What Really Killed Dolores O’ Riordain?


“….IRISH rock star Dolores O’Riordan (46) drowned in the bathtub of her London hotel room while more than four times over the drink driving limit.

The revelation came as a London coroner’s court held an inquest into the death of The Cranberries lead singer and mother of three.

Westminster Coroner Dr Shirley Radcliffe returned a verdict of accidental death with the singer having drowned due to alcohol intoxification

Ms O’Riordan was found dead in bedroom 2005 at the Hilton hotel on Park Lane in London at 9am on January 15….”

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/were-just-glad-it-is-over-family-of-dolores-oriordan-as-coroner-records-her-death-as-accidental-37289371.html

 

The death of Irish singer Dolores O’Riordain (from the Cranberries), is yet another celebrity demise that leaves us with more questions than answers. I’ve written about Dolores before (see here); in that post from 2014, I asked was Dolores on psychiatric drugs? As it turns out, according to the inquest into her death, she certainly was. She had four anti-depressants in her system at the time of her death (by drowning in a bath tub), and a high level of alcohol. Her death was recorded as accidental and alcohol was considered the culprit. She was also under the care of two psychiatrists; both quite well renowned.

“…Trinity College Dublin (TCD) psychiatrist, Dr Seamas O’Ceallaigh, and US psychiatrist Dr Robert Hirschfeld were treating Ms O’Riordan…”

If, as the article suggests, Dolores was receiving the best psychiatric mental health care available, then why did she die? Surely, if you could afford the best health care, your life should be extended not diminished? that’s usually the way it works right?

Not so, with psychiatric treatment.

Pulitzer prize nominated journalist- Robert Whitaker’s ‘anatomy of an epidemic‘ explains in detail why those who receive psychiatric care (mostly in the form of drug treatments) have shortened life spans and increased disability and disablement.

When someone gets diagnosed with a ‘mental illness’ – In Dolores’s case- Bi-Polar, it usually send them down a trajectory of psychiatric medication regimes, which can last for years, even decades. The multiple side effects from psychiatric drugs can end up being more of a problem than the original diagnosis. Often times the side effects can mimic psychiatric illnesses, leaving the person in a much worse state than if they weren’t on the drugs. It’s very hard to come off psychiatric drugs too, even if you want to, and due to their toxicity, many people are poor metabolizers of them anyhow, which means that the drugs build up in the liver, causing many physical and mental side effects to exacerbate over time.

It’s interesting to note also, that 4 anti-depressants were found in Dolores’s system at the time of her death. Why on earth would her psychiatrists prescribe her 4 different anti-depressants? This is a recipe for disaster. It’s this kind of poly-pharmacy that often kills, maims or disables psychiatric drug users because of the various interactions between the medications. I took Seroxat for a few years in my twenties, and it was a horrific experience, it changed my personality, made me unruly, aggressive, act out of character etc (these are all common well known side effects of Seroxat and other SSRI anti-depressants) so I can only imagine what it feels like to be prescribed multiple psychiatric drugs.

It seems Dolores’s story follows the same path as many of those who are prescribed psychiatric drugs over a long period of time. Usually the psychiatric diagnoses comes from a trauma. In Dolores’s case, she was sexually abused in childhood, and she became anorexic, it’s unclear when she was diagnosed with bi-polar, but it seems it was in young adult-hood or thereabouts. It’s safe to assume that she had been medicated for years because of this diagnosis. Once entered into this system of drugging it’s very difficult to get out of it, a lot of the time those who are prescribed psychiatric drugs over long periods of time, end up in a bad way.

This begs the question, who is responsible for her untimely death? Who is responsible for the prescriptions of multiple, mind-bending, personality changing, multiple-side effect psychiatric anti-depressant drugs that she was prescribed?

“…Dr Andrews conducted the toxicology tests and found Ms O’Riordan had a blood alcohol concentration of 330mg and urine alcohol concentration of 397mg.

Traces of four medications used to treat depressive disorders were found in her system but all bar one was within the low therapeutic range.

