GSK Boss Emma Walmsley To Meet Trump..

BAE, Barclays, GSK, National Grid and RB all derive a significant proportion of their revenues from the American market.

Those expected to attend the meeting at St James’s Palace are: Sir Roger Carr, BAE chairman; Jes Staley, CEO of Barclays; Emma Walmsley, GSK chief executive; John Pettigrew, who runs National Grid; and Rakesh Kapoor, who is due to step down shortly as CEO of RB.


30 Years Too Late: The Royal College Of Psychiatry Changes Its Tune.

“……Patients seeking treatment for depression should be informed of the potential for “severe and long-lasting withdrawal symptoms” when coming off medication, leading doctors have said.

The Royal College of Psychiatrists said official guidance on halting medical treatment for depression needs to reflect “the full range of patients’ experiences”.

Guidelines from the National Institute for Health Care Excellence (Nice) – which are currently being consulted on – suggest most people should be able to halt antidepressant use over four weeks…..”


“…..This led to a row with campaigners in which one of its experts was attacked as a “pharma whore” and “worse than Hitler”. After spending a year speaking to patients, the college has accepted that some of its critics have a point. “As psychiatrists, we are duty-bound to take on board the concerns of patients who’ve experienced more severe and long-lasting side effects of these medications,” said Wendy Burn, the college president….”


Interesting news today about the Royal College of Psychiatry UK changing its tune on the severity of withdrawal symptoms. Although I welcome this U-turn on advice from UK psychiatry, I am not comfortable with how they are trying to take credit for what effectively has been a patient-led-activist movement (mostly online) for the past 2 decades. I am also not comfortable with this U-turn being almost 30 years too late (Seroxat for example- was first licensed in 1991).

Since SSRI’s were first licenced in the 90’s people have been complaining about severe withdrawals, particularly online. There have been numerous SSRI forums, websites, blogs and you-tube videos/documentaries etc all attesting to the severity of withdrawals. This phenomenon has been well known for decades, and has always been much more common than has been reported by mainstream psychiatry.

Since last September, I basically badgered the Royal College, Wendy Burn, and her associates on Twitter. Firing off information and tweets at every opportunity for her to read and for her colleagues to think about. My activism culminated in a controversial post where I said that one of the grand-dukes of UK psychiatry (and Pharma Funding) Dr David Baldwin was a Pharma Whore.

The UK press caught hold of this and the Royal College spun them a yarn, which led to headlines such as these:



The ‘worse than Hitler’ quote came from a comment (left on the David Baldwin post) by an SSRI damaged person who regularly reads my blog. See it here:

Whilst I welcome this u-turn on the severity of withdrawals (something I have been campaigning on for 13 years), I don’t welcome the Royal College trying to take credit for it. It has been because of the Pharma-Whoring ( and lies and spin) from the Royal College (and the APA: American Psychiatric Association) that patients have been duped about the harms of SSRI’s for many decades. Just because they are admitting it now, doesn’t wash away all the death, destruction and disablement of vulnerable people (that they have been responsible for) for almost 30 years.

Where is the apology for not warning people sooner?

UK psychiatry head- Wendy Burn- defended David Baldwin on Twitter when he was under fire for the “Pharma Whore’ debacle in the media, yet David Baldwin (and others of his ilk) are directly responsible for the misinformation about SSRI’s for many decades (and were paid handsomely for it by their Pharma sponsors too).

Where is the apology from people like Baldwin? David Nutt? Guy Goodwin? Andrea Cipriani, Carmine Pariante etc?

(all known Pharma compromised people who have taken Pharma Money to defend SSRI’s in the media for decades)

For more on this , see the following links-

The Royal College should be apologizing to all those who have been harmed by SSRI’s , -and who have been harmed- by the Royal College’s own protocols of playing down harms and not listening to patient’s concerns. The college should also be ashamed of how Pharma has utterly corrupted its key opinion leaders over many decades.

