I don’t trust GSK and their ‘fast-tracked’ Ebola vaccine … do you?

When I first heard that GSK were fast tracking a potential Ebola vaccine through to human trials I immediately thought of what I know about GSK and what the general public doesn’t. I was prescribed their notorious drug Seroxat and I know that GSK likely knew that it was a dangerous, sub-standard product and hoodwinked the regulators about its efficacy and effectiveness (or both). I know people died because of GSK’s unethical behavior.  I know Seroxat is a harmful drug; the proof is not just my opinion, the truth is self evident by the sheer volume of negative information online about it such as the court cases GSK settled in the US, and the various documents, blogs, videos and documentaries on the net. Moreover, I know from the stories of users experiences. GSK have a history of lying, deceiving and harming consumers of their products. They have a reputation for corruption, fraud, unethical behavior, immorality and criminality. Fast tracking any GSK products to be used on human subjects really unsettles me…

This is a company, after all, who paid the biggest healthcare fine in US History (3 Billion).

Most of the charges involved harm to patients, illegal promotion of shoddy drugs and unscrupulous behavior..

If it was me – I’d take my chances with Ebola…



GSK to start production of Ebola vaccine as tests on humans begin

Clinical safety trials begin in US next week, after approval from the FDA; volunteer testing in UK and Africa from September

Protective equipment used by health workers in the Ebola isolation ward

Protective equipment used by health workers in the Ebola isolation ward at a hospital in Sierra Leone. Photograph: Michael Duff/AP

GlaxoSmithKline’s experimental Ebola vaccine could be tested on humans in the UK, US, the Gambia and Mali in the next few weeks, in a race to contain the deadly virus that has claimed more than 1,500 lives in west Africa.

The news came as the World Health Organisation (WHO) warned that the Ebola epidemic could eventually exceed 20,000 cases. Bruce Aylward, WHO’s assistant director-general for emergency operations, said: “This far outstrips any historic Ebola outbreak in numbers. The largest outbreak in the past was about 400 cases.”

Human trials of GSK’s experimental vaccine – which Britain’s largest pharmaceuticals company is developing with the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) – are to be fast-tracked, with funding from an international consortium. Vaccines normally take 10 years to develop, but GSK said it hopes to finish the first phase of trials by the end of 2014. It will start making up to 10,000 doses of the vaccine at the same time as the initial clinical trials, so that – if they prove successful – stocks could be made available immediately to the WHO to vaccinate people in high-risk communities.


The Ebola outbreak has killed 1,552 people in Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria out of 3,069 cases, according to the WHO’s latest figures. It has declared the epidemic an international health emergency and published an action plan on Thursday to contain the disease within six to nine months.

If regulatory approvals are granted, the UK research teams could start vaccinating healthy volunteers from mid-September. In the US, the NIH could start phase 1 trials – the first test on humans to assess safety and efficacy – at its clinical centre in Bethesda, Maryland, as soon as next week after receiving the green light from the US health regulator, the Food and Drug Administration. The vaccine has already shown promising results in primates exposed to Ebola, without significant adverse effects.

A £2.8m grant from the Wellcome Trust, the Medical Research Counciland the Department for International Development will fund safety tests by a team led by Prof Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford. If successful, the trial will be extended to volunteers at the MRC unit in the Gambia, and to Bamako, Mali.

The US Centres for Disease Control and Prevention has begun discussions with ministry of health officials in Nigeria about conducting a phase 1 safety study of the vaccine among healthy adults.

The Oxford study will involve 60 healthy volunteers, while those in the Gambia and Mali will each involve 40. Each set of volunteers will be split into groups of 20 who will receive different doses of the vaccine, which is based on a type of chimpanzee cold virus and does not contain infectious Ebola virus material. Two Ebola genes have been inserted into the vaccine, and express a single Ebola virus protein to generate an immune response.

Hill said: “The tragic events unfolding in Africa demand an urgent response. In recent years, similar investigational vaccines have safely immunised infants and adults against a range of diseases including malaria, HIV and Hepatitis C. We, and all our partners on this project, are optimistic that this candidate vaccine may prove useful against Ebola.”

The experimental vaccine is against the Zaire species of Ebola, which is the one circulating in west Africa and for which there is no cure. The vaccine was designed by Nancy J Sullivan, the head of the biodefence research section in NIAID’s Vaccine Research Centre (part of NIH), in collaboration with researchers at the Swiss-Italian biotech firm Okairos, acquired by GSK last May for €250m (£150m).

NIAID is also supporting work on other early-stage Ebola vaccines, including one from Johnson & Johnson’s Crucell division that is expected to enter early clinical studies around the turn of the year.