That fourth drug was found in only a slightly elevated range….”

What were the four medications used to treat depressive disorders that she was prescibed? and why were her psychiatrists not monitoring her and her prescriptions? why was she left alone in such a state with access to multiple psychiatric medications? were the psychiatrists tracking her reactions to the meds she was prescribed over the years?

One of Dolores’s psychiatrists was US psychiatrist Dr Robert Hirschfeld. When you google Hirschfeld, it’s interesting that the third link that comes up is from a blog from an ex-patient of his who seems not too happy with Hirschfeld’s apparent long links to psychiatric drug manufacturers.

See here –

https://depressionintrospection.wordpress.com/tag/robert-hirschfeld/

“….Here’s a nice little tidbit. The questionnaire was “adapted with permission from Robert M.A. Hirschfeld, M.D.” So as an uninformed patient reading this (which I was at the time), I’m thinking, “Oh, this must be legit since they got permission from a doctor to use this checklist.”

There’s more than meets the eye here.

“….On the surface, Dr. Hirschfeld seems like an awesome doctor – and he very well may be. Dr Hirschfeld’s bio from the University of Texas Medical Branch at Galveston (UTMB) extols the “Professor and Chair” of its psychiatry deparment. He has history of working with various national organizations such as the National Depressive and Manic-Depressive Association,  National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH), and National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD). He’s written all kinds of articles and blah blah blah. He’s considered a leader in his research of bipolar disorder.

In fact, because Dr. Hirschfeld is so great, he’s a member of pharmaceutical boards and has acted as a consultant for pharmaceutical companies, according to ISI Highly Cited.com. Some of our favorite guys appear here: Pfizer, Wyeth, Abbott Labs., Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Forest Labs, Janssen, and – lookee here! – GSK…..”

Most people don’t realize that bio-psychiatrists, like the ones who treated Dolores, are not concerned with helping their patients deal with trauma of personal problems. They are fixated on the brain of the ‘mentally ill’ person and not their emotions, or feelings. They treat the brain, not the person. I didn’t realize this myself, until I came off psychiatric drugs some years ago, and researched psychiatry and the drugs industry. I was absolutely shocked and appalled when I realized that psychiatrists were beholden to the drugs industry and saw no problem with selling themselves to the industry to make money. I was shocked to see that drug companies have been hiding side effects for years with many of their drugs, and that many tens of thousands of people’s lives were being destroyed due to the over-medicalization of human distress.

Ultimately, alcohol was deemed responsible for her untimely death, however it would seem to me that psychiatric drugs were a massive factor also. Anti-depressants don’t mix well with alcohol, I know this from personal experience, they also can make people crave alcohol sometimes, (to take the edge off). Of course- psychiatrists and the drug’s industry play down these side effects- they play down all side effects, because it’s in their interest to keep you, and everyone else, on these drugs. It’s not in your interest, it’s in theirs.

It seems to me that Dolores was just another victim of a psychiatric system that is completely corrupted by the pharmaceutical industry, and sees patients as mere fodder. It’s very easy to entrap vulnerable people in this system of continual over-diagnoses, mis-diagnosis and drugging, and it seems that Dolores fell foul of the all too usual trajectory of :

Trauma = Psych Diagnoses = Psychiatric drug regime= lifetime of side effects= personality changes= polypharmacy= death.

This system has to change, vulnerable people like Dolores deserve better.

 

 

 

Advertisements

Was Ruth Davidson Prescribed Seroxat?


ruth-davidson.jpg

 

“….I threw away the pills… I couldn’t go back to a place where I didn’t know what was real and what wasn’t…”

Ruth Davidson MP.

 

There has been much discussion online about UK MP – Ruth Davidson’s – revelations that she had adverse reactions to an anti-depressant which she was prescribed in her young college years. The anti-depressant that caused her so many problems hasn’t been named, but it looks like it could have been Seroxat. In an excerpt Ruth describes the common side effects of Seroxat induced nightmares, paranoia, increased suicidal thoughts, and self harm (all now known and well established Seroxat side effects which are more common than GSK, psychiatrists, or the UK regulators will ever admit).