It is because of campaigners like myself, Bob Fiddaman, Altostrata (from Surviving Antidepressants forum), Seroxat Secrets, MadinAmerica, Joanna Moncrieff, Luke Montague, Leonie Fennel, James Davies, Peter Breggin, Kevin P Miller, David Healy, Fiona French, Kristina Gehrki,  Dr Alec Grant, Marion Brown, Peter Gordon, Jill Davies, Robert Balfe, Peter Kinderman,  Wren Cage, Leigh Fanner, Dropthedisorder, Michael Hengartner, John Read, Dr Terry Lynch, Andy D’ Alessio, Kelly Martin,  Aine, Lucy Johnstone, Alyne Duthie, CEP, James Moore, Sarah Hancock, Ann Marcos, Aunty Psychiatry, Brian (from antidepaware) and many many more people* and organizations (too many to mention) who have been fighting (both online/Twitter and off-line) for recognition of the severity of SSRI side effects and withdrawals for many decades now- that this U-turn from UK psychiatry has come about.

Our relentless campaigning (in particular – on Twitter in recent months) has forced them to recognize the seriousness of the harms of SSRI’s.

This is where credit is due.


*if I have missed anyone… let me know!



Vulnerable Kids Prescribed Paxil (Seroxat) In Japan..


“….Miwa’s psychological state also isn’t discussed much in the records until she was a teenager. In 2008, she began having trouble sleeping at night. Soon after, doctors diagnosed her with pervasive developmental disorder, characterized by delays in socialization skills. A year later, they prescribed Paxil for depression, the files show.

By the time the welfare office sent Miwa back to her mother, she was 15….”

Peter Gordon’s New Post..

When Pharma Whores and Pharma Whore Enablers ask you to fill out a survey on your anti-depressant experience you can be sure that they have an agenda that’s not in the public’s best interest….

See Dr Peter Gordon’s take on it all here:


I have recently completed this survey.

This is how the survey is introduced:

I have over twenty years experience of antidepressants as both a patient and as a prescriber so this survey was nothing but welcomed by me. However I immediately met with a divide:

So I entered as a “patient” – though I have been taking an SSRI antidepressant for over 20 years and no longer see any doctor about this. My prescription is considered by my profession to be for “maintenance treatment.”

The next question I could not answer. I was started on an SSRI antidepressant for “Social anxiety disorder”. It was only in withdrawal, as a result of the physical dependence on my SSRI, that I ever had low mood:

The survey then asked about duration of treatment. The highest category was for 4 years and above. I wondered how many, like me, might have been taking an antidepressant for considerably longer? This survey would not quantify such experience.

The hardest part of the survey was still to come and based on the Survey title:

This gave 15 options that had to be rated in a defined fashion. It was based on a grid. My lived experience of an antidepressant did not fit this defined grid and any “rating” from this grid would not realistically represent my lived experience of a prescribed antidepressant. This troubled me as a scientist, doctor, philosopher and once patient. It is why I have written this post

It is vital to note that the whole survey excluded any experiences of dependence on, and withdrawal from, antidepressants.

I nearly died from SSRI withdrawal due to akathisia and suicidality. This study has excluded such experiences.

In the free-text box at the end of the survey I shared these comments:

I have decided to write an open letter to two of those involved in this survey: Professor Andrea Cipriani (for the Scientific Board)  and ‘The Mental Elf’ (Minervation Ltd) who is disseminating it across the world. The full team is:

This is the open letter that I have sent:

28th May 2019,
Bridge of Allan.

Dear Professor Cipriani and Dr André Tomlin,
SUSANA Survey:

This is an open letter to you which I have shared on my blog.

Thank you for undertaking this survey. It has always been my view that science cannot be science without listening and including lived experience. It was most welcome to appreciate that this is also clearly the view of the Scientific Advisory Board for the SUSANA Survey.

I wanted to share my experience of completing the survey.

I am writing to ask if you might consider withdrawing the survey to allow it to be re-designed and replaced with a survey based on the input of those with lived experience of antidepressants. Without such input I fear that this world-wide study will not be valid.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Kind wishes

Dr Peter J Gordon
NHS psychiatrist of 25 years
GMC: 3468861



Glaxo Brings Back Offical Bribery Tactics..

let’s call a spade a spade..

