What Does GSK’s ‘Sir’ Andrew Witty Have To Say To Parents Of Teens Drugged by Seroxat (Paxil)?


“..I’m so angry about this.

Our son who is now 31 was prescribed Seroxat (Paroxetine) When he was in the 6 th form at school.

He could have ‘slipped through the net’
like some of the very tragic cases we read about in the newspapers..”

(A comment by a parent of a child prescribed Seroxat from Dr Malcolm Kendrick’s Blog)



In the maelstrom of articles published about the BMJ’s publication of a re-analysis of GSK’s notorious Seroxat study 329, there were some really interesting comments online.

A lot of them came from individuals who were prescribed Seroxat when they were teens, and they were horrified to realize that their lives were put at risk in the first place.

Other comments came from parents of teens, who were just as horrified that a drug company would behave in such an utterly evil manner.

What does Andrew Witty have to say to the parents of those kids who were prescribed Seroxat?

What does he have to say about these comments?

Can he re-assure us that Seroxat is safe for adults?

(of course he can’t- because Seroxat is not safe for anyone)

-taken from Dr Malcom Kendrick’s article on his blog-

For full article and comments :See here

anonymous October 7, 2015 at 10:57 pm

I was on paroxetine when I was 20. Didn’t help at all.
I’ve been told recently that this was the best “we could do then”. It’s as if they were trying to convince me that this drug only became bad now, because now everybody knows. I knew it was bad while I was taking it. Doctors knew it was bad, because they saw how their patients complained, but they chose to look the other way. Shame on them. There are not enough prisons in this world to punish these people, and anyone else who is complicated in this. The pain they have caused, and the physical damage they have caused is incalculable.

Mark Janson October 1, 2015 at 8:59 pm

This is at best fraud, cheating etc. But of course it’s far, far worse than that. Ultimately you’re playing with people’s lives. All of the people prescribed this drug have taken it unnecessarily. Some of those people have paid the ultimate price. I’d call that murder. I take full responsibility for that statement and I invite any lawyers who may work for GSK and who may happen to read this to sue me. I’m sure I can easily be tracked down by my IP address. Please, sue me. Please.

When you consider how for example, Dr Maryanne Demasi was, not so long ago hounded for the Catalyst TV production on statins and equally, how Dr Kendrick et al are accused of “killing people” with their anti-establishment advice, it makes you wonder, just where is the justice? Where is the fairness? Where, as Dr K wrote, is the outrage? It’s worse than 1984, far worse.

Jennie B October 1, 2015 at 9:23 pm

I’m so angry about this.

Our son who is now 31 was prescribed Seroxat (Paroxetine) When he was in the 6 th form at school.

He was suffering from school related anxiety, he also had some private councelling, as waiting for an NHS referral was going to take too long for our liking. My husband and I were very concerned for his mental health.
He appeared to improve over a period of time , but when he asked about coming off his medication. Our GP said ‘oh just take one every other day ) and it won’t take long before you are off it altogether’

How wrong could he have been. Our son started suffering acute anxiety again and was back on the usual dose before we knew it.
Fortunately our eldest son was just completing his training to be a Pharmacist and told us that the drug needs to be withdrawn very very slowly.

From what I remember I think he said Seroxat has a ‘short half life’ (or something like that,) feel free to correct me! and so leaves the system quickly making withdrawal symptoms acute, very quickly.

We worked out a way of reducing the medication by cutting the tablets up into halves/ quarters and started by just reducing the daily dose by a tiny fraction of a tablet over a period of months. I made a chart and we just reduced the dose every 2-3 weeks until he was on such a tiny dose that our Pharmacist son suggested asking for the medication to be prescribed in liquid form, to make sure the dose was more accurate.

What saddens us is that the GP didn’t seem to know the best way to reduce this very dangerous drug, and to be honest if our son hadn’t had such a supportive family and a bit more common sense, who knows what may have happened.

He could have ‘slipped through the net’
like some of the very tragic cases we read about in the newspapers.

I’m happy and proud to report that he went on to Uni as a mature student and got a 1st in Music. Then went on to do a Masters in Music Ed, and is now teaching Music, which is his passion.
Shame on these Drug Companies for recommending these drugs to young people .


A Decade of Questions Over a Paxil (Seroxat) Study Vindicated


From 2005…

Writing in BMC Medicine, the team led by Dr Ivar Aursnes, said: “Patients and doctors should be warned that the increased suicidal activity observed in children and adolescents taking certain antidepressant drugs may well be present also in adults.

“We also conclude that the recommendation of restrictions in the use of paroxetine in children and adolescents conveyed by regulatory agencies lately should include usage in adults.”

Sophie Corlett, director of policy at the mental health charity Mind, said: “This study would seem to be an extremely worrying addition to growing evidence raising serious concerns over the safety of paroxetine.

“It confirms what Mind service users have long been telling us anecdotally.

“By ignoring what mental health service users themselves have said about the medication and its effects, the drugs regulators may well have caused lives to be lost.”

Paxil (Seroxat) is just as dangerous in over 18’s too..


Drug suicide risk fears renewed

Seroxat (paroxetine)

The researchers looked at 1980s studies into Seroxat

Further concerns have been raised about potential suicidal side effects of a commonly used antidepressant.

The drug Seroxat (paroxetine) is already banned from use by adolescents because of an increased risk of suicidal thoughts.

In the journal BMC Medicine, University of Oslo scientists said existing studies indicated these warnings should be extended to adults.

GlaxoSmithKline, which makes the drug, said it had helped millions.

By ignoring what mental health service users themselves have said about the medication and its effects, the drugs regulators may well have caused lives to be lost
Sophie Corlett, Mind

Paroxetine is one in a class of drugs known as Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs).

In 2003, around 19 million prescriptions for SSRIs were handed out in England for the treatment of depression and anxiety.

Concerns over suicidal side effects for those taking paroxetine were first raised by the BBC’s Panorama programme in 2002.

Last year the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency’s (MHRA) Committee on Safety of Medicines concluded that a modest increase in the risk of suicidal thoughts and self-harm for SSRIs could not be ruled out, but the benefits for adults outweighed the risks.

Safety review

The Norwegian researchers, whose study was triggered by a journalist from the Norwegian Broadcasting Corporation working on a medical information programme, analysed the results of 16 trials involving the drug.

The studies were presented to drug regulatory agencies in 1989, prior to the drug being licensed for use by doctors in the early 1990s.

In each, patients had either been given paroxetine or a placebo (dummy pill).

The researchers carried out a statistical analysis of all the results, taking into account the length of time patients were on the drugs.

The studies included 916 patients on paroxetine and 550 patients on placebo.

There were no actual suicides in any of the studies. However, there were seven suicide attempts in the group on paroxetine, and only one in the placebo group.

Writing in BMC Medicine, the team led by Dr Ivar Aursnes, said: “Patients and doctors should be warned that the increased suicidal activity observed in children and adolescents taking certain antidepressant drugs may well be present also in adults.

“We also conclude that the recommendation of restrictions in the use of paroxetine in children and adolescents conveyed by regulatory agencies lately should include usage in adults.”


A spokesman for GlaxoSmithKline: “We take the safety of all our medicines extremely seriously and will, of course, review this study carefully when it becomes available.”

He added: “At this stage, it’s not clear what method the researchers have used to arrive at these numbers or which clinical trials they have selected.

“However, we can say that these conclusions in no way reflect the picture that has been built up about the benefits and risks of paroxetine in adults through an extensive clinical trials programme involving 24,000 patients or through the use of this medicine in tens of millions of people around the world.”

An MHRA spokeswoman said it kept the safety of all SSRIs under close review and all new evidence was carefully reviewed and considered to see if new advice was needed.

Sophie Corlett, director of policy at the mental health charity Mind, said: “This study would seem to be an extremely worrying addition to growing evidence raising serious concerns over the safety of paroxetine.

“It confirms what Mind service users have long been telling us anecdotally.

“By ignoring what mental health service users themselves have said about the medication and its effects, the drugs regulators may well have caused lives to be lost.”

Margaret Edwards, of the mental health charity Sane, said: “Seventy per cent of those being treated with the new anti-depressants respond well, and the risks of suicide from untreated depression must be borne in mind in balancing the risks and benefits.”


A Decade of Questions Over a Paxil Study Vindicated


In the last few years, highly promoted drugs like Vioxx, Bextra, Baycol, Trovan, Meridia, Seldane, Hismanal, Darvon, Mylotarg, Lotronex, Propulsid, phenylpropanolamine (PPA), phenacetin, Raxar and Redux have been withdrawn for safety risks after millions used them. Sorry about that. Others like Avandia, Cylert, Ketek and Xarelto are under serious safety clouds.

But Big Pharma insists it is unaware of drugs’ true risks until a wide swath of the population uses them and “safety signals” emerge. Facts sometimes suggest otherwise.

In 1977, almost thirty years before Merck admitted its bone drug Fosamax caused jawbone death, its bone scientist observed the action in rats. (The “anti-fracture” drug also causes fractures.)

Years before the label of the antipsychotic Seroquel was changed in 2011 to warn the drug “should be avoided” in combination with at least 12 other medications because of heart risks, at least 99 articles in the U.S. National Library of Medicine linked the drug to “sudden death,”  “QT prolongation” (a heart disturbance that can lead to death), “cardiac arrest” and “death.” In many cases, the Pharma companies “discover” the problems after the drug patent has conveniently expired.

Then there’s Paxil. Paroxetine was a top selling SSRI antidepressant drug for GSK during the “happy pill” craze when Big Pharma was telling everyone they had “depression.” But in 2004, soon after its approval, the New York Attorney General charged that research about the drug published in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry (known as “Study 329”) buried the drug’s true risks of suicide in adolescents.

