Critics pointed to some weaknesses in the latest report. The task force did not have access to some data that British drug regulators used to reach with opposite conclusions. And it did not undertake a sophisticated and difficult “meta-analysis” in which data from many studies are pooled for examination. Other researchers are conducting such an analysis.
In addition, critics of these medicines noted that nine of the 10 task force members have significant financial ties to the drug industry, although such ties are common among prominent researchers. The task force said no industry money financed the report.
So Jeffrey, what do you think now then? Do you think Paxil (Seroxat) causes suicide? or not?
It says in this ABC News article from 2003 that you were part of the 1991 FDA panel that cleared Paxil of any links to suicide? Were you receiving any funding, or money from speaking engagements etc, from GSK at this time, Jeffrey? Would you care to enlighten us on this- and also what are your views on Paxil now? Do you still think it’s safe? and also are you still receiving money/payment from GSK or any other drug companies? Where can we find full disclosures pertaining to this?
It seems that also- according to a NY Times Article about dodgy Paxil CR drugs coming out of a GSK plant in Puerto Rico- in 2005, you were – at least- aware that Paxil had a quick and severe withdrawal syndrome, maybe you could relay that information to people when you are on your next talk show, blithering about your new book? Wouldn’t that be in patients’ interests?
(GSK spokeswoman) “Ms. Pekarek said the problems with the pills were unlikely ever to hurt patients. Patients who took an inert half of Paxil CR would be no worse off than if they had simply skipped a day’s dose – something that happens often, she said.”
“But Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, a professor of psychiatry at Columbia University, said Paxil was the wrong drug to skip for a day. Paxil remains in the bloodstream far shorter than Prozac.”
You also said that: ” “In 1991, we said there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support a link,” said Jeffrey Lieberman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of North Carolina and a member of the panel. “Now there is evidence, at least in children, and I wouldn’t rule out that it’s in adults, too.”
So what is your opinion now Jeffrey? do you rule out (or in) the link between Paxil and suicide? And furthermore, why do you compare anti-depressants to Insulin when you know that these drugs cause severe withdrawals, and you also know they are definitely dangerous in kids, and say they might be in adults? (I can assure you they are just as dangerous in any age group Jeffrey).
Despite your earlier views that Paxil, and SSRI’s in general, might cause suicide in adults based on the evidence that they definitely can in children, in 2004 on an article about the effectiveness of antidepressant use in kids you said:
“Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, a professor of psychiatry at the University of North Carolina, said he found the report persuasive. “What the report said is that the risks of not treating patients with severe depressive illness is outweighed by the risk of treating them with SSRIs,” Lieberman said.”
So which is it Jeffrey, either these drugs are safe, effective, and efficacious or they are not? either they can cause suicide, in adults and kids, or they can’t? what is your opinion now Jeffrey, in light of all the evidence in 2015? Maybe you should read the hundreds of blog posts and links about Paxil (Seroxat) on my blog and you just might begin to see the stark reality of the dangers of these drugs you’ve been involved with these past decades…
One final thing, in your recent interview on ABC news, you down-played the fact that anti-depressants were over prescribed, and you made no mention of either your own links to drug companies, or the range of data now indicating that SSRI’s have been harming people for decades- yet in 2004, while commenting on the black box warnings on all antidepressants you said“
“Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman, a professor of psychiatry and pharmacology at the University of North Carolina, said that the agency’s action suggested that antidepressants had become too popular and physicians too casual about dispensing them.
“I think the effect of these warnings will be to have physicians become a bit more conservative in using these drugs,” Dr. Lieberman said. “They’ll start limiting their use of them just to patients who are clearly depressed with clinically significant symptoms as opposed to those who have very mild symptoms.”
So, 11 years ago, you thought that the drugs were possibly dangerous in adults, definitely dangerous in kids, and vastly over prescribed, yet you have been in the media recently claiming that SSRI’s are no different that taking insulin for diabetes, and that “Robert Whitaker is a menace to society” and furthermore you downplay the fact that anti-depressants are even more over-prescribed today than they ever were, by comparing them with the over-prescription of anti-biotics. Why do you have so many vastly opposing views? What do you really think? It seems to me- that similar to a politician- you sway your views with whichever way the tide of public opinion is swaying- on any given day in any given era… hardly expert or reliable is it?
It seems to me Dr. Lieberman, that your opinion is about as credible as a snake oil salesman.. but boy have you made a lot of money out of the ‘mental health industry’ haven’t you?… good luck with the new book… I’m sure you’ll sell stack loads… I have to say though, I’d rather invest in good quality toilet roll… suffice to say, I won’t be reading it..
ps.. you’re speech from 2014.
“Time to Re-Engage With Pharma?”
….is hypocritical, disturbing, ill-conceived and basically downright appalling…
It seems you have never stopped personally and professionally engaging with Pharma Jeffrey- perhaps that’s part of the reason why you are so utterly biased and conflicted?