It’s bribery, it’s not ‘performance based sales’. It’s bribing the drug reps to work harder on persuading the doctors to prescribe more GSK drugs to increase sales. Legal yes, legalized bribery yes, but bribery all the same. This kind of thing leads to drug disasters like Seroxat and Avandia, but seems Emma Walmsely doesn’t give a crap about that. It’s all about the money for the CEO’s, ethics out the window- as usual..

“…GlaxoSmithKline is to reintroduce performance-based bonuses linked to the number of prescriptions written for its medicines, reversing a company ban on the practice following a bribery scandal in the US…..”

“….GSK said that after a review of rival drugmakers’ policies on incentives, a return to performance-based bonuses would mean GSK was “more competitive when it comes to recruiting, motivating and retaining sales representatives and sales management with the right levels of expertise and experience”. The company was fined $3bn in 2012 after it admitted bribing doctors to write extra prescriptions for some products. As part of the settlement with US authorities, the drugmaker agreed it would no longer pay reps according to the number of prescriptions generated. That agreement has since lapsed…”

SCOTUS decision could mean new hearing for widow’s suit vs GSK over suicide of lawyer taking generic Paxil


SCOTUS decision could mean new hearing for widow’s suit vs GSK over suicide of lawyer taking generic Paxil


A federal appeals court in Chicago could be tasked with taking another look at its previous decision undoing a jury verdict ordering one of the world’s biggest pharmaceutical companies to pay $3 million to the widow of a Chicago lawyer who committed suicide after taking the generic equivalent of a widely prescribed antidepressant drug.

Earlier this week, the U.S. Supreme Court weighed in on a similar case, lending new legal illumination to the murky question of how much liability drug companies should face over the warning they give to doctors and patients of certain allegedly harmful side effects from their medications.

In a unanimous decision, the nation’s high court instructed the U.S. Third Circuit Court of Appeals in Philadelphia to revisit its decision last year allowing people to sue drug makers over the content of their medications’ warning labels, even if the U.S. Food and Drug Administration rejected a company’s attempt to revise the warning label to include more warnings about more potential side effects.

In that case, docketed as Merck v Albrecht, a group of more than 500 plaintiffs had sued pharmaceutical company Merck, asserting the FDA’s regulation of drug warning labels did not absolve Merck of liability for bone fractures suffered by patients who took Merck’s osteoporosis drug, Fosamax.

Merck, however, asserted the FDA regulation meant federal law should trump state law, and Merck should not be penalized for failing to issue a warning that the FDA had blocked them from including in the Fosamax warning label.

According to court documents, Merck warned the FDA in 2008 that Fosamax could be tied to the increased risk of fractures. The FDA ultimately allowed them to do so in 2011. The plaintiffs asserted they took Fosamax from 1999-2010.

A federal judge had ruled in favor of Merck, but that decision was overturned on appeal by the Third Circuit. Merck then appealed to the Supreme Court.

There, all nine justices agreed to vacate the Third Circuit’s decision. However, the Supreme Court used its opinion to further clarify the standards by which federal courts should decide the question. The case largely centered on the Supreme Court’s 2009 ruling in Wyeth v Levine, which held drug companies with “clear evidence” of problems can revise labels to enhance warnings, without FDA approval.

In the Fosamax case, the Supreme Court sought to further define the term “clear evidence.” In this case, the Supreme Court said “clear evidence” must include “evidence that shows the court that the drug manufacturer  fully informed the FDA” of the potential dangers of its medication, and why the label should be revised to include that additional warning language. Further, the high court said, they must show judges “the FDA … informed the drug manufacturer that the FDA would not approve a change to the drug’s label to include that warning.”

Further, the Supreme Court said the question of whether the FDA had been “fully informed” should be left to a judge, not a jury.

While the decision could lead to a different result in the Fosamax case, it could also lead to new hearings and potentially different results in a similar case that made its way through the Chicago courts.

In that case, plaintiff Wendy Dolin sued pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline over the death of her husband, Stewart Dolin, who had committed suicide in a downtown Chicago transit station in 2010. Dolin alleged her husband’s suicidal behavior was caused by the drug paroxetine, the generic version of GSK’s Paxil.

