“…Professor Hamish-McAllister’s declarations of interest can be accessed from the British Association for Psychopharmacology. His declaration of 27th March 2017 confirms that in the previous three years, he had “accepted paid speaking engagements in industry supported symposia” from:

  1. AstraZeneca,

  2. Bristol Myers-Squibb,

  3. Eli Lilly,

  4. GlaxoSmithKline,

  5. Janssen-Cilag,

  6. LivaNova,

  7. Lundbeck,

  8. Merck Sharp & Dohme,

  9. Otsuka,

  10. Pfizer,

  11. Pulse,Association for Psychopharmacology. His declaration of 27th March 2017 confirms that in the previous three years, he had “accepted paid speaking engagements in industry supported symposia” from:

  12. AstraZeneca,

  13. Bristol Myers-Squibb,

  14. Eli Lilly,

  15. GlaxoSmithKline,

  16. Janssen-Cilag,

  17. LivaNova,

  18. Lundbeck,

  19. Merck Sharp & Dohme,

  20. Otsuka,

  21. Pfizer,

  22. Pulse,

  23. Roche,

  24. Servier,

  25. SPIMACO,

  26. Sunovian,

  27. Wyeth

  28. Roche,

  29. Servier,

  30. SPIMACO,

  31. Sunovian

  32. Wyeth

 

 

https://holeousia.com/2018/08/02/he-delivered-piercing-insights/

 

prof-hamish-mcallister-williams-and-companies-he-works-for-march-20172.jpg

 

I’ve taken a break from the madness of twitter and blogging for a while, but the debates between mainstream psychiatrists and campaigners, activists, and ‘criticals’, continues to rage.

Hamish McAllister Williams is a ‘KOL’ (key opinion leader) in the mainstream psychiatric arena. He’s also one of those (many) psychiatrists who has questionable conflicts of interest with Pharmaceutical companies. In his declaration above, he has stated that he has had 32 conflicts with Pharma in the past 3 years alone! That’s a hell of a lot.

Some people don’t see a problem with psychiatrists like Hamish taking money from Pharmaceutical companies as long as they have declared their conflicts of interests (or COI’s).

Personally I think this is absurd.

Psychiatrists declaring conflicts of interests with pharmaceutical companies should be a red flag in terms of the questionable autonomy of opinion of the psychiatrist on Pharma’s payroll. The fact that they declare these interests does not establish credibility and make everything ok. It does quite the opposite in fact. It reveals the lack of credibility and integrity with the psychiatrist. Wendy Burn seems to be of the opinion that the psychiatrist would have the same opinion regardless of whether they have drug company money coming in- or not. This might be true, in some cases, however the pharma-money regularly coming in discredits them immediately anyhow, because, as Wendy realized herself (before she decided to abandon taking money from Pharma early in her career) – it just doesn’t look good.

Furthermore, most of the time psychiatrists only have to declare a possible COI if it has happened in the previous 3 years. Also, they don’t ever have to reveal the exact monetary amounts that they have received. This means that quite often conflicts of interests, and their influence upon the mindset of the individual, can be much worse than we know of; even if the psychiatrist/doctor has admitted the declarations.

The wise psychiatrist should surely just refuse to engage in any behavior that would jeopardize their integrity.

Don’t they make a good enough salary? surely they could survive on their salary alone?

It seems to me that some psychiatrists find the pharma money just too tempting despite most of these KOL’s usually on a good wage. In the process of their greed, they quash their integrity and also sell their patients and the public down the river.

The keen observer in this arena will notice that those psychiatrists who take the most money from Pharma in the UK, have formed a kind of anti-patient, medication misinformation cabal. This cabal includes Wendy Burn, Carmine Pariante, Andrea Cipriani, Paul Morrison, David Baldwin, Hamish MCalister Williams, David Nutt, and many others. Some are very prolific on Twitter, gas-lighting those harmed on a daily basis; it seems with some they sort of do it with a smug glee, as if they have somehow scored a point against those who are trying to bring awareness to the dangers of these drugs (although Wendy has said that she doesn’t take Pharma money anymore, this doesn’t stop her promoting the rest of the cabal at any given opportunity).

A lot of these ‘pharma-compromised’ psychiatrists see no issue whatsoever with taking money from pharmaceutical companies. Even the top dog- Wendy Burn- sees absolutely no problem with these conflicts of interests. In fact she has defended these pharma-compromised individuals much more on her Twitter than she has those harmed by medications.

What does that tell you about their priorities?

If the normalization of institutional corruption is sanctioned and approved, and actively encouraged, by those at the top (such as Wendy Burn and her anti-patient, pro-pharma Twitter cabal), what hope do those harmed by medications (and misinformed consent) have of eliciting a morsel of sympathy from the top professionals- never-mind obtaining a sense of social justice?

In an interesting soundcloud interview (see below) with another member of the anti-patient cabal (the mental elf) Hamish goes through the same tired discourse about anti-depressants that we have heard time and time again from psychiatrists of his ilk. He calls anti-depressants ‘life saving’, and he refers to the Cipriani meta-analysis to back up his views that anti-depressants are effective. He fails to mention his conflicts of interests with Pharmaceutical companies (and the monetary amounts he has received) and he fails to mention Cipriani’s conflicts of interests too. He also fails to mention that the Cipriani meta-analysis- as impressive as it might sound when inflated in an interview context- is in fact- a total and utter abysmal dud.