NewLink Genetics, based in Iowa, is also working on an Ebola vaccine and has just struck a deal with another firm to manufacture the product and increase its supply, before starting preclinical trials.

Experimental Ebola treatments include ZMapp, made by San Diego-based Mapp Biopharmaceutical. The drug has been given to Will Pooley, the British nurse who contracted the virus in Sierra Leone and has been flown back to London.


Seroxat Damages The Elderly

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.

Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

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


Cafe Pharma : Where GSK Drug Reps Go To Dish The Dirt On Their Employers


I find it mildly amusing how some people- such as “Mr Bad Pharma”- 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.”


Posts: n/a
Default FBI Interviews Glaxo Employees

Federal Bureau of Investigation agents have been interviewing current and former GlaxoSmithKline employees in connection with bribery allegations made against the drug maker in China, according to a person familiar with the matter, as fresh claims of corruption surfaced against Glaxo’s operations in Syria.

The interviews have taken place in Washington, D.C., in the past few months and are part of a Justice Department investigation into Glaxo’s activities in China, the person added.

Wall Street Journal


07-26-2014, 07:16 AM
Posts: n/a
Default 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
Default Any other shitty 3rd world countries we can bribe?

What have you done to make yourself feel proud!! Maybe we can bribe Nigeria or Libya next? Scum execs thought they could get away with it all .. Pretend you have patients first in the us while you rape 3rd world governmens ..
Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2014, 08:32 PM
Posts: n/a
Default 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!?


Greetings Simon Wessely


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 –


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).

Dear Simon,

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.

Yours Sincerely,

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)

The Anti-depressant ‘Filler’ In The Treatment ‘Gap’ Is The Real Killer

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.

Peter Kinderman, professor of clinical psychology at Liverpool University
Peter Kinderman, professor of clinical psychology at Liverpool University

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.”

This matters.

Robin Williams in One Hour Photo
Robin Williams in One Hour Photo


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.”

What’s The (Real) Story Simon Wessely?

“…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


Marlon Wayans: Antidepressents, Not Depression, May Have Caused Robin Williams’ Suicide

by Antoinette Bueno       8:05 AM PDT, August 14, 2014

According to fellow comedian Marlon Wayans, it may not have been depression that led to Robin Williams’ tragic suicide Monday, but rather, the antidepressants he may have been taking.

“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.”

PHOTOS: Robin Williams’ Most Heartbreaking Quotes

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.

Marlon Wayans Complains About ‘Unrhythmic White Woman’ … Who Turns Out to Be Delta Goodrem

“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.”

What Killed Robin Williams? Was He On Anti-Depressants (SSRI’s)?



“Comedic actor Robin Williams died at his Northern California home Monday, law enforcement officials said. Williams was 63. His representative said, “He has been battling severe depression of late.” 

Very sad news about the talented comic and lovely actor, Robin Willams, who has died in an apparent suicide.


Robin had been suffering from depression for a long time, and it would be surprising if he hadn’t been prescribed anti-depressants throughout his depression treatment. Over the next few weeks we are going to read articles about depression and suicide, and how depression can lead to suicide etc…

However, the questions we should be asking are : was he prescribed SSRI’s (like Paxil)? What dose? For how long? and was he under psychiatric supervision when he died?

Was he withdrawing from an SSRI perhaps?

No doubt some of these questions will be answered in time, but in the meantime..

Rest In Peace Robin Williams- you brought joy and laughter to many…




The Death of Robin Williams: How Have We Been Deceived By The Antidepressant Hoax

Robin Williams was found dead yesterday at his home near Tiburon, California. The actor and comedian was 63. Authorities are still investigating the circumstances of death, but one thing that is known is that he was battling severe depression. A mountain of studies has shown that antidepressant drugs are largely ineffective, yet many hollywood stars are hooked on the happy pills. Might we finally heed the warnings and shake ourselves out of our pharmaceutical stupor?


Women have a 10 to 25 percent risk and men a five to 12 percent risk of developing severe major depression in their lifetime. The use of these drugs has tripled in the last decade, according to a report by the federal government. In 2006, spending on antidepressants soared by 130 percent.

Dr Mark Hamer, a public health researcher at University College London, shows that people on the older drugs — tricyclic antidepressants — are at far higher risk of cardiovascular disease than those taking the newer class of pills, selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). But tricyclics were discovered in the Forties and it is only now we have identified these dangerous effects.

Moreover, some SSRI drugs are known to cause serious problems such as stomach bleeding. In addition, the withdrawal symptoms can be so severe that patients may become dependent on them.

Dr Hamer says his findings do not only affect people with depression, because antidepressants are also prescribed to people with back pain, headache, anxiety and sleeping problems.