And there were more questions about the research. Former Boston Globe reporter Alison Bass and others reported that the paper was not even written by the 22 doctors and researchers listed as “authors” but by a medical communication company hired by GSK. (Ghostwriting helped make Vioxx, Neurontin, hormone replacement therapy and even the flame retardant chemical deca [Deca-BDE] appear safe, according to published reports.) “You did a superb job with this,” wrote the Paxil paper’s first “author” Martin Keller of Brown University to Sally Laden, a ghostwriter working for Scientific Therapeutics Information. “It is excellent. Enclosed are rather minor changes from me.”

In 2006, “author” Martin Keller, former Professor Emeritus of Psychiatry at Brown, acknowledged that GSK had given him tens of thousands of dollars during and after the time the study was conducted.

There were also questions about where the research appeared. The Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry is a publication of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry which lists the funders of its “treatment guidelines” for children and adolescents with bipolar disorder as Abbott, AstraZeneca, Eli Lilly, Forest, Janssen, Novartis and Pfizer.

Almost fifteen years after the questionable research was published, the furor had not died down. In 2014, two members of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, Edmund Levin and George Stewart, asked the editor of the Academy’s journal why the discredited paper was still standing and had not been retracted. (A quick look at other scientific papers identified in the press as ghostwritten shows that few are retracted and most are standing, to deceive future generations.)

Then, in September 2015, when many reporters, psychiatrists, researchers and professors had given up the Paxil fight, the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published a reanalysis that amounted to a reversal of the original study. The new research demonstrated that Paxil indeed increases risks of suicide in young people and adolescents.

The reanalysis of Paxil’s suicide risks in the young is a victory for safety activists, medical reporters, the public and freedom of the press. But many pro-pill doctors continue to fight evidence of Paxil’s suicide risks and similar SSRIs. “There is a very reasonable possibility that it has discouraged patients from taking antidepressants and physicians from prescribing these medications [and] the government should rescind the black-box warning on antidepressants altogether,” Richard A. Friedman, a professor of clinical psychiatry at Weill Cornell Medical wrote in the New York Times a month before the Paxil reanalysis.

Martha Rosenberg is an investigative health reporter. She is the author of  Born With A Junk Food Deficiency: How Flaks, Quacks and Hacks Pimp The Public Health (Prometheus).

French Families Sue GSK and Other Drug Makers Over Defective And Dangerous Vaccines..

Interesting article in Paris Match about various cases (involving various vaccine damages) against GSK and other drug makers ..

Apologies for the French Translation..

Google Translate was the best I could do..



Together, the five families to demand accountability laboratories GSK, Pfizer, and Sanofi. They are waiting for justice recognizing the side effects of vaccines and compensation for disabled children today. Me Hartemann, their lawyer, pleaded their cases last Friday before the Court of Bobigny.

Following a half hours of argument, Me Hartemann himself “rather surprised” by the verdict of the hearing: the laboratories do not preclude the launch of medical reports for four of the five cases. A first green light which, if confirmed, will open the way for further investigations and research of rare diseases in these children who, having received vaccine injections had severe neurological disorders. “Sequels comparable with head trauma or epilepsy huge allegedly damaged the brain,” says the lawyer. It is children who showed no health problem “, he continued, stressing the similarity of the stories,” and who, following the first injection or recall, were at once stopped to evolve and presented very significant damage. “

Sandrine: “What could deprive Nello part of the brain that controls everything engine?”

Nello (3 years), Naomie (4 years), Lucia (3 years), Lolita (18 months), Terry (15) … the children who were developing quite normally and whose condition has gradually deteriorated in the days or weeks following vaccination. Very high fever, impossible to calm crying, loss of muscle tone, stiffening of the body … so many alarming signs observed by their parents. Today, these children do not walk or more, do not speak, do not keep their head, have difficulty eating, drinking, grasp objects … The various tests and samples taken in neuropaediatrics have not identified the cause of their condition. Nello has a very high fever following a reminder Priorix (Laboratory GSK vaccine against measles, mumps, rubella) at 19 months. A week later, his parents noticed that he makes “all fours” the

Nello and his dad. DR

inches folded within the hands. Eight days later, he builds on his fists, and fall like “Bambi on ice”. A month later, Nello hand for emergencies: he utters cries of pain, his body into a ball, his stiffened muscles. An MRI scan of his brain revealed atrophy of the white matter (myelin). The battery of examinations carried dismissed the genetic causes, infection and trauma. “What could take away part of the brain that controls everything engine?” Asks Sandrine, her mother.

“Naomie, born premature, was fine until it receives, at 14 months, a first injection of Infanrix Hexa (GSK laboratory vaccine against diphtheria, tetanus, pertussis, hepatitis B, polio, haemophilus influenzae type and B) and Prevenar 13 (Pfizer vaccine against pneumococcal disease), “says Monia, his mother. After a week of constant crying, the little hand for emergencies: squinting and loss of muscle tone (it is no longer seated). Doctors do not pose a diagnosis.

Lucia almost died of encephalitis that left her blind and quadriplegic

Two months after Lucia, 18 months received Infanrix Hexa recalls and Priorix, his mother finds her unconscious in bed, “like a rag doll.” At the hospital, doctors find inflammation in the brain. Three days later, it operated in emergency encephalitis that nearly cost him his life, and she woke up after a month coma, blind and quadriplegic. Or inflammatory or virus disease have been identified in this neurological impairment.

No more diagnostic for early Lolita, 18 months, in whom the disorder first emerged a fortnight after the first injection of Infanrix hexa and Prevenar 13 in two months, when it made a kind of discomfort before returning to it: “The body stiffened, she was gasping, drooling, and not reacting to light,” says his mother. Following the second injection, at 3 months, the small hand to eye emergencies, “My daughter was like a larva, hands closed, thumb inside, and was hanging his head.” For Lolita to date , genetic research has yielded nothing.

Reached an “unlabeled” encephalitis at 12 months, Terry, 15, is now disabled at 80%. At home, the first signs appeared after the first injection, a 2 and a half months of Pentacoq (Sanofi vaccine off the market in 2005, against pertussis, haemophilus type b, diphtheria, tetanus and polio ): high fever, persistent screaming, chronic bronchitis and, three weeks later, paralysis of the left side (from hip to arms).

All parents testify to the impossibility to consider, from the doctors, the responsibility of vaccines. “Teachers, doctors and neurologists, all refused this hypothesis. It is a completely taboo subject, “says Lionel, dad Nello. “For them, the link with vaccines is impossible because no scientific study shows do,” says Sabrina, the mother of Lucia, which evokes the genetic background: “It is perhaps a rare risk, a certain population children.

Dr. Claude Beraud warns about the consequences controversy about vaccines

In a nuanced on the controversies surrounding some vaccines, Dr. Claude Beraud recalls that the risk of neurological diseases have not been demonstrated by clinical studies, biological, and epidemiological. And precisely for hepatitis B and risk of multiple sclerosis that “if the studies do not support the link, they do not allow more to exclude.” For the doctor, the consequences of these controversies are serious because “they induce in a part of the population rejecting all vaccines, which, together with antibiotics, two classes of drugs most useful to human health “.

Today, only vaccinations against diphtheria, tetanus, and polio are required. But it is not possible for a child under 6 receive the DTP, which has disappeared from the market in 2008. Parents, bitter, denounce a lack of information from doctors. For the most part, they ignored the mix of mandatory and recommended vaccines in the medical gesture. “This situation raises, according to a medication expert, the issue of vaccine interactions, which is unspoken. And this poses a legal problem. “In the existing scheme, the State, under the national solidarity, repairs a damage attributable directly to a compulsory vaccination throughout Oniam (National Office for compensation for medical accidents). “Even if the judges agree that it is the vaccine that caused encephalopathy, the fact that there are non-binding valences can preclude recovery of the family,” says the expert. How to prove that the damage was caused by the vaccine mandatory?

Hartemann me, who knows that the labs will fight on the causality of vaccine damage, hope that the jurisprudence will weigh in the balance. In 2012, after 17 years of proceedings, the State Council has recognized the responsibility of Pentacoq vaccine (5 virus) in the onset of disability to 95% for a 5 month old baby. For the drug expert, “this is a favorable turnaround probably due to the conscience of the judges. They had for the first time the opposite argument: because the mixture Pentacoq mandatory and recommended vaccines, they considered, by assimilation, that the damage was just as well have been caused by a vaccine mandatory “.

The lawyer also relies on the beam elements (temporality, healthy children before vaccination …) for families to obtain redress. For the oldest record, that of Terry, laboratories invoke prescription. Unless proven is the responsibility of Sanofi for defective product. Next meeting February 19: families will know whether medical examinations are granted.

Families are members Nello Future Hope Healing

L’actualité santé en vidéo : Santé: que faire contre la pénurie de médicaments?