Dolin asserted the warning label for paroxetine, which was written by GSK and is identical to the warning label for Paxil, did not adequately warn the drug could increase the risk of suicide. Dolin alleged GSK knew of the alleged increased risk, yet chose not to revise the warning label.

GSK has asserted it tried several times to secure approval from the FDA to revise the label, but the FDA declined.

Two federal district judges presiding over the case rejected GSK’s arguments concerning the FDA regulation, allowing the case to go trial. There, a jury awarded Dolin $3 million.

GSK appealed, and the U.S. Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the verdict.

Dolin then appealed to the Supreme Court, asserting the Seventh Circuit got the facts of the case wrong, particularly arguing GSK never presented “clear evidence” it had pressed the FDA to allow it to change the Paxil warning label.

Representatives of GSK did not reply to repeated questions from The Cook County Record concerning the impact of the Fosamax decision on their defense, asserting the FDA regulation preempted Dolin’s claims under Illinois state law for failure to warn.

However, an attorney for Dolin said the plaintiffs believe the Fosamax decision will result in the Supreme Court ordering the Seventh Circuit to also take another look at its earlier decision, just as the justices ordered the Third Circuit.

Attorney Bijan Esfandiari, a partner at the firm of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman in Los Angeles, who authored the appellate briefs filed on behalf of Dolin at the Supreme Court, said the facts in the Dolin case are opposite those in the Fosamax case.

He said plaintiffs have long maintained “GSK never fully informed the FDA” of Paxil’s potential to increase suicide risk.

He said they maintain the “FDA never rejected or prohibited GSK from issuing a warning.”

“We believe the Seventh Circuit misapplied (Wyeth v Levine), and we’ll be able to demonstrate there is no (federal) preemption,” Esfandiari said, meaning Dolin’s claims under state law should be allowed to proceed.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to take up the Dolin appeal at a conference on May 23. From there, the high court would decide whether to hear arguments in the case, or to deny Dolin’s appeal, allowing the Seventh Circuit decision to stand, or to send the matter back to the Seventh Circuit court for a new hearing.

GSK has been represented by the firms of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer, and and Williams & Connolly LLP, each of Washington, D.C., and by the firms of Dentons US LLP, of Chicago, and King & Spalding, of Atlanta.

Dolin has also been represented by the Rapoport Law Offices P.C., of Chicago.

GSK and Novartis Misled Consumers…

GSK has been misleading consumers for decades.

This blog has hundreds of examples of it.

Imagine the stuff that doesn’t get reported?



GSK and Novartis ‘misled’ consumers, says Federal Court of Australia

GSK and Novartis found to have misled consumers with the packaging and pricing of their osteoarthritis pain treatment.


The Federal Court of Australia has found that the subsidiaries of pharmaceutical companies GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) and Swiss drug manufacturer Novartis breached Australian Consumer Law by promoting false claims or misleading assertions about their pain-relief products.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) held an investigation from January 2012 to March 2017 into the products. It found that Voltaren Osteo Gel claimed to be a more effective treatment against osteoarthritis-induced pain and inflammation than Voltaren Emugel, despite the two products having the same active ingredients.

The findings also showed that Voltaren Osteo Gel was sold at a higher price than Voltaren Emugel.

Sarah Court, Commissioner of the ACCC, said that “Novartis and GSK misled osteoarthritis sufferers into buying the more expensive Osteo Gel thinking that it was more effective than Emugel for treating their symptoms when this is not the case.”

GSK has since corrected the packaging of the Osteo Gel to include the wording: “Same effective formula as Volarten Emugel.”

GSK has stated that they are ‘pleased’ with the outcome and that the actions taken by the ACCC provide “greater clarity around the expectations of companies marketing medicinal products.”

The ACCC has stated that a separate hearing at a later date will take place to determine penalties.