It’s a dud because the studies that he refers to were only of a few weeks duration. Most people are on these drugs for at least 6 months, and a lot more people are on them for many years, and sometimes decades. Therefore the Cipriani analysis does not hold up in real-world terms. The Cipriani study was more of a stunt than a genuine attempt at studying the effects of these drugs on people. It was a PR stunt in order to aggrandize psychiatrists (and psychiatric drugs) in the media. That was obvious to those of us observing these debates over many years now.

In the interview, Hamish seems to think that the : ‘critical psychiatry lobby’ think that ‘anti-depressants are not effective and shouldn’t be used’.

This is not what most of us think at all. What we think is: anti-depressants can be very dangerous for some people, and patients should be warned explicitly of these side effects such as akathsia, agitation, aggression etc. There is also the issue of severe withdrawal and SSRI induced suicide, this needs to be addressed. We also think the studies touting positive benefits are too short in duration. We don’t have access to the data anyhow, therefore Pharma can get away with inflating ‘benefits’ and suppressing harms. We also think that those taking money from Pharma are conflicted in how they interpret and present evidence and studies to the public. Nobody is asking to throw out all pharmacological treatments for depression. Nobody I know on Twitter on our side of the divide has ever asked for that. The issues are much more complex than Hamish’s glib view that : ‘critical psychiatrist lobby’ think that ‘antidepressants are not effective and shouldn’t be used’. The issues are vastly more complex and nuanced than this, and if Hamish doesn’t realize that perhaps he shouldn’t be claiming to be an expert on these matters?

The problem is that even if the side effects and withdrawal effects are relatively known now, many people weren’t warned 10 to 15 years ago, and their lives have been destroyed, some killed themselves, and some still can’t come off them. These are very serious issues that Hamish doesn’t seem to understand. Many hundreds of thousands of people globally have had their lives destroyed over very many years because of side effects of these meds and perilous prescribing habits. It is a combination of Pharma corrupting psychiatry, and psychiatrists themselves not wanting to hear negative experiences of their antidepressants, that has led to this impasse between those who are harmed by these drugs- a ‘critical’ like me,-and those who are pharma-compromised- like Hamish.

Perhaps if Hamish (and his ilk) told us exactly how much he has received from Pharma over his career, we- the takers/sufferers of these meds- can decide whether we trust his opinion or not?

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

3 thoughts on “How Much Money Does Hamish McAllister Williams Receive From Pharma?

  1. “Wendy Burn seems to be of the opinion that the psychiatrist would have the same opinion regardless of whether they have drug company money coming in- or not.”

    lmao

    Okay Wendy tell me one just one occasion when a p-doc who received money from pharma spoke about the pharma drug induced suicides that are caused from said pill !! I can guarantee you that such statements would mean that person is removed from the speaking role…immediately!.

    I do know of a pdoc who wasnt receiving money and spoke about the pharma drug induced suicides and suddenly had his university job offer terminated….refer Toronto debacle.

    1. Yes absolutely, you hit the nail on the head! The fact that someone in her position would utter (and believe in) such total nonsense is actually quite disturbing. In many ways she is the official ‘face’ of mental health in the UK, in terms of government policy, the go to person- for journalists looking for info on mental health etc- that makes it all the more worrying to think she might actually be completely delusional and a danger to those she claims to represent (the mentally ill).

  2. Friday 23rd November 2018.

    This is an important and powerful blog. Thank you for writing this.

    The Editor in Chief of the BMJ recently stated that “paid opinion leaders” (also known as “Key Opinion Leaders”) are a “blot” on the “integrity” of medicine. My research into paid opinion leaders in British psychiatry evidences the scale of industry’s involvement in “educating” prescribers of psychiatric drugs in the UK. I regard this as the “Law of the Few”. It is the Royal Colleges who “accredit” whether Continuing Medical Education (CME) fulfils criteria of “good medical standing”. The Royal Colleges award ‘CME points’ which every doctor has to get a sufficient amount of to continue to be registered each year by the GMC. Effectively my College, indeed all the Royal Colleges, have done nothing about this. I consider this as not just shameful but an abandonment of medical ethics and the dictum/oath “first do no harm”.

    The “narrative controllers” are those in positions of power such as the paid opinion leaders and the senior members of all Royal Colleges.

    The Royal Colleges also make revenue out of continuing medical education. The Royal Society of Medicine for example, which has Professor Sir Simon Wessely as its President, operates CME as a high-end business, yet it has no policy in relation to competing financial issues and provides absolutely no governance of paid opinion leaders who may speak at Royal Society of Medicine educational events.

    I am going to share this blog (which I had no involvement in) with Professor Wendy Burn, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and Dr John Crichton, Chair of RCPsych Scotland, and Vice-President of the College. I will copy in the General Medical Council. I will ask their views on this but, going by the past, it is unlikely that issues that continue to lead to prescribed harm will be meaningfully addressed.

    I am considering resigning from the Royal College of Psychiatrists over this, and if I do so I hope that I can share my concerns with the wider public. I am going to approach my College this morning about this

    Yours sincerely,

    Dr Peter J. Gordon
    Consultant NHS Psychiatrist, speaking in a personal capacity.
    GMC number 3468861

    An update on the position of the Royal Colleges on Sunshine legislation can be found here: https://holeousia.com/2018/11/17/do-you-support-sunshine-legislation/

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s