Contact Email: email@example.com
The views and opinions expressed on individual web pages are strictly those of their authors and are not official statements
This Blog is primarily concerned with the Seroxat Scandal , but also is a portal to links which show GSK’s long history of bad pharmaceutical practice. As this blog is an awareness building website there will be observations and brief explanations if necessary. I cannot control opinions left on the blog as it will be entirely unmoderated in that manner so I do not accept any responsability whatsoever for public postings or opinions. It is purely an information portal to provide the public with quick access to links about Seroxat and GSK. I trust that readers will come to their own conclusions about what this blog is about. All postings will be provided with a link if possible.
This blog is called GSK : Licence To (K) ill and subheaded with Seroxat : The Mental Health Thalidomide because we believe that the comparissons with the Thalidomide Scandal of the 50’s and 60’s and the widespread devastion which Seroxat has caused in the 90’s and until now, are uncannily similar. Although we think, based on our research, that the destruction and human toll of suffering from Seroxat is much bigger. How has a thalidomide-like tragedy been allowed to happen again? There have obviously been huge failings of the public health system and in drug regulation and we on this blog dare to ask why?
Note: Update August 2010 :
Intentions, clarifications and other issues..
I would like to clarify a few things about the purpose of this blog. First of all, this blog is not an anti-pharmaceutical blog nor is it an anti-psychiatry blog. I created this blog 3 years ago because I wanted to draw attention to the drug Seroxat and the unethical behaviour of GSK in regards to the promotion, marketing and prescription of this drug. I did this because I had 4 years experience on Seroxat, I was originally prescribed it for a moderate depressive episode when I was 21 years of age. Those 4 years were not fun, in fact they were the most hellish I could ever imagine could happen to me. I had almost every severe reaction that Seroxat can cause, including a withdrawal, which lasted for months after I quit Seroxat. It took me years to recover, and the psychological damage is still tender in my mind. I also worry about the long-term damage of Seroxat, but I generally try to be positive. I had hoped that this blog would provide people going through Seroxat adverse reactions with information, websites and links, so that they themselves would realise they were not alone. I think the purpose of this blog has long fulfilled its intention. Actually I am rather proud that it has, and I sincerely hope that its existence has helped people through the darkness that is the Seroxat experience. I may never know the full impact, but after tens of thousands of hits, I am now confident that I can call this blog a success.
In those years since my last toxic dose of Seroxat, I have researched the pharmaceutical industry, Psychiatry, psychiatric drugs and the so-called ‘science’ that shackles the three. It is through my thorough research that I have come to my own opinions of SSRI’s, Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry. I admit I have major problems with the ideology of Psychiatry, I believe it to be a very dangerous and sinister ideology that harms far more people than it claims to help. I also believe (from my experience) that the majority of psychiatrists are misguided. This does not mean that there are not good, ethical, compassionate and decent psychiatrists out there, of course there are, but in my experience these are the rare exceptions to the rule. I have met many psychiatrists on my journey so far, and two stand out for me: the now sadly deceased, Dr. Michael Corry, and the good doctor David Healy. Both- in my opinion- good people with good intentions and good hearts. I had the honor of talking to Michael Corry at a depression dialogues meeting some years ago and I think he has left a great legacy. He has done massively humane and progressive work, and I respect him also for courageously exposing the truth about his profession and the drugs that his colleagues prescribe. David Healy is another hero in my book, he staked his career on the line for exposing the truth about Seroxat causing suicide and aggression and I admire him greatly for the part he played in bringing some truths about Seroxat to light.
Unfortunately, Corry and Healy are viewed as irritating pariahs within the psychiatric profession. The respect they have gathered by those whom are adversely affected by the psychiatric-pharmaceutical agenda does not bode well within psychiatric circles. This is because they chose not to close ranks and protect the institution, but instead to consider the well being of their patients, the ‘mentally ill’ and the public in general. Corry, Healy, and those like them, are perceived as renegades within a tightly bound ideological system. When they speak out, their views are like incendiary devices, and the entity of psychiatry will try to defuse all opposition at all costs. We need more men like Corry and Healy in this world, we need more psychiatrists whom are willing to unveil and unmask the ideology. Psychiatry is hostile and disapproving to counter-opinion because psychiatry itself has become a monstrous regime, and those whom are completely indoctrinated into it don’t want the truth to be known about psychiatric drugs. Admittance of the horrible side effects that their drugs induce is an admittance of wrongdoing and failure, so psychiatry has thus far attempted to quell the (ever growing) dissident voices. It is the prescribing of psychiatric drugs, which sustains psychiatry as a medical practice. They have built their careers on an ideological system, mindset and institution-an institution with strict dogmatic codes, rules of conduct and one that expects loyalty above ethics, personal opinion and insight.
What person does not revert to denial if they have spent their whole lives believing in something? Be it religion ,personal philosophy or psychiatry, very few people accept new truths immediately. Usually this truth has to be somehow grafted on to the one that they have long held. This process of change and exposure takes a long time, and usually it is met first with hostility and denial. I can understand this completely; all institutions and corporations by their very nature will try to fight for survival when they are under threat. Banks do it, Oil companies do it, Religions do it, Political parties do it, and it is no different with pharmaceutical companies and psychiatry. Individuals do it too, and lest we forget, the pharmaceutical industry and psychiatry are not arbitrary entities or faceless machines, they consist of individuals and thus it is not surprising that institutions often behave somewhat like people. People can be immoral, unethical and in complete denial when under threat of existence. It’s the same with institutions and corporations, which are, after all -made up of people trying to survive and carve out an existence in their own way. Although, that said, denial of itself does not denote a lack of accountability or responsibility. Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry have constantly denied any claims against them and their practices, particularly when it comes to psychiatric medications. This line of defense is wearing thin, and some might say at this stage, with the evidence mounting, their denials have become devoid of meaning.