GlaxoSmithKline agrees to pay out millions in diabetes drug class action


Nova Scotia

GlaxoSmithKline agrees to pay out millions in diabetes drug class action

‘We’re happy to bring this to a conclusion, bring some justice to the class members’

The plaintiffs in the case claimed the drug Avandia increased the risk of cardiovascular events including heart attacks and congestive heart failure. (Associated Press)

Pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay out nearly $4 million in compensation to Canadians who suffered cardiovascular problems related to its diabetes drug Avandia.

Nova Scotia Justice Michael Wood approved a settlement agreement between the plaintiffs and the company earlier this week, after a contentious class-action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKiline dragged on for years.

“We’re happy to bring this to a conclusion, bring some justice to the class members for the harm that has been caused by their consumption of Avandia,” said Ray Wagner, the lawyer who filed the class-action lawsuit.

The plaintiffs in the case claimed Avandia, which is used to treat Type 2 diabetes, increased the risk of cardiovascular events including heart attacks and congestive heart failure. They said GlaxoSmithKline failed to provide adequate warnings to people taking the drug.

It took almost a decade for the class-action lawsuit to finally deliver results for the plaintiffs.

Ray Wagner is the lawyer who filed the class-action lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline. (CBC)

GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to pay people who meet certain eligibility criteria and who may have suffered from four types of cardiac events: myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure, coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement.

The company will pay $3,666,666.67 into a fund for people who suffered myocardial infarction, coronary artery bypass graft and percutaneous coronary intervention with stent placement.

The parties have agreed that 142 class members are eligible to receive some of that money. It’s estimated there could be 200 approved claimants who will receive $18,333.33 each, according to the court decision.

Another $200,000 has been set aside for people who suffered congestive heart failure, based on 60 approved claimants receiving $3,333.33 each. If more are approved, GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to make payments to an additional 340 people.

“Our expectation at the outset was that we would be able to secure more compensation,” said Wagner. “But with a change in the science with respect to Avandia and its contribution towards congestive heart failure and myocardial infarcts, has changed it considerably.”

When Wagner originally filed the claim in 2009 he said a study showed there were higher incidences of congestive heart failure and myocardial infarction in people who used Avandia. But a re-examination of those findings through Duke University refuted some of those conclusions.

The drug Avandia was used to help treat Type 2 diabetes. (Paul Sakuma/The Associated Press)

“We have to rely on the science as it unfolds and unfortunately it didn’t unfold favourably for the class,” he said.

The face of the class-action lawsuit was Albert Sweetland. He was prescribed Avandia in December 2001 and took it for five years. A year after he stopped taking the drug he was diagnosed with congestive heart failure.

But in 2016, lawyers for GlaxoSmithKline pointed out that Sweetland had a lot of health issues relating to his diabetes.

The legal proceedings in the case stretch back to August 2009, but the class action was only certified in December 2016 after being vigorously contested by GlaxoSmithKline. The company appealed the certification decision and planned to go to the Court of Appeal if the settlement agreement hadn’t been approved.

Even the settlement took years to work out.

“Progress was slow but we were intent on bringing that to a conclusion one way or another and we’re happy to report that we’re able to bring some compensation to those people that have been harmed,” said Wagner.

Dr Peter Gordon on his Seroxat Experience : ” a drug that I have long been dependent on and despise”…

‘At least 500 million years of nervous system evolution’

The British Journal of Psychiatry has a series called “100 words”. The above was a submission by Professor Philip J. Cowen published in 2013:

500 million years reduced to 100 words.

Professor Cowen mentions his 3 weeks experience of paroxetine.  I have had more than two decades experience of this drug: a drug that I have long been dependent on and despise. It is a drug that would have ended my life had a steel curtain rail not broken.


Open Verdict In Seroxat Suicide Of Dad Who Was On Seroxat Which Was “”messing with his head and making him feel suicidal”…..

“….Ken said that his family were in denial that his dad would want to end his life and felt relieved when the coroner ruled an open verdict on his death.

The inquest heard Kenneth had been put on the anti-depressant Seroxat and thought they were “messing with his head and making him feel suicidal”.

When he told his doctor, he was put on an alternative anti-depressant, Citalopram, which his wife told the court had “changed his personality”, it was reported….”


For full story see the link here: