Paroxetine treatment in youth does not appear to significantly differ from other SSRIs in the risk of suicidal ideation or attempts and whether SSRIs increase or decrease completed suicide remains an open question
In the abstract we stated “Conclusions: Paroxetine is generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.” In this sample and with the state of knowledge at the time, it was justified and appropriate.
Martin B. Keller, M.D.
Boris Birmaher, M.D.
Gabrielle A. Carlson, MD
Gregory N. Clarke, Ph.D.
Graham J. Emslie, M.D.
Harold Koplewicz, M.D.
Stan Kutcher, M.D.
Neal Ryan, M.D.
William H. Sack, M.D.
Michael Strober, Ph.D.
Regular readers of this blog would be very much aware of the recent RIAT re-analysis of GSK’s Seroxat (Paxil) study 329 published in the BMJ last year. This study was damning not just for GSK and for Seroxat, but it was also damning because it showed up the original authors as little more than charlatans. The original ‘authors’ were not so much ‘authors’ in the traditional sense of the word, because they basically just sold their names to the study- most of it was written by a PR pharma ghost writer (Sally Laden)- hired by GSK.
However, because the ‘authors’ were big names in medicine and psychiatry at the time, GSK’s marketing department used them so that they could push Seroxat (Paxil) to under 18’s. Seroxat should never ever have been prescribed to kids (and in my opinion Seroxat is just as dangerous in the adult population). Many kids died from Seroxat induced suicide, some self harmed from it, some committed acts of violence against themselves and others, and many were severely damaged (and this happened to adults too).
So you would think, considering the immense harm that this study has done, and considering the agony that Seroxat has caused many tens of thousands of people globally (adults and children)- that the original authors would be ashamed that their names were used in this manner wouldn’t you? You’d think that they would be utterly appalled to learn that kids died from Seroxat, and you’d think that they would attempt to retract this study from the academic record, and you’d think that- they would be deeply sorry that they were so easily led by a greedy, sociopathic drug company, wouldn’t you? You’d think they’d care..
The authors aren’t really concerned about any of this at all…
It seems, judging by their glib, belligerent and arrogant response- in the BMJ- that the study authors really couldn’t give a damn at all..
Why are we surprised?
They did, after all, lend their names to the original fraudulent study.. so why wouldn’t they lend their names to a rebuttal?
But now, in defending the indefensible it seems the only traits I can see remaining in the ‘characters’ of these ‘key opinion leaders’, are ones that resemble stone cold sociopaths.
I find it extremely disturbing how these academics seem to be more concerned with smearing the RIAT authors reputations, playing word games, and muddying the waters with other nonsense, than the stark fact that- a corrupted study they lent their names to- ended up being used to drug kids (literally) to death…
We’re talking about a drug which makes kids kill themselves…isn’t that f*cked up?
I was 21 when I was prescribed Seroxat, and it was a horrible experience..
It was horrendous… I can’t imagine what it would be like for a child..
You can’t defend the indefensible…
Only psychopaths, serial killers and sociopaths would attempt to do that…Study 329 was a disgusting example of ‘doctors’ and psychiatrists selling their reputations to amoral drug companies, there is no defending it..
It was abhorrent..