In the excerpt, of Ruth’s story, below (from Sunday Times Magazine 16th Sept 2018), she mentions that the anti-depressant she was prescribed was embroiled in legal controversy including class action lawsuits in relation to suppression of info about adolescent  suicide.

The only drug that has had this major controversy discussed in the media is Seroxat/Paxil, so I take it that Ruth was likely prescribed Seroxat and that this is the drug that caused her so much misery.

Here’s the excerpt.

DnXFSaJX0AA6VWc

 



 

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2018/sep/16/ruth-davidson-praised-after-talking-openly-about-mental-health-issues-scottish-conservative-leader

 

Ruth Davidson praised after talking openly about mental health issues

Scottish Conservative leader reveals she self-harmed and had suicidal thoughts as a teenager

Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, is currently pregnant with her first child.
Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, is currently pregnant with her first child. Photograph: Hannah Mckay/Reuters

The Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, has been praised by mental health experts, campaigners and MPs for talking openly about self-harming and having suicidal thoughts as a teenager.

Davidson, who is pregnant with her first child, talked about going into “a total tailspin” after a boy she knew killed himself. At 17, she said that she started hurting herself, punching walls, cutting her stomach and arms with blades or broken glass. When she was 18, she was diagnosed with clinical depression.

The comments were made in her new book, extracts of which were published in the Sunday Times. During an interview with the paper, Davidson pulled up her sleeve to reveal her scars.

She explicitly ruled out ever being leader of the Conservatives, despite frequently being tipped for the position. Asked if she would ever run, Davidson said: “No. I value my relationship and my mental health too much for it. I will not be a candidate.”

The Scottish politician’s openness and frankness has been met with praise by psychiatrists, politicians and mental health campaigners.

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, said she was an “admirable human being”, adding that her words would help to confront the stigma around mental health problems.

He said: “It’s also a message of optimism because she has overcome challenges … That message of optimism and hope is an important one.”

Alastair Campbell, the former spin doctor who is now an ambassador for Time To Change, Mind and Rethink, said that Davidson’s decision to speak about her mental health could only be a positive thing.

“The more people in public life who show that it is possible to have, or to have had mental health problems, and to take on big challenges, the better,” he said.

“I certainly don’t think that the issues Ruth Davidson has talked about would in any way bar her from seeking high office. But ultimately people have to be the best judges themselves of what levels of pressure and scrutiny they could bear and there is no doubt being prime minister means a lot of both.”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists were equally positive, with Dr Bernadka Dubicka, chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ child and adolescent faculty, saying it showed anyone can be affected by mental illness. “But with the right help, people can recover and lead successful lives,” she added.

Others pointed out that mental health problems should not put people off taking on political roles. Natasha Devon, a mental health campaigner, welcomed said Davidson’s words could be be interpreted as meaning that “if you have mental health issues you aren’t fit to lead a party.”

“That’s simply not true; mental illnesses, just like their physical counterparts can be managed and with the right support they don’t render a person less capable,” she said.

Lamb said that the balance Davidson displayed showed exactly the sort of person who should be in the political the system and running the country. “We should reflect profoundly on how the way we do politics puts off someone like that,” he said.

Lamb said in 2015 he had to make his own mind up on whether to stand as leader of the Lib Dems. “[I was] wracked by self-doubt and indecision and completely identify with what Davidson says and the view she reaches and the words she uses to express the fact she is having a child and wants to commit to that child as a parent,” he said.

The Sunday Times printed extracts from Davidson’s new book, titled Yes She Can, in which she wrote: “I started hurting myself: punching walls, cutting my stomach and arms with blades or broken glass, drinking far, far too much and becoming belligerent and angry, pushing people away. I was punishing myself and hating myself for it at the same time.”