3 Reaction (s) Login or register to leave a message.

  • By

    (Report abuse) VICTIMS OF 2009 H1N1 VACCINE

    I am also one of the 5000 European victims of the H1N1 vaccine from GSK PANDEMRIX, this one caused me 11 days after encephalitis G93.3 ICD10, I am because of the AS03 squalene adjuvant poison utterly unable to leave my disabled home, read, withhold anything, total impotence, constant pain, degradations of all organs, I am not the only one we are near 3000 europe have this disease induced by this vaccine, after narcolepsy, there is a treatment for CURATIVE the RITUXIMAB my illness, there are in France since 1997, but has not the marketing authorization for this indication, and French doctors are so afraid of the Board of the order qu’is have chosen let me die in unimaginable suffering, luckily I was able to leave the us receive this treatment, annual cost 25,000 euros, not reimbursed by the cpam, I will say one thing ene Madame Bachelot thank you for selling our quality vaccines unadjuvanted PANENZA the usa in Africa and offered to leave us a real poison causing a global genocide, to date I have been poisoned by the French state, mentally ill treated by the medical community, let behalf without any treatment and no excuses made by the Ministry of Health, I was FIME my testimony will unleash a wave of mass vaccination Abti worldwide, to conclude H1N1 vaccination caused more casualties and death, for better die than suffer his whole life and die in epouvatables conditions we would not stand in an animal, the false pandemic H1N1 Who killed far less than the seasonal flu (the elderly or people with cancer in the end life) my life has been reported to GSK 7 EUROS and costed has cpam more than 10,000 euros of unnecessary examination in France, c scenario was verified in all the countries that have received this PANDEMRIX AREPANRIX FOCETRIA, the common point between them is squalene adjuvant AS03 or MF59, the worst is that its laboratories knew they would have victims, they requested legal immunity that France granted them only poland refused this blackmail they do no known victims I am ashamed to live in this country, ashamed of the cowardice of our leaders, did not assume the genocide qu’is have left to do on their citizens and this totalemetn dead or handicapped for life and often with prognosis committed


GSK Recalls ‘Defective’ Ventolin HFA (albuterol sulfate) Inhalers



GSK recalls nearly 130,000 Ventolin inhalers

Date: Thursday, January 28 |  11am ET / 8am PT / 4pm GMT

For the second time in recent months, a drugmaker is having to recall tens of thousands of breathing medications because of potential problems with inhalers. This time, it is GlaxoSmithKline ($GSK), which is retrieving two lots of its Ventolin HFA inhalers.

According to the most recent FDA Enforcement report, GSK is recalling 128,704 asthma inhalers because some canisters may not contain sufficient propellant to deliver the 200 doses that its label said it can provide through the end of its shelf life.

In July, Boehringer Ingelheim recalled 358,647 Combivent Respimat inhalers, used to treat chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, in the U.S. In that case, the company said the delivery system was defective and may provide insufficient spray, or none at all. That came a week after AstraZeneca ($AZN) recalled a lot of its Bricanyl Turbuhalers for treating asthmas after discovering they may contain no powder.

The GSK Ventolin inhalers were produced at its plant in Zebulon, NC. That is the facility that GlaxoSmithKline had to close for about a week last summer to clean cooling towers for the facility after testing turned up the bacteria for Legionnaires’ disease. The plant was idled briefly since cooling was essential to production, but GSK assured the public that products were unaffected by the discovery.

Ebenezer Andrew Witty Meets The Ghost Of Christmas Past…



Kaili Butin still has faint scars on her wrist from the day she tried to kill herself. A family physician had prescribed GlaxoSmithKline’s antidepressant Paxil to treat her depression. It was the fall of 2000, her sophomore year of high school, and she had stopped caring about schoolwork and lost interest in her friends.

“I wanted something to make me feel better,” she says. “I wanted to be a normal teenager. I saw my friends and none of them felt the way I felt.”

Butin was among millions of American teens who took Paxil in the early 2000s. Her doctor’s recommendation helped the antidepressant overtake the competition to garner the highest number of new prescriptions of any drug in its class in 2000. Sales of the pill increased by 17 percent to hit $2.4 billion. Butin, now a 31-year-old accountant living in Ankeny, Iowa, is angry about newly revealed information that GlaxoSmithKline withheld from the public regarding Paxil’s danger to teenagers. 

Butin remembers feeling a change set in soon after she began taking the drug. She wrote furiously in journals to manage her emotional plunge.

“I just remember feeling worthless,” she says. “I had an entire journal of poems that I would write on how horrible life was and how it just wasn’t worth being around anymore and everybody would be better off without me.”

This month, a team of researchers published a new analysis of a 14-year-old clinical trial data that suggested adolescents who used Paxil were at greater risk of severe side effects — including suicidal thoughts and self-harm — than GlaxoSmithKline originally disclosed. While it’s impossible to know whether her suicide attempts were a direct result of taking Paxil, Butin says she is “very confident” that the drug is to blame.

See http://study329.org/ 

For further reading about GSK’s death drug Seroxat/Paxil/Aropax..

and they say it’s safe for adults?

Rat poison is likely much safer than this toxic junk…


Well well, another year comes to close and the spooky, scary tale of a greedy, evil, amoral drug company rumbles on…

It’s been quite a year for the sociopathic drug company GlaxoSmithKline..

In February we heard the news that GSK CEO Andrew Witty’s pay was cut because of GSK’s China Bribe scandal which cast a cloud over the company for most of 2014..

The pay cut reflects Witty’s struggle to halt a slide in U.S. market share for Advair, the company’s top-selling asthma medication, and failure to win over doctors and insurers to products designed to replace it. Shares of GSK fell 8 percent in the past year as the drugmaker was also battered by a bribery scandal in China that resulted in a $457.6 million fine.


I’m sure that Witty wasn’t too bothered about his little pay cut though, GSK has already made him a multi-multi millionaire and he owns bucket-loads of GSK shares…

He’s made a good career out of Glaxo..

Anyhow, to read more  on this, see here:


In March 2015, we had some nasty news about GSK’s Zofran Drug (one of the many GSK drugs mentioned in the good whistle-blower- Greg Thorpe’s- record breaking Department of Justice complaint).

See here for more on Zofran causing birth defects:


One of the more recent Zofran lawsuits, filed by plaintiff Cheri Flynn in Pennsylvania, mirrors allegations contained in the US Department of Justice lawsuit: that GSK knowingly marketed Zofran to pregnant women without sharing information about the potential for Zofran birth defects – information the lawsuit alleges GSK has had in its possession since 1992, if not before.

“GSK not only concealed this knowledge from healthcare providers and consumers in the United States, and failed to warn of the risk of birth defects,” the Flynn lawsuit states, “but GSK also illegally and fraudulently promoted Zofran to physicians and patients specifically for the treatment of morning sickness in [pregnant] women.”

In Seroxat related news, there was another damning mention of Seroxat in the main-stream media:

for full article see link here :



“On Seroxat I lost all emotion, I couldn’t feel anything and I didn’t care about anyone, least of all myself. I had never had depression before but this anti-depressant made me feel suicidal. I started drinking heavily and I tried to kill myself a few times.”

Of course, GSK still sell Seroxat, doctors still prescribe it (mostly to long term addicts) and GSK still make a hefty profit off of it, despite the controversy over suicidal side effects which have raged on since the late 90’s/early 2000’s.

GSK profits directly from death drugs like Seroxat. The sales effectively pay the wages of CEO’s like Andrew Witty, therefore we could perhaps make the assumption couldn’t we- that (in part) Andrew Witty has made some of his millions from selling death drugs like Seroxat? (and Wellbutrin etc).

 I’m sure Witty doesn’t lose much sleep over Seroxat though..

Only those with consciences lose sleep over stuff like that..


In April, we find out that GSK are making an a drug to treat Asbestos related disease drug..

I found this quite ironic considering that a GSK whistle-blower (in a plant in Ireland) contacted me directly not too long ago (by email) informing me of an alleged asbestos contamination at a GSK plant in Sligo (apparently affecting staff and also some GSk products according to this alleged whistle-blower). Whether true or not, it was an interesting story nonetheless and perhaps we will hear more in the future (or, as I suspect- it was probably all hushed up)..

See here for more on this story-


Further to my post yesterday about GSK asbestos contamination in GSK drugs made at a GSK Stiefel Site In Sligo, and the whistleblowers who claim that they also have been affected from Asbestos contamination, it seems that GSK is making a drug to help ease the conditions from Asbestos related diseases… Ironic? Yes, Very…


For more posts from April 2015 see here-



It’s interesting to note that back in May 2014 , we heard more news of GSK’s corruption investigations from the serious fraud office in the UK-

GlaxoSmithKline plc investigation

27 May 2014

The Director of the SFO has opened a criminal investigation into the commercial practices of GlaxoSmithKline plc and its subsidiaries.

Whistleblowers are valuable sources of information to the SFO in its cases.  We welcome approaches from anyone with inside information on all our cases including this one – we can be contacted through our secure and

Whether this investigation will bear fruit in 2016, remains to be seen, as GSK have a knack for avoiding criminal charges, and quite often they just get off and the charges simply disappear..

They have a huge influence in very high circles globally, and in the UK in particular, they operate above the law..

Their influence is massive in the UK..

In May 2015- I posted some interesting links bout the Maudsley debate on antidepressants..

I find it remarkable how psychiatry continues to deny the damage that these drugs are doing..

It’s simply disgraceful..

See here for more-


Antidepressants Debated At Kings College: 52nd Maudsley Debate: More Harm Than Good?


In June, it was interesting to see Irish sports star, Conor Cusack, bravely discuss his horrible experiences with SSRI’s and psychiatry..

It seems more and more people are speaking out against these toxic drugs and holding biological psychiatry to account-

See link for more-


Also in June, the tireless blogger, Bob Fiddaman, did a brilliant expose on GSK’s Selacryn drug – it’s well worth a read..

See here for Bob’s exhaustive and thoroughly good expose –


What is/was Selacryn?

Selacryn – a drug to combat high blood pressure.

Marketed an manufactured by SmithKline Beckman. **(SKB)

Selacryn was introduced in May 1979 and withdrawn by SmithKline the following January. It lasted just 8 months on the American market.

It’s interesting that Selacryn was withdrawn yet Seroxat remains on the market…

Why have the MHRA allowed Seroxat/Paxil on the market despite the immense damage it has done to many people?

Also in June 2015, a movie, called ‘Cake’ starring Jennifer Aniston was released to wide spread acclaim. I found this particularly interesting because the movie was based on the infamous Donald Schell Paxil induced murder suicide story (a case in the 00’s where Paxil/Seroxat was found liable for causing Donald to kill his wife, daughter and grand-daughter).

See here for more on this-


EXCLUSIVE: The true story behind Jennifer Aniston’s Cake – how movie’s scriptwriter was inspired by the brutal murder of his brother’s wife, baby daughter and mother-in-law

  • Cake has been acclaimed for Aniston’s portrayal of suicidal mom hooked on prescription drugs in aftermath of car crash that killed her child

  • Daily Mail Online can reveal movie was written by Patrick Tobin after his brother’s young family was slaughtered by a relative

  • Deb Tobin and her nine-month-old daughter Alyssa were shot dead by her father, along with her mom Rita Schell, by Don Schell, her father

  • Tim Tobin, Patrick’s brother, found the horrific scene at father-in-law’s home in Gillette, Wyoming on Valentine’s Day, 1998

  • Schell was taking anti-depressant Paxil and Tim Tobin sued maker, winning $6.4m compensation after it was named ‘proximate cause’ of killings 

  • Patrick Tobin then quit Hollywood to look after his suicidal brother and eventually wrote Cake as a result of experience


In July I did some posts about GSK’s new Malaria vaccine Mosquirix..

Personally, after experiencing GSK’s Seroxat, and the lies which I was told about that drug, and the immense suffering I experienced as a a result of those GSK lies, I wouldn’t trust any GSK product period…

They are a despicable socipathic company (in my opinion), with absolutely no regard for the health of their customers/the public..

for my full post on this see here


GSK are heavily promoting their new Malaria vaccine, Mosquirix, at the moment, and of course the press are gushing sycophantic praise for it by the bucket-load. It has just been approved in Europe but personally, I’d take my chances with Malaria rather than take any GSK product. They just can’t be trusted to produce safe drugs because their safety record leaves a hell of a lot to be desired.

For example, their flu vaccine, Pandemirix, which was heavily touted for the (media generated) flu-scare a few years ago, has been shown to be extremely dodgy indeed, and many patients are now suing GSK because they have developed Narcolepsy because of this vaccine. Then of course we have the two most notorious GSK drugs of recent times, the killers – Seroxat (a dangerous anti-depressant which induces suicide) and Avandia (a diabetes drug which causes heart attacks)- the death toll, and scale of human misery, from those two drugs alone easily reaches into the hundreds of thousands.

For more interesting posts from July 2015 see here..



In August there were a many interesting GSK related stories. One involving shards of wood in GSK’s toothpaste, was particularly creepy…

Sensodyne & Biotene Toothpastes Are Recalled By Wegmans Because Of This Unbelievably Terrifying Reason

Chad Buchanan/Getty Images Entertainment/Getty Images
Alex Gladu
July 21 News

On Saturday, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) Consumer Healthcare recalled specific Sensodyne and Biotene toothpaste tubes, according to a post on supermarket chain Wegmans’ website. The affected toothpaste “may contain small fragments of wood” and can be returned to the store for a full refund. The voluntary recall affects only certain lots of the toothpaste brands.

Imagine going to brush your teeth with Sensodyne and ending up shredding your gums to pieces because of these fragments of wood in it?

This is a typical GSK story. The plants where they make their drugs are notoriously shoddy, and I am not surprised that this happened.

In 2010, GSK whistleblower Cheryl Eckard revealed how GSK’s plant in Puerto Rico was nothing short of a death trap..

Would you trust any product from this scummy company?

I wouldn’t..


A whistleblower who exposed serious contamination problems at GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) pharmaceutical manufacturing operations has been awarded $96m (£60m).

Cheryl Eckard’s payment is thought to be the biggest ever handed to a US whistleblower. It was awarded after an eight-year fight, which ended yesterday, when GSK agreed to pay the US government $750m to settle civil and criminal charges that it manufactured and sold adulterated drug products.

Speaking outside the federal courthouse in Boston after the award was agreed, Eckard admitted she was “a little emotional”.

“It’s difficult to survive this financially, emotionally, you lose all your friends, because all your friends are people you have at work,” she said. “You really do have to understand that it’s a very difficult process but very well worth it.”

see the full post here-


When GSK were fined 3 Billion dollars by the US department of Justice in 2012 (for various criminal/fraudulent activities spanning over more than a decade- which resulted in some cases- in deaths of patients/consumers) the media concentrated mainly on the headline grabbing “3 Billion dollar fine” and very little of the exhibits (and the content of the actual legal complaint) were highlighted. This is understandable, considering this was the biggest health care fine in US history, but the fine itself is only a very small part of the overall story. These exhibits reveal a sinister and sociopathic corporate culture at GSK; a culture which indicate (and considering GSK’s recent China bribe scandal– arguably- still display) an utterly callous disregard for patient health, and an insatiable appetite for fraud and corruption in the pursuit of profits.


For more posts from August 2015- see here





In September 2015, the big news was the RIAT re-interpretation of GSK’s infamous Paxil/Seroxat Study 329. This study made the front page of the BMJ. This was huge news and there were was much written about it online, on blogs, and in newspapers, social media etc.

See more on this here


  • “This is highly concerning because prescribing this drug may have put young patients at unnecessary risk from a treatment that was supposed to help them,” he says.

  • Although concerns had already been raised about Study 329, and the way it was reported, the data was not previously made available so researchers and clinicians weren’t able to identify all of the errors in the published report,” said Professor Jureidini in a statement“It wasn’t until the data was made available for re-examination that it became apparent that paroxetine was linked to serious adverse reactions, with 11 of the patients taking paroxetine engaging in suicidal or self-harming behaviors compared to only one person in the group of patients who took the placebo.”

  • Jureidini suggested that the drugs’ side effects can make it easy to work out who is taking them. Potentially this may cast doubt, not just on this individual study, but on all clinical trials of SSRIs, one of the most widely prescribed classes of drugs in the world.

  • Publicity from Study 329 contributed to paroxetine being prescribed to “hundreds of thousands” of adolescents, Jureidini said. “We’re only talking about one study, but if this accurately reflects the effects we would expect that many children engaged in suicidal behaviour as a result.”

  • Jureidini told IFLScience: “The safety of paroxetine for adults is unclear. The safety analysis may be biased. But we know that the younger you are and the less severe the depression the more likely it is that the harms of SSRIs will outweigh the benefits.”

Another shocking story which I covered, involved the horrific effects of GSK’s Zyloric drug on Charles Oben

I will cover this story, as it develops, in 2016:

See more here


With the help of Joseph Edgar – a popular blogger and investment banker- InsideMainland was able to get this very surreal tale of a banker, Charles Oben, whose life took a dramatically destructive turn in the course of seeking a healthy life.

It started when Charles who worked with the UBA was posted to Burkina Faso and in his usual meticulous self visited a Cardiologist for a routine check. They found out that his urea level was high and the drug Zyloric (manufactured by Glaxo Smithkline (GSK) Pharmaceuticals) was prescribed. He bought the drug for about N1,300 and dutifully took administered dosage. However in less than 36 hours his life was turned into a living hell.

Blisters, skin peeling, eyes destroyed, bleeding from everywhere, bed sores and everything imaginable became his plight. His wife Joan flew in, saw her husband and melted. His children came in and ran away. Mirrors where kept away from him.

For much more posts from September 2015, including articles about Paxil/Seroxat study 329 and how GSK marketed a drug that killed kids-

See here-


One of the stand out stories from October’s posts in 2015, for me was from the Wall street journal interview with Peter Humphrey:

Humphrey, it seems, was scapegoated and abandoned by GSK, in the midst of their China bribe scandal.

It will be interesting to see if Humphrey will speak out more..

I’m sure that his side of this scandal is extremely interesting indeed..

Shameful behavior from GSK (as usual)..

Where GSK goes, skullduggery , it seems, inevitably follows..

see more here


Mr. Humphrey said in a statement and telephone interview from his home in Surrey, England that a prostate problem he experienced while imprisoned — but which went untreated — was recently diagnosed as a malignant cancer. “It wasn’t caught early enough because I was denied the medical attention that I needed,” said Mr. Humphrey.

By telephone, Mr. Humphrey declined to discuss who was or wasn’t a past client of his investigations business ChinaWhys Co. but said the individual who allegedly “manipulated” Shanghai authorities was a former subject of his investigation work.

The statement from Mr. Humphrey coincides with a visit to the U.K. by Chinese President Xi Jinping. “The fact that (the Chinese president) here is significant, and hopefully the central government leadership will investigate what happened in Shanghai,” Mr. Humphrey said.

For the full October posts from 2015 see here


Two of my favorite posts from November were from the MadInAmerica website (a brilliant site with excellent articles):

The first, from Phil Hickey, details another drug from GSK’s 3 Billion dollar Department of Justice investigation; that drug was Lamictal:

It is simply staggering the amount of fraud which GSK managed to squeeze out of this one drug. It’s even more staggering when you consider the fact that this drug was one of several which they promoted illegally..

(and imagine what the skullduggery which GSK are involved in which we never find out about?)

See full post here

Appendix A: Section IX of United States of America vs. GlaxoSmithKline, PLC: GSK’S OFF-LABEL MARKETING OF LAMICTAL

The second article, from Redmond O’Hanlon, was also brilliant.

In this article Redmond raises again the specter of GSK’s infamous Seroxat/Paxil study 329..

Just how many people has GSK’s Paxil/Seroxat killed and harmed over the years?

It’s unbelievable how they they have got away with all this isn’t it?