25% of American children are now on psyche drugs. And according to the CDC 1 out of every 6 children are developmental damaged. Do you ever wonder why so many people on psyche drugs are committing suicide and homicide these days? After all, decades ago, there were no “school shootings” or bizarre child suicides or homicides like those found onwww.ssristories.com.

Up to 50% of Psyche Drugs Are Not Metabolized

One leading expert, Randolph Nesse, a psychiatry professor at Michigan University, argues that mild forms of depression are beneficial, often interjecting in life to tell us to stop what we are doing and reconsider.

This can help, he says, when something awful happens to us, such as a job loss or relationship break-up, when it makes sense to slow down to grieve, reassess and make changes.

But instead, we live in a world that tells us that when we feel out of sorts we need a pill to recover.

It is this belief that creates queues of patients at the doors of hard-pressed GPs, who often feel they have no option but to hand out happy pills as though they were sweeties.

Many patients later claim they couldn’t have coped without them. They will swear that ‘the drugs make me feel better, so they must be working’. But often the drugs do not actually work as chemicals. Instead, they merely reassure us — the so-called placebo effect.

SSRIs cause lower bone density, cause weight gain, harm male fertility and make people more likely to go on shooting rampages, commit suicides, and attempted suicides.

There’s more. It also causes panic attacks, low heart rate and lightheadedness, induced mania, psychotic symptoms, electrolyte disturbances and seizures, and even anorgasmia (inability to achieve orgasms). There are literally dozens of other side effects too numerous to mention in this article.

How We have Been Deceived by the Antidepressant Hoax

Drug companies are not forced to publish all the results of their studies. They only publish those they want to. The team of researchers that reported their findings in The New England Journal of Medicine took a critical look at all the studies done on antidepressants, both published and unpublished. They dug up some serious dirt …

The unpublished studies were not easy to find. The researchers had to search the FDA databases, call researchers, and hunt down hidden data under the Freedom of Information Act. What they found was stunning.

After looking at 74 studies involving 12 drugs and over 12,000 people, they discovered that 37 of 38 trials with positive results were published, while only 14 of 36 negative studies were published. Those that showed negative results were, in the words of the researchers, “published in a way that conveyed a positive outcome.”

That means the results were twisted to imply the drugs worked when they didn’t.

This isn’t just a problem with antidepressants. It’s a problem with scientific research. Some drug companies even pay or threaten scientists to not publish negative results on their drugs. So much for “evidence-based” medicine! I recently had dinner with a step-uncle who runs a company that designs research for drug companies. He designs the study, hires the researcher from an esteemed institution, directs the study, writes up the study and the scientist just signs his or her name after reviewing it.



Ebola vaccine to be manufactured by criminal drug company (GSK) with felony record; rushed to market with near-zero safety testing

Ebola vaccine to be manufactured by criminal drug company with felony record; rushed to market with near-zero safety testing

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046414_Ebola_vaccine_safety_testing_drug_company_profits.html##ixzz3A7V1ETQi


Ebola vaccine to be manufactured by criminal drug company with felony record; rushed to market with near-zero safety testing

Monday, August 11, 2014

by Mike Adams, the Health Ranger

(NaturalNews) While the world of conventional medicine lines up to profit from the Ebola panic, there is no mention anywhere in the mainstream media of the criminal corporation behind the Ebola vaccine.

GlaxoSmithKline, now being celebrated by the pro-pharma press, is the same company that also has a proven criminal record of bribing physicians and knowingly distributing misleading information about the safety of their drug products.

Just two years ago, GSK plead guilty to felony crimes in the United States and was forced to pay an historical $3 billion fine for committing those crimes. After paying the fine, GSK was then exempted from normal rules regarding criminal enterprise, allowing it to continue conducting business with the federal government.

“Global health care giant GlaxoSmithKline LLC (GSK) agreed to plead guilty and to pay $3 billion to resolve its criminal and civil liability arising from the company’s unlawful promotion of certain prescription drugs, its failure to report certain safety data, and its civil liability for alleged false price reporting practices, the Justice Department announced today,” says a U.S. Department of Justice press release.

It goes on to explain, “GSK agreed to plead guilty to a three-count criminal information, including two counts of introducing misbranded drugs, Paxil and Wellbutrin, into interstate commerce and one count of failing to report safety data about the drug Avandia to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).”

As Natural News reported in 2012:

A roughly nine-year federal investigation has exposed GSK’s rampant abuse of the law by illegally marketing drugs, forging drug safety data, bribing doctors to promote dangerous and expensive drugs, ripping off Medicare and Medicaid, and lying about the effectiveness and safety of drugs. And all this deception has generated tens of billions of dollars in profits for GSK over the years, while thousands of patients who used the drug products involved have suffered horrific side effects and even death.