(NaturalNews) In a recent message to subscribers, American Psychiatric Association President Jeffrey Lieberman urged members to support big pharma.
He did this while openly admitting that the pharmaceutical industry makes a practice of advertising unethically, paying off doctors, and suppressing critical scientific data as to the dangers of their drugs.
With calm and poise, President Lieberman reminded APA members that we need big pharma and they need us. In fact, he suggests we’d be lost without them.
What would we do without pharmaceuticals? Who would support scientific research? How would psychiatrists stay in business? Dr. Jeffrey Lieberman is asking these questions as if the answer obviously favors supporting and sustaining a criminal industry.
It would seem that, according to Lieberman, humanity would be lost and all medical advancement would come to a screeching halt if not for the scoundrels who run big pharma.
Concerns over the prescription of anti-depressants to adolescents
|PRINT FRIENDLY||EMAIL STORY|
The World Today – Friday, 8 August , 2003 12:30:24
Reporter: Tanya Nolan
ELEANOR HALL: Now to concerns about the prescription of anti-depressants to adolescents, with the American Food and Drug Administration considering whether tighter restrictions should be placed on their use.
After examining new evidence suggesting young people taking the anti-depressant Paxil have a higher risk of suicide, the FDA is due to decide next week whether the drug, should be prescribed to people under the age of 18.
And the prediction is that the Administration will follow the recent decision by British health authorities to declare that the drug in fact must not be prescribed to young people.
And in Australia, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration already cautions against the prescription of anti-depressants to children, but it has strengthened its position in the last two months, as Tanya Nolan reports.
TANYA NOLAN: It was the clinical trial conducted by GlaxoSmithKline into its own drug Paxil, or Aropax as it’s known here in Australia, that sparked huge public debate in the UK and recently prompted health authorities there to declare that the drug must not be prescribed to people aged under 18.
The company found that a higher risk of self-harm and suicidal thoughts, in at least two per cent of the study group and that there was a similar risk of dependency on the drug. The American Food and Drug Administration has been reviewing that evidence and is considering following Britain’s lead.
Professor Jeffrey Lieberman was on the original FDA panel, which formally cleared Paxil of any link to suicide, back in 1991.
JEFFREY LIEBERMAN: Uh, the view now is that this a signal that there may be the potential risk of activating such behaviours in people who are treated with this medication and particularly in young people – adolescents or children.
TANYA NOLAN: So, is that evidence in any way conclusive that there is a link or a causal effect of the prescription of those drugs.
JEFFREY LIEBERMAN: No, no. The evidence at this point is purely associational. Further evaluation needs to be done to determine whether it’s causal.
TANYA NOLAN: Although the evidence is in no way definitive and the FDA, in fact, cautions against young people stopping their medication without professional advice, Professor Lieberman believes there is every likelihood the adverse effects identified in Paxil could be found in other anti-depressants.
JEFFREY LIEBERMAN: It is known that Serotonin is a neurochemical, a neurotransmitter that is involved in regulating emotion and aggression and hostility. And it’s possible since these drugs act on serotonin that they could induce or somehow activate such behaviours.
However, if this is the case, it would not be specific to any single SRI (serotonin reuptake inhibitor), but would be the case for all of the drugs that act by the same pharmacologic mechanism of action.
TANYA NOLAN: Up to 80 per cent of teenagers on anti-depressants are prescribed Arapax, here in Australia. The Therapeutic Goods Administration has long warned against the use of anti-depressants by young people, and in recent months, has toughened it stance to state that Arapax should not be prescribed to anyone under 18.
GlaxoSmithKline has changed the labelling of its product to include the new warning. However, makers of the other most commonly prescribed anti-depressants say there’s no evidence to suggest any similar risk of suicide amongst young people taking their products. And those prescribing the medicines tend to agree.
Doctor Louise Newman is Chair of the Faculty of Adolescent Psychiatry with the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and she says the profession is becoming more adept at diagnosing depression in adolescents and the risks and benefits of medication are carefully weighed up.
LOUISE NEWMAN: There’s evidence that anti-depressants are actually very helpful for that type of depression, so we certainly don’t want to be withholding anti-depressants.
TANYA NOLAN: But Dr Newman says any decision by the FDA will be an important one for Australian psychiatrists.
LOUISE NEWMAN: I think that we obviously need to be guided by the FDA in terms of their monitoring of side effects of all sorts with these sorts of medications. We’re certainly very supportive of that and if there is a ruling that a particular drug shouldn’t be used, then obviously, that would be a very important finding.
I think it’s important to recognise that there is a whole range of these drugs. The evidence isn’t clearly there at the moment as to which ones are likely to be more effective. Currently, it’s probably fair to say they all seem to be equally effective in the treatment of depression.
But there needs to be an ongoing monitoring of side effect profiles and increasing research looking at the safe use of these drugs, particularly in younger populations.
ELEANOR HALL: Dr Louise Newman from the Royal College of Psychiatrists, with Tanya Nolan.