See Redmond’s brilliant article here


Nobody has retracted or apologized for a study that was an academic disgrace—but a marketing coup for GSK—which may well have caused untold numbers of deaths, suicide attempts and irreversible anguish to myriad families. Can we stand idly by when we’re told that it “accurately reflects the honestly-held views of the clinical investigator authors who do not agree that the article is false, fraudulent or misleading.”? What is the current market value of the honestly-held views of people who tell lies?

For many more posts from November 2015

See this link-


The highlight of December 2015’s posts, for me, was Andrew Witty’s grilling by Evan Davies (of the BBC)..

I think this video speaks for itself..

but be sure to read the full post for more details and further reading..

(and don’t forget to scroll back through each month for full views of all the posts of the year and that month… there are 982 posts in total over almost 9 years… feel free to browse and thanks for reading- if you did!)

Each year is riddled with the scandals of GSK’s nefarious activities..

What’s GSK going to get up to in 2016?..

Happy Christmas Everybody!

“...Thousands of North American children and adolescents were seriously harmed by taking SSRIs like Paxil. Many died. Neither doctors nor parents had the information they needed, and the FDA only reluctantly issued the appropriate warnings, as might be expected from a regulator that has “corporate partnership” in its mandate.

So why aren’t we all scandalized?…”

See :http://study329.org/


Irish Health Minister For Health (Leo Varadkar) Slams Greedy Drug Companies.. Plus.. Pharma CEO, Martin Schkreli Is Arrested For Fraud..

The Irish Health minister, Leo Varadkar, made some very damning comments about the pharmaceutical industry recently:


“…Minister for Health Leo Varadkar has condemned the “greed incorporated” in drug companies and said dealing with some of them brought out “whatever socialist instincts may be buried in me”.

His Dublin West constituency colleague and Socialist Party TD Ruth Coppinger had said ordinary people were held hostage by the “profiteering of these companies under our capitalist system. That is why I am a socialist and why I believe health should be a priority.”

She called on the Minister to negotiate a cut in the price of the new Orkambi drug for cystic fibrosis which the HSE estimates will cost €90 million a year. Ireland has the highest cystic fibrosis rate in the world .

Mr Varadkar agreed drug companies “overcharge and use patients as pawns” and in some countries hired PR companies to coach patients to advocate on their behalf. He said “these people also pay themselves massive salaries, draw down massive profits and pay massive dividends. They are people whose bonus every year is based on how much they can overcharge a small country.”

The Minister said they targeted small countries “and get the small country to set the high price and then offer bigger countries slight discounts”.

This, he said, “is a case of greed incorporated. While I am not a socialist, dealing with some of these companies would ring out whatever socialist instincts may be buried in me.”

In other (timely) news, greedy sociopath, and Turings Pharma CEO, Martin Shkreli, (apparently the most hated man in America) has been arrested for fraud..

It has been a busy week for Martin Shkreli, the flamboyant businessman at the center of the drug industry’s price-gouging scandals.

He said he would sharply increase the cost of a drug used to treat a potentially deadly parasitic infection. He called himself “the world’s most eligible bachelor” on Twitter and railed against critics in a live-streaming YouTube video. After reportedly paying $2 million for a rare Wu-Tang Clan album, he goaded a member of the hip-hop group to “show me some respect.”

Then, at 6 a.m. Thursday, F.B.I. agents arrested Mr. Shkreli, 32, at his Murray Hill apartment. He was arraigned in Federal District Court in Brooklyn on securities fraud and wire fraud charges.

Maybe one day the FBI will come for the Glaxo  pharmafia crooks?  (Garnier, Witty, Bob Ingram, Viehbacher… and the rest)

Here’s hoping…








Irish Psychiatrist Patricia Casey


“…My studies of the research literature in this whole area lead me to a very uncomfortable conclusion: the way we currently use psychiatric drugs is causing more harm than good. We should therefore use them much less, for shorter periods of time, and always with a plan for tapering off, to prevent people from being medicated for the rest of their lives….”

Prof. Peter Gøtzsche (The Guardian 2014).

“For years the public has been under the impression or of the opinion that medication is bad and that talking therapy is good, and if we have enough talk therapy there wouldn’t be any need for medication. That simplistic view is wrong,” she said, pointing out that in dealing with severe psychiatric illnesses, “medication is absolutely essential”.

Prof. Patricia Casey (Irish Catholic 2015).



I wasn’t going to comment on this article (from June 2015) by psychiatrist Patricia Casey, because I think that some biological psychiatrists actually delight in upsetting people by putting out misleading information about anti-depressants. I think that some of these high profile psychiatrists seriously think that by publishing blatantly deceptive and illusory pro-anti-depressant articles they have succeeded in striking a blow against people who criticize them. They seem to imagine that they are being clever by twisting facts and pulling the wool over peoples’ eyes. They are certainly not interested in the truth, they are interested in maintaining the status quo, and this status quo mainly consists of protecting the psychiatric profession, and the drugs which validate the profession.

I find this behavior very disturbing…

Patricia Casey’s recent article in ‘The Irish Catholic’ titled: ‘Simplistic therapy approach to suicide criticized in new study’ – is so utterly ridiculous, and so blatantly insulting, not only to those who are critical of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs, but also to those who have been harmed by psychiatric drugs, their families and their friends etc. It’s even more offensive to the families of those who have had to pick up the pieces from SSRI induced suicides. It’s just simply abhorrent to use red herrings, smoke and mirrors, and selective information from specific studies, and then twist these cherry picked anecdotes into conclusions which are dubious, misleading and ultimately harmful.

(See SSRI stories and Surviving Antidepressants for tale after tale of damage from psychiatric drugs and SSRI anti-depressants).

It might seem to be clever to publish these kinds of articles, in the sense that many lay people are fooled and some are bewildered enough to go along with it, and then psychiatry (and the psychiatrist) feels elevated and validated by their own propaganda, but ultimately this ego-game just hurts sufferers of ‘mental illness’.. the very people which psychiatry is supposed to protect (disturbing? cruel? you betcha). The public at large would automatically trust an opinion from a high profile psychiatrist, they wouldn’t suspect that there could be an agenda.

Casey’s article (which also re-appeared in the Independent) “Two thirds who died by suicide not taking drugs prescribed for them” attempts to correlate dubious ‘facts’ and ‘research’ in order to draw a ‘conclusion’ (and create a sensationalist headline) that anti-depressants are not implicated in suicides because (she says) that two thirds of people who died by suicide are not taking prescribed drugs (it is unclear whether this means ‘not taking’-as in ceased to take- the drugs prescribed for them and it’s also unclear if this means that each individual in this group was never prescribed any drugs ever). To the lay reader, this seems that it would be logical to then assume that if those two thirds of people had taken their ‘prescribed drugs’ then they would have been saved from suicide.

There are many ways to interpret this ‘study’, but Casey (true to form) chooses the one which she imagines to validate psychiatry and psychiatric drugs.

However, what Casey doesn’t draw attention to in her summation, is the other ‘remaining third’ who were taking their prescribed drugs at the time of their suicide. What does this tell us? It tells us that it’s possible that the two thirds could have been in withdrawal from their drugs? (Casey chooses to omit any mention of withdrawal). SSRI withdrawal can cause seriously debilitating effects, suicide is one of them.

I know because I experienced it...

(and so have many many others).

We could interpret the study in the article to indicate that some of these individuals (in the 2/3rds group) could have stopped taking their (SSRI) antidepressants abruptly before their suicide (maybe a few months, days or weeks before- and perhaps that’s why they didn’t turn up on the toxicology reports?)- maybe this factor is significant in attempting to understand at least two out of three of these cases?-  and furthermore we could then go on to perceive that despite being prescribed drugs and taking them at the time, the entire group of those found with psychiatric drugs in their toxicology reports (the other third)-did -in fact- commit suicide.

Leonie Fennell (in her excellent dissection of this article) makes some extremely significant points about toxicology reports, she says:

“...Toxicology results post mortem are notoriously unreliable(Drummer et al 2004) and should not, as yet, be relied upon to conclude drug concentrations before death. I personally know of mothers who have lost their sons to antidepressant-induced deaths where the antidepressant escaped detection in toxicology tests. Two of these mothers vehemently objected and insisted on a re-test – in both cases the drug was eventually detected, once on the second time and once on the third time…”

If one third had an anti-depressant in their system at the time of their death by suicide, then surely this indicates that anti-depressants are not very effective for some- isn’t this another way of looking at this study? If these drugs are really ‘anti‘ ‘depressants’ then surely we would expect then for the drugs to prevent suicides? isn’t that what ‘anti‘ indicates? We should expect to find no mention of anti-depressants found in the bodies of suicide victims or indeed we would expect this to be a rare occurrence; an aberration – yet according to Casey, 100% of those notes on an antidepressant in this study still killed themselves. Therefore, the anti-depressants failed 100% of those studied which were on them, as the third is 100% of those who had toxicology showing anti-depressants in their blood at time of death.

What we don’t know is- were the other two thirds prescribed anti-depressants in the weeks, months, or years, before their deaths? and maybe they suddenly tried to stop taking them, and perhaps it was withdrawal which drove them to suicide? Casey addresses none of these issues.

Furthermore, the article does not mention any details about the study, how it was assessed, where it can be accessed, what drugs were these people on, for how long did they take them, when did they stop them? were they experiencing withdrawal, or side effects? etc.

Casey makes no mention of the other factors which lead people to severe depression, and suicidal actions and thoughts. The core of this is usually societal. People aren’t born suicidal or depressed. These things manifest over an individual’s life. If biology is a factor in depression, it is a small factor (and likely a consequence of depression not a biological cause). Suicides come from despair, and what leads up to that despair is usually a series of traumatic events: abuse, bullying, poverty, loss, grief etc.