At 18 she was diagnosed with clinical depression, but her medication gave her “desperate, dark, terrible dreams” where she “couldn’t tell what was real”. “I started having suicidal thoughts,” she said.

By her second year at university, Davidson “became so afraid of sleep that I spent a whole term living nocturnally”. She described depression as “a smothering black blanket” that took away her hope and energy.

She added she was still scared of returning to that state. “When I have periods of heightened anxiety, or I can feel the weight of the black blanket start to descend, I go back to what I know works for me: structure, exercise, forward momentum, measurable outcomes. Sometimes that’s hard in a job that’s 100 miles per hour,” she wrote.

GSK accused of not showing tests of Zofran to FDA…


Families suing GlaxoSmithKline who claim the anti-nausea medication Zofran led to birth defects argued Thursday in Massachusetts federal court that crucial tests were not shown to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration when it rejected a correlation between the drug and defects as the families tried to beat the company’s motion for summary judgment.

During a hearing Thursday morning in a Boston courtroom, the families said a group of Japanese studies done on animals showed that the medication, in higher doses, resulted in a higher rate…

https://www.law360.com/articles/1082430/fda-never-saw-birth-defect-tests-on-gsk-drug-families-say

Ed Bullmore And GSK…


Ed Bullmore..

Another GSK lackey?

What does Ed think of Seroxat? What does he think of GSK’s 3 billion fine for fraud?

Obviously Seroxat killing kids, and GSK hiding the side effects of their drugs doesn’t bother him enough nor does it bother him that GSK are corrupt. If it did he wouldn’t work for them, but he does.

Because, like all these psychs. The only thing that matters is making their mark on the holy grail of brain research. Their quest is to understand the brain. They want brains. Your brain, my brian, anyone’s brain will do. Everything else is immaterial, but it’s nice to make a bit of money along the way isn’t it?

And the status, and the prestige… that’s nice too.

Brains, brains, brains..

The people who the brains inhabit are just meat-body hosts.

It’s the brains that they are interested in.

Even if Ed Bullmore’s theories are correct and that inflammation can cause depression, this still doesn’t mean that drugging depressives with anti inflammatories is the answer because the inflammation could have come from stress, or emotional trauma. Things like psoriasis can flare up from stress- the psoriasis is the body’s way of saying to the person, I don’t like this stress. (I have had a bit of psoriasis since my teens on and off and when I am emotionally stressed it really flares up). It’s similar with depression, even if it is linked to inflammation for the majority of people depression is a sign that something is wrong. Treating the depression with inflammatories is not going to get rid of the cause of depression (which could be a range of external/psychological or economic factors in a person’s life). Drugging the inflammation that comes with the depression still approaches depression the same way that bio psychiatry always has- the wrong way!

Only when more humane, non-drug centered approaches are embraced will we see progression in humane mental illness treatment.

We’re still at a pharmaceutical dominated, psychiatric brain fetish obsession, of what depression is.

We need to move on from this.

It hasn’t worked, it mostly causes harm.

Depression sufferers deserve better..

Ed-Bullimore,-Cambridge-University

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/the-depression-epidemic-and-why-the-medical-profession-is-failing-patients-cgd08lbv6?t=ie

“…That’s one thing a psychiatrist would do. Bullmore suggested drugs. That’s another. “He asked me how they worked. I told him all about how they changed the serotonin level in the brain, because there was supposedly a serotonin imbalance the drug could correct. He said, ‘How do you know that about me?’ And it was quite a shock, actually.”

This was the world of psychiatry in 1990, and there are several things that might shock you about it. A man tells a doctor he feels extremely low and has lost the ability to feel pleasure. The doctor tells him he’s suffering from depression and anhedonia. He then prescribes an SSRI drug – a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor such as Prozac or Seroxat – in order to raise the level of a substance called serotonin in the patient’s brain. But he has no idea whether or not the patient’s levels of serotonin are too low. He’s just guessing.