Obviously, when you have a highly lucrative, economically powerful and aggressive corporate machine (the pharmaceutical industry) entwined with an extremely influential ideological institution (psychiatry), it is close to impossible to point the finger of blame at one individual. Each individual forms a small part of a much bigger entity; each contribution incorporates into a larger agenda and a mindset already firmly in motion. And in the case of the psychiatric-pharmaceutical complex, this stubborn structure overrides individuality because the system becomes its own animal with its own required needs for survival and self-perpetuation. So if I say ‘the pharmaceutical industry is corrupt’, I am talking about the entity and the behaviour of that entity, not each person whom individually works for the industry. And if I say, ‘I believe psychiatrists are sociopaths’, I am talking not about every single psychiatrist that ever lived, I am talking generally about the ideology and institution itself. I do believe the psychiatric paradigm is dangerous and has caused much harm, and indeed continues to do so. This does not mean that I think every psychiatric nurse and psychiatrist is evil or intends to destroy people’s lives. I am sure a lot are misguided, and some have genuinely good intentions. The ideology of psychiatry extends high above the personal conscience of each and every single psychiatrist that works within it. The ideology itself is far bigger and far more powerful than the solitary individual cog. The ideology of psychiatry is the backbone, the prescriptions and the promotion of medications bring in revenue, wages get paid, pharmaceutical funding is delivered, ego’s get massaged and the cogs in the wheel continue to grease round. It is the same with the industry. Of course there are genuine people just doing a job, and I am sure some of these people have good intentions and good hearts, but it is the corporate mindset that they are aligned to that inflicts the damage. Therefore, in effect, unethical and immoral contributions by some individuals within this self-perpetuating and systematic business model inevitably influences the behaviour of the whole. The psychiatric-pharmaceutical complex is failing not just those prescribed toxic drugs for imaginary illnesses, it is ultimately failing humanity. ‘Mental Illnesses’, ‘Depression’ and ‘Anxieties’ emanate from the human condition, and thus should be responded to with stringently humane and ethical approaches above all else.
The human condition- our feelings, thoughts and emotions-should not be monopolized or bastardized for financial gain. The ‘human condition’ should not be dictated nor coveted by any single system or entity, particularly when that entity has become corrupted, tyrannical and unquestionably authoritarian. Psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry seeks to claim ownership of the human condition, and by doing so it attempts to exclude all whom do not ascribe to its agenda. Greed, self interest and profit have become the cornerstones of this twisted bind, and people are suffering immeasurably because of this. I think people should come before profits, not just in the realm of psychiatry and the industry that supports it, but also in society in general. But again, this does not mean I am anti-pharmaceutical industry or anti-psychiatry, it just means I desire more ethical, truthful and humane treatment for mental health sufferers, and surely that would be for the good of all?
What never ceases to amaze me about psychiatry is its absolute and total disregard for what they like to term ‘anecdotal‘ evidence. Psychiatry is clever with wording, in fact it is downright deceitful when it comes to words; and like all ideologies it uses language as a weapon and tool to further its own gains and to fulfill its appetite for credibility and status. What psychiatry and the pharmaceutical industry dismiss as ‘anecdotal evidence’ are in fact the voices and opinions of those whom have suffered because of psychiatry and psychiatric drugs. My opinion of psychiatry comes from direct experience; it is far more than ‘anecdotal’. I have lived the effects of psychiatric medications. I have been through the system, not as a disciple like a psychiatrist, but as what I see now as merely sacrificial fodder to feed their ideological machine. The psychiatrist and the industry that sustains it has created a highly developed system of drugging for the human condition, the individual sufferer has become nothing but statistical. This behaviour is morally wrong, gravely unjust and fundamentally unethical.
How many psychiatrists have actually felt the (side) effects of the drugs they prescribe? What gives a psychiatrist the right to comment on an experience that he or she has absolutely no direct knowledge of? And more importantly- what gives them the right to dismiss this direct experience as ‘anecdotal’ and therefore invalid? Anything or anyone that is deemed not favorable to the ideology is targeted, attacked, dismissed, disparaged or ridiculed. This includes the lone voices within the system of psychiatry itself, such as those of Dr.Michael Corry and Dr.David Healy. Psychiatry (the entity) would rather roast its own on the spit than take a hit to its self-serving ideological dogma. ‘Unquestionable power‘- which psychiatry has elevated itself to- is dangerous for everyone. ‘Unquestionable power’ and an ideology beyond reproach is totalitarian, and totalitarian systems do not factor humane characteristics. It seems Psychiatry would rather abdicate all ethics and morality for the survival of the ideology and the profitable system and regime that it has become. This is where the real danger lies- when an ideology becomes so arrogant that it ceases to accept any differing opinions other than the selectively agreed status quo. It is when an ideological system assumes this form that people seriously need to begin taking notice- and indeed it is our civic and human duty, as individuals and a society, to challenge this hostile animal even more.
Thanks for reading.
Panoramas 4th Seroxat Documentary
For the rest of the “Seroxat : taken on trust (panoramas 3rd Seroxat expose) check out this link http://www.youtube.com/user/dixiefid64