Casey does not enlighten us to anything about this study and there are no links to the authors’ credentials, their backgrounds etc. We don’t know what the authors’ agenda is (if there is one), we don’t know their possible professional/public or commercial affiliations, biases, conflicts of interests etc.

There is no link to the raw data. There is no discussion of individual cases from the study. There is no mention of comparative literature in which to draw other possible conclusions. We get no insight into this study whatsoever, we just get Casey’s cognitively biased interpretations and conclusions dressed up as a news article. We get her specifically honed pro-drug perspective too. Nonetheless, despite having absolutely no scientific foundation, the article aims to convince the reader of an outlandish conclusion in regards to anti-depressants. Each and every suicide case is immensely complex, just as each and every suicide case with anti-depressants as a factor is also hugely complex. We have complex lives. This study attempts to simplify individual people’s vastly complex lives, and reasons perhaps, for taking theirs, into something akin to studying weather patterns. If only life were as simple and predictable as assuming ‘it will rain in winter, because it usually does’…

It’s pseudo-science at its very best.

This is dangerous.

There is a website called antidepaware which has been documenting hundreds of suicides (people on SSRI’s at the time) for a few years now. Perhaps Casey and the researchers in this study, need to look a little further, and delve a little deeper. One random study (with absolutely no scrutiny of the question of whether these individuals who completed suicide were withdrawing from an anti-depressant at the time and with many flaws) does not prove that anti-depressants are safe. If two thirds had no antidepressants in their system at the time of their suicides, can we assert that perhaps this was because they had tried to withdrawal from their meds, and it was this that plunged them into suicidal ideation?

It’s true that people on SSRI’s commit suicide, as do people not on SSRI’s. People also commit suicide from akathisia, de-realization, and de-personaliztion (all quite common- and terrifying- side effects of SSRI antidepressants which are well known and listed in PIL’s). We could assume that a sizable portion of suicides could leave no trace of an antidepressant in their system because perhaps they are in withdrawal from the drugs? However, perhaps the only way to truly know what effect SSRI’s have in regards to suicidal thoughts etc, would be to ask those who came off SSRI’s because of suicidal side effects etc?

There are  hundreds of thousands of us out there- we are not ‘anecdotes’. Our experiences are valid. Psychiatry should be documenting, and studying us.

Where is the study representing SSRI survivors?

Casey also admits that this study is extremely limited. However, despite admitting that the study is very flawed-(in other words we can’t really make concrete conclusions about it) she then goes on to make sweeping statements about the validity of it..

“….the numbers were small, it does cover a limited period, and the study needs to be replicated”, she said it was “highly likely” that similar patterns could be found nationally and internationally”…

However, she kind of slips up -and reveals perhaps -an agenda- which is: to counter the current cultural aversion to medication for the human condition. There has been a huge backlash against psychiatric drugs, and psychiatry in general, these last few years-because the ‘service users’ are beginning to see that the emperor of psychiatry has no clothes…

Communities like MadPride and MadInAmerica have been challenging the psychiatric stranglehold upon ‘mental health’ and the discourse for years now…

Casey defends the drugs because the drugs validate her profession…

The risks of these drugs – it seems- don’t really matter to her..

“..We know that generally people don’t adhere to medication”, she said, adding that “the antipathy to medication for mental health problems is a cultural thing”.

Personally I think that Patricia Casey is talking utter nonsense, and I suspect she is well aware of what she is doing. This is an article which defends psychiatric drugs at all costs, despite recent research from people like Bob Whitaker and Peter Gotzsche outlining the clear dangers from psychiatric treatments (particularly long term). It’s an utterly shameful article which does nothing but confuse and miselead the public. It serves no purpose in the ‘mental health’ discourse, apart from upsetting those of us who can see through it, but then again, perhaps that is the purpose? If so- then well done Casey! You’ve scored another point for biological psychiatry, and let patients down, once again.

“…According to Whitaker, research suggests that while people suffering from depression may not have low serotonin levels to begin with, the use of SSRIs reduces the brain’s capacity to produce serotonin on its own, leading to a worsening of symptoms when patients stop taking the drugs…”


What Casey doesn’t explain is why there is antipathy to medication. In my view the antipathy comes from user’s experiences; largely negative experiences involving horror stories from anti-depressants. She doesn’t seem to see either that the discourse is changing. People can read opposing views now, and people can read about the side effects on the internet. Psychiatry can no longer just tell people, ‘it’s all in their head’ because people can inform themselves. Psychiatry no longer has the absolute stranglehold (it once had) upon the mental health ‘discourse’. The internet has democratized the discussion, patients can now express their opinions on ‘treatments’, and their voices are being heard.

In the 80’s and 90’s Casey was Ireland’s virulent anti-abortion pundit. She regularly took to the Irish airwaves to sprout right wing Catholic views; views which belonged (and still belong) to an age of Magdalene laundries, heavy handed Christian brothers, and an era where women were supposed to feel ashamed of their bodies, and in particular, of their pregnant unmarried bodies. Her stance was, and still is, out of kilter with modern Ireland (and the modern world in general). Her views on abortion and gay marriage disturb a lot of people…(including other -more secular- psychiatrists – such as Prof Veronica O’Keane).

O’Keane has taken Casey to task over her conservative views many times- see the quotes below-


“….Professor Patricia Casey’s latest contribution to public debate on the topic of suicide is that young gay men who have suicidal ideation or who attempt to harm themselves will not necessarily go on to kill themselves. She has told us that we should not “conflate” the act of self-harm with the completed act of suicide. Her argument is that, although suicidal behaviour is disproportionately more common in LGBT individuals, that the completed acts of suicide may not be higher..”

“...Does it really help make us a better or more healthy society to calculate whether gay men are over-represented in our suicide statistics? Is it not enough to know that the mental health of our LGBT citizens is suffering because of social discrimination? Psychiatry and medicine are frequently involved in issues related to ill-health, such as poverty, income inequality and discrimination, because these issues affect peoples’ health. Medics can only treat the ailment, but the power to alleviate this ill-health lies with all the citizens of our country. Choosing to vote ‘Yes’ is a vote that will lead to a healthier society for us all….”

In the 00’s she was one of Ireland’s anti- gay marriage equality mouth pieces. She is a current patron of the right wing Catholic- Iona institute (an utlra conservative Catholic lobby group). This much-hated organization was the driving force behind spreading misinformation about gay people, surrogacy, and marriage equality leading up to the recent (and thankfully successful) marriage equality for gay people in Ireland.

During many intense debates in the media, leading up to the vote, Casey was deemed a homophobe on Ireland’s national broadcaster (by gay activist Rory O Neil), and the Irish broadcaster, in panic-mode- subsequently paid out money in order to avoid the wrath of Casey and her ilk.

(Casey threatens to sue almost anyone who dares to criticize her in any way).

And nowadays (as she was also throughout her career also) she is Irish psychiatry’s ‘medication apologist’.

Her track record with studies and interpreting research leaves a lot to be desired…

as does her membership of the despised right wing Catholic ‘think-tank’ The Iona Institute..

Casey has been accused before of misrepresenting studies, notably in the Irish gay marriage referendum debate-


“….It has come to our attention that Prof Patricia Casey has referred to our article in supporting her views on traditional marriage between biological parents being the best environment for a child to be raised in (March 5th).

Prof Casey’s conclusion that the article is one of the “compelling reasons to continue giving marriage between a man and a woman the special support of the State” is not valid based on our findings”….

Casey was also sued for damages due to alleged negligence, from prescribing psychiatric drugs to one of her patients:

See here-


“...Rebecca, originally from Malahide in Co Dublin, but now living in Tyrone, was born in April 2001 with a deformed hand, thin lips, problems with balance and other features of Sodium Valproate Syndrome.

She was described in court as a bright, cheerful, attractive girl whose mental capacity is not affected by her condition. She is of above-average intelligence. “I wouldn’t change her for the world,” her mother added.


Through her father, Barry, the eight year old took a legal action against consultant psychiatrist Professor Patricia Casey and consultant obstetrician Dr Mary Holohan over her disabilities, allegedly caused by prescription drugs taken by Mrs McGillin during pregnancy”…

Casey, of course, denied responsibility (but still paid out), and it’s interesting to note also that it is alleged that Casey encouraged the distressed mother to go to England for a termination (Casey denies this) despite the fact that Casey is known in Ireland for her staunchly anti-abortion opinion (Casey is an ultra conservative Irish Catholic).

Traditionally, Catholicism, and the church, was of the view that suicide in itself was a ‘mortal sin’ (and those who killed themselves would be sent to hell). I do not know whether Casey is of this view, but nonetheless, it seems to me that religion perhaps has no business delving into the realm of ‘mental illness’ and suicide? and considering that these ills are typically symptomatic of a stressful (and often quite de-humanizing, brutal and cruel- modern) society, perhaps they are better left in the secular realm?

 I won’t publish the article which I am criticizing (you can read it here) because I don’t want to endorse it or promote it and because, personally I believe it’s articles like that which lead to harm of psychiatric patients, the ‘mentally ill’, and the public at large… but anyhow here’s Bob Fiddaman’s take on the whole thing:


And here’s Leonie Fennell’s


Casey has been causing controversy for years -in a recent article on Ciprmail induced suicide, Casey weighs in again, with her usual nonsense.


GSK.. Famous In China For All The Wrong Reasons…

“…Mr Gisserot said GSK’s vaccines business would be its strongest source of growth in coming years, highlighting the potential of its Cervarix jab to protect young women from cervical cancer…”

GSK are famous in China.. for all the wrong reasons…

That’s according to GSK’s new head of their China division (the replacement for the scandalous Mark Reilly ) – Hervé Gisserot..