Criminal drug company to spearhead Ebola vaccine with U.S. scientists

Now this same company that admitted committing multiple felony crimes is going to lead the development of the Ebola vaccine.

As CNBC reports: (1)

“A clinical trial of an experimental vaccine against the deadly Ebola virus is set to start shortly, according to British drugmaker GlaxoSmithKline, which is co-developing the product with U.S. scientists.”

Vaccine to be “rushed through” with very little safety testing

We also know that the vaccine will not be tested for anything other than short-term side effects. This is all part of the “rush to market” for Big Pharma to profit from Ebola as quickly as possible.

As CNBC says:

A company spokeswoman said on Sunday that the trial should get underway “later this year”, while GSK’s partner the U.S. National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) said in a statement on its website it would start “as early as fall 2014”, implying a potential September launch of testing.

A headline in the Daily Mail declares “World Health Organisation says vaccine could be ‘rushed through’ for 2015.” (2)

That same story goes on to report, “the WHO said a potential vaccine for the Ebola virus is being tested on humans and could be ready for widespread use by early 2015.”

Doing the math here, if the Ebola vaccine clinical trials start in September of 2014 and the vaccine is manufactured and distributed to the public by “early 2015,” this leaves virtually zero time for observing vaccine side effects.

Manufacturing the vaccine in large quantities, after all, takes many months. If this vaccine is to be available to the public in early 2015, they will have to start manufacturing it as early as October 2014, roughly just one month after the vaccine trials begin.

Zero liability; total immunity for faulty products

Keep in mind that in the United States, vaccine manufacturers have zero liability for the damage and death caused by their products. Due to a literal Act of Congress, all vaccine manufacturers are able to abandon all safety testing and knowingly sell faulty, deadly products with zero risk of liability.

This was all set up by design to make sure vaccine manufacturers could enjoy record profits while having zero liability for producing faulty products that harm children and adults. This is the reason why mercury is still used in flu vaccines which are injected into children — a fact which I have scientifically proven in the Natural News Forensic Food Labs using ICP-MS instrumentation.

This total immunity means there is no incentive for adequate safety testing of an Ebola vaccine. The company has the same liability (zero) whether they test the vaccine or not. Their goal is to SELL the vaccine, not to make sure it’s safe and effective. Time spent on conducting rigorous clinical trials with long-term observations simply isn’t part of the “Sell! Sell! Sell!” business plan of today’s vaccine manufacturers. Their current business slogan? “Every pandemic is an opportunity for profit.” And with blanket immunity from all product liability, who needs safety testing?

Vaccine manufacturers routinely rely on scientific fraud

Here’s additional information you need to know about vaccine fraud, originally published in this article on Natural News:

According to two Merck scientists who filed a False Claims Act complaint in 2010 — a complaint which has just now been unsealed — vaccine manufacturer Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test data, spiked blood samples with animal antibodies, sold a vaccine that actually promoted mumps and measles outbreaks, and ripped off governments and consumers who bought the vaccine thinking it was “95% effective.”

See that False Claims Act document at:


According to Stephen Krahling and Joan Wlochowski, both former Merck virologists, the Merck company engaged in all the following behavior:

• Merck knowingly falsified its mumps vaccine test results to fabricate a “95% efficacy rate.”

• In order to do this, Merck spiked the blood test with animal antibodies in order to artificially inflate the appearance of immune system antibodies. As reported in CourthouseNews.com:

Merck also added animal antibodies to blood samples to achieve more favorable test results, though it knew that the human immune system would never produce such antibodies, and that the antibodies created a laboratory testing scenario that “did not in any way correspond to, correlate with, or represent real life … virus neutralization in vaccinated people,” according to the complaint.

• Merck then used the falsified trial results to swindle the U.S. government out of “hundreds of millions of dollars for a vaccine that does not provide adequate immunization.”

• Merck’s vaccine fraud has actually contributed to the continuation of mumps across America, causing more children to become infected with mumps.

• Merck used its false claims of “95 percent effectiveness” to monopolize the vaccine market and eliminate possible competitors.

• The Merck vaccine fraud has been going on since the late 1990’s, say the Merck virologists.

• Testing of Merck’s vaccine was never done against “real-world” mumps viruses in the wild. Instead, test results were simply falsified to achieve the desired outcome.

• This entire fraud took place “with the knowledge, authority and approval of Merck’s senior management.”

• Merck scientists “witnessed firsthand the improper testing and data falsification in which Merck engaged to artificially inflate the vaccine’s efficacy findings,” according to court documents.

Sources for this article include:

(1) http://www.cnbc.com/id/101909486

(2) http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2721…

(3) http://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/2012/July/12-c…

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/046414_Ebola_vaccine_safety_testing_drug_company_profits.html##ixzz3A7VDufRW