asking questions, and those assumptions start to crumble.”
Peter Kinderman, professor of clinical psychology at the University of Liverpool, argues that biological factors are far less important than social factors in people’s lives, and that this medical bias wrongly convinces us medication is the answer.
It comes at a great cost for many sufferers because drugs’ side-effects can prove far nastier than their benefits – as the professor found last month when he tested an anti-psychotic himself.
Now, with one in four of us likely to experience mental health problems each year, he believes the time is ripe for a rethink of our approach to mental health.
Controversially, he believes mental health problems are not “illnesses” but rather “distress” largely brought on by people’s circumstances.
He says there is little reason to give them a standalone status as illnesses, regarding them simply as more extreme points of the same mental health spectrum as everyone else.
“So people might say their uncle has clinical depression.
“When you ask more, they’ll say he lost his job recently. When you say it sounds like sadness and an understandable human response to a tragic situation, they’ll agree – but insist it’s completely different.”
For Prof Kinderman, environmental factors are key.
“We know poor, ethnic minority and urban populations are much more likely to have psychotic experiences.
“In recession, the number of suicides and anti-depressant prescriptions rises.”
His claims fly in the face of the traditional view of mental illness as having principally biological causes, something he claims there’s limited evidence for.
“Depression is sometimes seen as the consequence of chemical abnormalities; schizophrenia a problem with neurotransmitters.”
Partly because of the stigmatising consequences of being labelled different but, crucially, he says our views on the causes mean we’ve drifted into unthinking assumptions about the answers.
The professor believes we place far too much faith in anti-psychotics and anti-depressants, with blame lying partly with the pharmaceutical industry for fuelling the idea medication works, through heavy marketing to doctors and suppressing unwanted research.
He’s experienced anti-psychotics for himself, having taken them in Paris before a conference last month to see their effects firsthand.
He chose chlorpromazine, a “quintessential anti-psychotic” prescribed around 600,000 times in England each year.
“It was like being both permanently drunk and hung over.
“On the first day, it knocked me out. I slept for 14 hours. I’d never done that before,” he says, smiling.
“One day, I planned to watch the Germany-Brazil game, but fell asleep after the first goal.
“At a posh restaurant I kept slumping in my chair, and later took my shoes and socks off because I got akithisia – restlessness.”
He says the effects are “not what your boss would want on a day-to-day basis”, even if the drugs had “a pleasant element of not caring too much.
“They can also make you fidget or move your jaws. People treat you like you’re strange – not good when you have mental issues to resolve.”
What most concerns Kinderman is what happened the night after he came off the drugs.
“I was quite convinced there were people walking in my room. Glimmers of paranoia. Some would claim it’s an underlying illness returning but I hadn’t had it, so it could be a rebound effect.”
“…The other thing of course, is it’s not as simple as simply to say this is all the fault of psychiatrists trying to make more money or evil drug companies trying to sell more drugs, both of which, of course are- ya know true- but it’s not the whole story”… (Simon Wessely BBC Radio 4 August 2014)
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p018qfjm (2hr 35mins)
So what is the whole story Dr Wessely and why do you go on BBC Radio 4, and other media, and not tell people the whole truth about your profession and the drugs you prescribe? Why do you mention ‘treatments’ but fail to illustrate that these treatments are almost always psychiatric drugs with horrendous side effects? Do you not have a conscience? It seems to me that you are a kind of pied piper type character- dispatched from the royal college of psychiatrists to perpetuate the status of psychiatry- to maintain psychiatry’s dominance of the mental health arena- and to recruit potential clients into psychiatric treatments and beliefs.
Or am I wrong? Do anti-depressant’s not have side effects? Are the PIL’s just made up in order to frighten us? (have you seen the length of the Seroxat PIL? It’s practically a novel). Are we all imagining the akathisia, de-personalization, de-realization, cravings for alcohol, zombie-like disinhibition, violent thoughts, violent dreams etc… are those weird things inherent to depression? (I’d be pretty sure that they are not).
When you say (in the article above) that two thirds of Britons are not treated for depression, where does this percentage come from? What study was done in order to generate this fantasy? It seems to me to be quite an arbitrary number because there could be no logical, reasonable or scientific way that you could possibly arrive at that figure. It is an absurd statement because if two thirds of people suffering from depression are not treated, and have never sought treatment, and maybe don’t even identify with being depressed at all, how do you know they exist in those numbers? Why not say half? or three quarters? It seems to me that you just made that figure up in order to get a headline…
Wessely said there would be a public outcry if those who went without treatment were cancer patients rather than people with mental health problems. Imagine, he told the Guardian, the reaction if he gave a talk that began: “‘So, we have a problem in cancer service at the moment. Only 30% of people with cancer are getting treatment, so 70% of them don’t get any treatment for their cancer at all and it’s not even recognised.”
Why are you comparing depression to cancer, not only is this a bad analogy (depression is nothing like cancer, it’s an emotion not a disease) but it’s also scare-mongering (although of course more people go for treatment, psychiatry gets legitimized, and psychiatry makes money and that’s what’s really happening here).
People like you are very dangerous Dr Wessely because you are more concerned with promoting the ideological paradigm of psychiatry than anything else..
You’ll deny (or fail to mention) side effects and ignore patients bad experience of psych meds because it simply doesn’t fit in with how you want psychiatry to be perceived… and you’ll do this blatantly, without shame, on national radio stations, because you are really that arrogant…
It’s simply abhorrent, your statements lead to damaging the mental and physical health of patients, and the meds you espouse destroy lives.. people become trapped in the system and get drugged to death eventually, lifelong customers, or mis-diagnosis after misdiagnosis, ending up on the psychiatric merry go round, never getting better, always getting worse…
But all these medicated, confused and disempowered patients gives loads of fodder for the psychiatric system though doesn’t it?.. More money in the coffers… keep the system rolling..
How much do you get paid to sprout this dangerous, hysterical, misleading nonsense anyhow?…
Whatever it is Simon- it’s way too much!
Marlon Wayans: Antidepressents, Not Depression, May Have Caused Robin Williams’ Suicide
by Antoinette Bueno 8:05 AM PDT, August 14, 2014
“I think there’s something in these medicines that people are taking for depression that’s making them depressed and making them commit suicide,” Wayans candidly said in an interview with Fusion Live. “I swear, I don’t think it’s depression. I think it’s chemical.
There’s some kind of antidepressant drug that they’re taking that’s causing them to have visions and making them kill themselves. There’s drugs out there — if you take it, and if you’re of certain descent — it will make you a little crazy. I just feel like, it’s chemical.”
“I don’t think it’s just him going, ‘Hey, I’m going to slit my wrist and choke myself,'” he added. “I mean, I just think there’s something else that’s in there. … I mean, he was such a joyful dude.”
According to Williams’ rep, the actor had been battling “severe depression as of late.” He was found on August 11, 2014 in his bedroom with a belt around his neck, with cuts on the inside of his left wrist, by his personal assistant.
In the new interview, Wayans, 42, went on to express his admiration for the legendary actor.
“Robin was a great dramatic actor as well as a comedian,” the White Chicks actor said. “Great with improv, incredible at character, great at physicalization. The man lacked nothing.”
“It’s a heartbreak man. The world lost a smile.”