I wonder when GSK will atone all the Seroxat damage that they caused to many thousands of us?…

I won’t hold my breath… considering one of Hervé’s drugs he aims to push on the Chinese is GSK’s Cervarix...

Cervarix is proving to be yet another controversial GSK drug but that won’t stop GSK and Hervé Gisserot pushing it in the new Chinese market will it?..

The side effects from Cervarix have been leaking out in the media since 2009, see the Telegraph for more:

Cervarix: the simple injection causing so much controversy

The cervical cancer jab Cervarix is currently under scrutiny after nearly 1,500 Britons have experienced adverse reactions to it.

Carly Steele has not felt right since receiving the cervical cancer vaccine, Cervarix - Cervarix: the vaccine causing so much controversy

Carly Steele has not felt right since receiving the cervical cancer vaccine, Cervarix Photo: RII SCHROER

Amanda Steele first noticed a change in her daughter Carly last summer. The normally exuberant 13-year-old had lost all of her energy. Whereas normally she would have spent her days outside on the trampoline, she now found it difficult to leave the sofa. It was even a struggle to walk unaided to the bathroom.


The blackouts, when they came, were more worrying. Mother would find daughter out cold on the floor of their Stockport home. Every joint in Carly’s body ached, and simple tasks such as washing her hair became impossible. Carly, on the brink of womanhood, suddenly seemed more like a toddler. It is six months now since she last attended school.


“It is like the light has gone out in her eyes,” says her mother. “It is absolutely heartbreaking to watch.”


At first, the doctors blamed vertigo. Then came a diagnosis of the balance disorder Labyrinthitis. Next, ME was suggested. Amanda is not convinced any of these conditions are implicated. What she believes is that Carly’s condition is related to the cervical cancer vaccine she received last year.


“The doctors all look at me like I am an idiot when I bring up the possibility of the jab having this effect on her, but she was a healthy, happy girl before she had it and now she isn’t, and I simply can’t believe that it has nothing to do with it.”

This week, relief of sorts arrived for the Steele family in the shape of a government report detailing the 1,340 instances of adverse reactions to the vaccine, Cervarix. Some girls have suffered paralysis, others convulsions; and some, like Carly, have experienced sight problems (in addition, Carly has now developed severe heat intolerance). Nausea, muscle weakness, fever, dizziness and numbness have also been reported.


Last updated: November 26, 2015 1:08 pm

GSK confident of China renaissance


GlaxoSmithKline has predicted a return to growth in China next year as it slowly begins to repair the damage from a corruption scandal which shattered the company’s reputation in one of the world’s most important pharmaceuticals markets.

In the most detailed account yet of its recovery efforts in China, GSK said it had rooted out the bribery that resulted in a record Rmb3bn ($488m) Chinese fine and halted the haemorrhaging of sales that has shrunk the business by more than a fifth.

Hervé Gisserot, GSK’s general manager in China, forecast renewed growth from this much-diminished base next year but said he had no desire to rekindle the breakneck expansion that led the company into crisis.

“We added a floor every year without making sure the building had the foundation to be sustainable,” he said. “My job now is to make sure the foundations are fit for future growth.”

Mr Gisserot admitted that GSK had become famous in China “for the wrong reasons” after being found guilty last year of what prosecutors described as “massive and systematic bribery” of doctors and health officials to boost prescriptions of its drugs.

But he promised to put the company at the forefront of efforts to clean up the Chinese pharmaceuticals market — behind only the US in size — after a radical overhaul of its sales and marketing model to reduce the risk of corruption.

The pharma model in China is not sustainable . . . others will have to adjust– Hervé Gisserot, GSK’s general manager in China

Measures include severing the link between sales and remuneration for GSK sales representatives, no longer paying doctors for speaking on the company’s behalf, and a ban on cash reimbursement for entertainment expenses.

Mr Gisserot warned that other companies risked punishment by Chinese authorities if they failed to follow GSK’s reforms. “I cannot believe GSK is a one off. This anti-corruption [drive] will continue. I hope others will learn before it is too late.”

GSK’s revenues in China fell 23 per cent between 2012 and 2013 and its sales force dropped from 5,000 to 3,000 as doctors shunned the company in the wake of the scandal. But the business has since stabilised and remains profitable.

Herve Gisserot©AFP

Hervé Gisserot, GSK’s general manager in China

After a modest upturn next year, Mr Gisserot predicted more “dynamic” growth from 2017 but said the days of double-digit annual expansion in the Chinese drugs market were over as the government tries to drive down prices. “The pharma model in China is not sustainable . . . others will have to adjust.”

Mr Gisserot said GSK’s vaccines business would be its strongest source of growth in coming years, highlighting the potential of its Cervarix jab to protect young women from cervical cancer.

China represented less than 3 per cent of GSK’s global sales last year at about £580m but is a strategically important part of the wider push by Sir Andrew Witty, chief executive, to tap rising demand for healthcare in the developing world.

What Do Glaxo CEO Andrew Witty, Or Former Glaxo CEO- JP Garnier, GSK Spokeswoman Bernadette Murdoch, And GSK’s Pat Vallance Have To Say About Paxil/Seroxat Harming Kids?



“...Thousands of North American children and adolescents were seriously harmed by taking SSRIs like Paxil. Many died. Neither doctors nor parents had the information they needed, and the FDA only reluctantly issued the appropriate warnings, as might be expected from a regulator that has “corporate partnership” in its mandate.

So why aren’t we all scandalized?…”

See :http://study329.org/

Mostly on this blog I focus on the current British born CEO of GSK, Andrew Witty, however it is important to note that before Andrew came along, Glaxo was headed by the infamous JP Garnier. Garnier is French (and like the cliche- he is also very arrogant). He was also the head of GSK at the time when most of the crimes detailed in brave whistleblower Greg Thorpe’s department of justice complaint happened (Greg’s complaint led to GSK’s record breaking 3 billion dollar fine for fraud in 2012).

Witty was also in some very high roles (in particular marketing roles) in GSK at the time that Garnier was running the company. Witty has worked for GSK since 1985 so perhaps he is institutionalized to some degree?

Nevertheless, It would be interesting to know exactly what drugs Witty was involved in at the time that Garnier was head of a company which was breaking every ethic imaginable. Were both of them unaware of this fraudulent behavior? I find it hard to believe that they were unaware. I find it much more plausible to think that they were very much aware. In fact, it’s reasonable to assume that high level employees were directing some of this behavior.

If the drug reps were aware (which we know from Greg’s complaint that they were actively encouraged to corrupt doctors, and push various meds off label by their District managers and superiors) then surely the top brass in various roles were very much aware of these shenanigans? It would be extremely naive to think that the CEO’s of pharmaceutical companies don’t know how their vast profits are generated wouldn’t it?

JP Garnier was interviewed by the BBC’s James Naughtie in 2008 (seven years ago). In this interview Naughtie caught Garnier off guard and grilled him about Seroxat..

Not only is Garnier’s attitude stinky, arrogant and pompous, but it also highlights the unsavory mind-set of these Pharma CEO’s. They really don’t care about patients being harmed from their drugs. Garnier utters so much misinformation in this video it would take another post just to set the record straight…

Listen to Garnier arrogantly bumble and bullshit his way through Naughtie’s grilling in the video below:

In a recent interview from this year – current GSK head, Andrew Witty, was put on the spot by another BBC interviewer, Evan Davis. Davis asks Andrew Witty about GSK’s recent China scandal. This scandal involved a massive bribery network in China and resulted in another massive fine for the company. Witty has tried to distance himself from the crimes which were committed under Garnier’s reign by saying that they were from ‘another era’ (what utter BS), however it has been much more difficult for him to deny any responsibility for GSK’s China bribe’s which happened directly under his leadership. Again, we are supposed to believe that those at GSK’s London HQ had absolutely no idea that this fraud and corruption was going on in China..

Does Witty really think the public are that dumb?

Apparently he does…

Listen to Evan Davis grill a gulping, fidgety and red faced Witty here:

In another, more recent, interview from the BBC, on BBC radio 4, GSK’s head of R and D, Patrick Vallance, is asked about Seroxat harming kids. A recent study by a team of researchers from RIAT had published a study re-assessing Seroxat study 329 and came to the conclusions that Seroxat was even more harmful than it was previously known to be.

Many kids are known to have committed suicide because they were prescribed it, and many adults have also been harmed. Literally many tens of thousands of people have been harmed. The problems with Seroxat have been widely known since around 2002 (when the BBC exposed it in a panorama programme), yet despite many deaths of kids and adults from this horrible drug, JP, Witty, Vallance and GSK have not once come out and offer condolences for any of this. They have not once apologized.

Listen to Vallance coldly and casually discuss Seroxat killing kids here:

GSK communications spokeswoman, Bernadette Murdoch, also tried to downplay Seroxat (Aropax/Paxil) harming kids. In her (scripted) statement about it from the company. She seemed to think that the RIAT team’s reanalysis of Seroxat harming kids ( which proved Seroxat damage was much worse then was previously known) wasn’t really that much of a big deal.

According to her it seems- SSRI suicides were old news (I mean- everyone knows by now that these SSRI’s kill kids, right? so what’s all the fuss about?)

It’s barely worthy of a sound bite really Bernadette isn’t it? I mean who cares? Business as usual for Bernadette..

Listen to Bernadette try to defend corporate manslaughter here (and bear in mind Bernadette is likely on a 5 or 6 figure salary- she gets paid to defend GSK- not to be humane or compassionate).

So, we have 4 GSK executives in various high level roles, over several years, basically expressing to us how much they don’t care about kids dying from Seroxat, or about anyone being harmed by it, or about GSK’s long known criminal behavior.

The pharmaceutical companies are not trusted by the public, not just because they behave unethically, time and time again, and not just because they harm and kill patients with dangerous defective drugs like Seroxat or Avandia (or Vioxx etc) or get caught bribing and corrupting doctors, but mostly because the people who work, and speak for, this industry often display cold, callous and sociopathic attitudes when they are questioned about it.

All of these GSK employees, From Andrew Witty To JP Garnier, and Patrick Vallance to Bernadette Murdoch, are all paid extremely well by Glaxo to defend the company and its interests (some of them also hold GSK stock too), and clearly they have valued their paychecks above and beyond, the lives of kids, adults and babies. They epitomize everything that is wrong with our greedy, corrupt, corporate-run world; a world where money is worshiped, and where human lives are seen by pharmaceutical marketing companies as exploitable collateral damage, or patients are deemed merely as disposable as trash.

It might be worthy to note that JP Garnier is also on the board of United Technologies. United Technologies are a massively lucrative weapons/technology company who were mentioned in a recent article from USA today (as being among one of the top ten Global weapons companies which profits directly from war).

Perhaps this explains the mind set of some of these GSK executives?…


JP GarnierUT

Perhaps another insight into the sociopathic nature of some of these executives can be found from a recent interview with Pharma CEO, Martin Shkreli..

Martin Shkreli is the young CEO of Turing pharmaceuticals. He gained online notoriety recently because he jacked up the price of a HIV treatment by 5000% (literally overnight), and he admitted he did it solely to gain profits for his shareholders.

What’s the difference between GlaxoSmithKline’s CEO, Andrew Witty, and Turing’s CEO, Martin Shkreli?

Well, Shkreli doesn’t pretend to be anything other than a ruthless, capitalistic sociopath with the interests of his pharma shareholders (and his own interests) before the interests of anybody else…

that’s one difference…

While Andrew Witty, on the other hand, puts on a very good show as he tries to convince us that he’s really a nice, caring guy.. (he’s slick- I’ll give him that) and not a sociopath at all..

(however apparently the slick sociopaths are also the most convincing)

Either way, Witty is being paid MILLIONS every year to defend GSK..

always keep that in mind…

It’s his own self interest (GSK makes him very wealthy) and the interest of the company which he covets.. not your health!




“…You already hate Martin Shkreli, the bratty former hedge fund manager who raised the price on a drug to treat infections in AIDS patients by 5,000%.

“…Now it’s time to get to know him….

I’m not saying you should get to know Shkreli because you’ll like him in the end. You might hate him more. He is very smart, but also callow and possibly sociopathic. (He prefers “iconoclast.”) Yet much of what has been written about him this past week is unrecognizable. He’s not a bro or some big time executive but a small player with tons of bluster who took Wall Street’s ideas about drug pricing to their frightening extreme.

He became a target for derision not because of what he did but because he was so cartoonishly easy to parody, essentially fouling the cover-up. Other companies have jacked up prices just as much as his firm, Turing, with no consequences other than soaring stock prices…”

Martin Shkreli hasn’t changed.

“…If anything, the provocative pharmaceutical CEO — who became “the most hated man in America” earlier this year — thinks he didn’t go far enough when he hiked the price of Daraprim by more than 5,000% overnight”..

“ I would have raised prices higher,” Shkreli vowed on Thursday, after being asked how he would re-do the past three months. “That’s my duty.”





Thankfully, there are some in this world, who are courageous enough to stand up to the behavior of sociopaths. GSK whistleblower Greg Thorpe is one of them, Dr David Healy is another, as is Shelley Jofre of BBC Panorama. These people put themselves on the line for the good of others, whereas, Witty, Murdoch, Garnier, Vallance and those of that ilk would obviously sell their soul for the dollar.

There are many ethical individuals out there who are willing to stand up for what is right. Another is Dr Jon Jureidini of the university of Adelaide. Jureidini was part of the recent RIAT team who re-analyzed Seroxat (Paxil) study 329. This infamous study revealed what many of us (in particular those of us who were prescribed Seroxat) knew already: Seroxat is an extremely dangerous drug, and it must be immediately restricted and those who are addicted to it must be helped to come off it in a safe and monitored manner.

Of course none of this will happen, because GSK don’t care about Seroxat suicides in young people, or Seroxat damage to anyone else, they don’t care about birth defects from Seroxat, or Seroxat withdrawal ruining people’s lives..

We are collateral damage on the road to their profits..

It’s almost 2016.. and the Seroxat Scandal rages on…


Landmark Analysis of an Infamous Medical Study Points Out the Challenges of Research Oversight

Courtesy Jon Jureidini Jon N. Jureidini, of the U. of Adelaide, in Australia, was part of the team that conducted a two-year reanalysis of a 2001, industry-supported study of a drug now known to increase the risk of suicide in teenagers. Dr. Jureidini and his colleagues on that team hope their effort will help establish a framework for carrying out other such reviews in the future.

September 17, 2015


One teenage patient taking the new antidepressant drug Paxil sliced about a dozen six-inch-long cuts into his arm over a period of several days. Another was hospitalized after threatening to kill herself.

Neither test subject participating in the clinical trial of Paxil two decades ago was classified by a team of university researchers as suicidal. The researchers, led by Martin B. Keller of Brown University, in a medical-journal article summarizing their findings, instead endorsed Paxil as “generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.”

In the years since then, Paxil — made by GlaxoSmithKline and generically known as paroxetine — has generated many billions of dollars in sales, and become a poster child for claims of poor medical ethics. The Keller study has provoked repeated calls for retraction by the journal that published it. Demands for universities to punish those involved. Protests that one of its authors was just chosen to head the leading association of adolescent psychiatrists. And, a few years ago, a key role in the nation’s largest-ever health-care-fraud settlement.

For those reasons, a small team of researchers donated hundreds if not thousands of hours over the past two years to pore through the 275 individual patient records and compile a virtual autopsy of Dr. Keller’s 2001 report, aimed at finding out exactly how and where he and more than a dozen other distinguished university authors could have gotten their conclusions so badly wrong.

The reanalysis of Dr. Keller’s data, published on Wednesday in The BMJ, a London-based medical journal, found no single answer to that question. And its verdict on the leading factor was somewhat anticlimactic: routine professional disagreements over how exactly to classify patient behaviors.

Patients who showed some form of suicidal behavior were not included in Dr. Keller’s final count, the analysis concluded, because of failures to transcribe all adverse events from one database to another and the use of “an idiosyncratic coding system.”

Such breakdowns are widely seen in clinical trials. The effect, “wittingly or unwittingly,” is to hide the adverse effects of medications being tested, said an author of the analysis, Jon N. Jureidini, a professor of psychiatry and pediatrics at the University of Adelaide, in Australia.

Dr. Jureidini is one of many outspoken critics of Glaxo, Paxil, and the role of Dr. Keller’s study in helping the company sell the drug in the face of its apparent dangers. “It’s worse than even we thought,” Dr. Jureidini said of his findings. “It’s pretty scary, really.”

A Framework for the Future

And yet Dr. Jureidini and his colleagues also emphasized their belief that the greater value of their two-year mission was not in heaping further opprobrium on Dr. Keller and his dozen or so co-authors, but in establishing a framework for carrying out such reviews in the future.

Key to building that framework, they said, would be the routine disclosure of patient-level data from clinical trials on the scale that Glaxo was forced to make because of legal action brought by patients.

“For us, this is the main point behind the article,” said one of Dr. Jureidini’s co-authors, David Healy, a professor of psychiatry at Bangor University, in Wales. “This is why we need access to the data. It is only with collaborative efforts based on full access to the data that we can manage to get to a best possible interpretation.”

The BMJ authors portrayed their work as the first major effort under a framework that Dr. Healy and another set of co-authors first proposed in 2013. They had urged institutions that finance clinical trials to help outside experts obtain and reanalyze data from trials that have been abandoned, left unpublished, or called into question.

One editorial in The BMJ accompanying the reanalysis sketched out a strategy for revisiting dormant trials and warned of the potential hurdles in policies, privacy rights, and costs.

Another editorial, by Peter Doshi, an associate editor of the journal, repeated emphatic criticisms of Glaxo, Dr. Keller and his co-authors (and their universities for failing to publicly rebuke them), and the journal that published their study back in 2001, the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry. Mr. Doshi also described turmoil within the academy, which recently elected one of Dr. Keller’s co-authors, Karen D. Wagner, a professor of psychiatry and behavioral sciences at the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston, to serve as its president, beginning in 2017.

“It is often said that science self-corrects,” Mr. Doshi wrote. “But for those who have been calling for a retraction of the Keller paper for many years, the system has failed.”

Neither Dr. Wagner nor representatives of the Texas medical school could be reached for comment on Wednesday.

The American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry said in a written statement that it “has the utmost respect for The BMJ” and “welcomes” the overall campaign to improve clinical trials by making data available for reanalysis. The statement, issued by the academy’s current president, Paramjit T. Joshi, chief of the Division of Psychiatry and Behavioral Sciences at the Children’s National Health System, in Washington, added that the association’s journal had full editorial independence and that opinions expressed in the journal’s articles were those of the articles’ authors.

The journal’s editor in chief, Andrés S. Martin, a professor of psychiatry at Yale University, declined to comment.

Glaxo issued a written statement saying that it had cooperated fully with the BMJ reanalysis and that the company now recognizes “there is an increased risk of suicidality in pediatric and adolescent patients given antidepressants like paroxetine.”

Confronting Biases

Dr. Keller contacted The Chronicle on Wednesday to insist that the 2001 results faithfully represented the best effort of the authors at the time, and that any misrepresentation of his article to help sell Paxil was the responsibility of Glaxo.