Also, he has no idea whether or not the drug will work. It works, or seems to work, for some patients. Sometimes it works for a while, and then stops working, at which point some patients respond well to increased doses. Others don’t. Sometimes there are side-effects. SSRIs can make patients gain weight or lose interest in sex. Sometimes the patient might find the side-effects another set of reasons to be depressed.

“I realised,” says Bullmore, “that there was quite a lot we didn’t know about why and how we were using these treatments.”…

And now he says another shocking thing. “There still isn’t a good answer to that question. The crucial thing is: anybody prescribing SSRIs to anybody for depression or anxiety – nobody knows that that particular patient has a problem with serotonin in the first place. There is no biomarker.”

In medicine, drugs are usually prescribed to respond to biomarkers. For instance, a doctor might diagnose an inflammatory disease by analysing a blood sample, and then decide to prescribe a steroid to treat the inflammation. It was shocking that, in the world of mental illness in 1990, doctors were prescribing drugs that might or might not work, without responding to a biomarker. It’s even more shocking that they’re still doing it now. Nothing much has changed for almost 30 years.

 


“….Bullmore studied these images here at Addenbrooke’s, at a unit funded by the pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline. He was trying to see what happened in the brains of depressed people because he wanted to find something that would be a more effective treatment for depression than an SSRI. So, of course, did GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which poured tens of millions into the project…..

“…Around 2010, all the major pharmaceutical companies realised the same thing, more or less at once: that they wouldn’t be able to create a significantly better antidepressant drug by watching people’s brains at work while they were thinking. Not in our lifetime, anyway.

“A number of us were invited to join a conference call,” says Bullmore. “And we were told this decision had been made, and was going to be effective immediately. It was a big shock. So then I thought, OK, GSK has made a decision. I understand that. It’s a simple case of people looking at the productivity of an area and seeing it doesn’t match the level of investment….”


“We could be on the cusp of a revolution,” writes Bullmore. “I might be wrong. But I think it has already begun.”


 

Below is a repost from Dr Neil Mcfarlane’s blog

https://drnmblog.wordpress.com/2018/04/30/


‘The Inflamed Mind’ by Ed Bullmore: book review

Oliver James-tweet-‘The Inflamed Mind_-1

Dr Ed Bullmore FRCPsych is the most senior NHS psychiatrist in Cambridge (England), and says a ‘Cartesian divide’ or ‘orthodoxy’ is standing in the way of ‘the new science of immuno-psychiatry’. He invites us to believe that a third of all depressed people, over 100 million worldwide, could be identified with a simple blood test for ‘inflammatory markers’, and ‘be eligible for treatment with a new anti-inflammatory drug’.

The Inflamed Mind: A radical new approach to depression by [Bullmore, Edward]

If I sound sceptical, even cynical, it is with good reason. I have spent many hours listening to drug reps (pharmaceutical company representatives) and, to me, Dr Bullmore’s book could have been written by one. He appears to have worked, half-time, for one of the world’s largest Pharma companies, GlaxoSmithKline, since 2005, and it is no surprise that his rhetoric against ‘professionally conservative’ medicine seeks to create a need for a ‘new’ drug.

What is wrong with the ‘old’ drugs? He writes:

‘An obvious idea would be to try taking one of the many anti-inflammatory drugs that are already in widespread use, like aspirin…there is no solid evidence that aspirin or any other anti-inflammatory drug already in medical use has anti-depressant effects. The clinical trials…have simply not been done.’

‘Aspirin, for example, commonly causes stomach irritation, ulceration and bleeding…a careful doctor in 2018 is likely’ not to use ‘existing anti-inflammatory drugs’ for depression.

This is misleading in at least four ways. Firstly, ‘aspirin’ is named three times (and once more, elsewhere), rhetorically foregrounding it as typical, but it is not. For most ‘careful doctors’, an NSAID with less marked side effects would be the first choice for ‘inflammation’. I myself took ibuprofen 3-4 times a day for several months, with no significant side effects, when I had a frozen shoulder. A new NSAID with no gastrointesinal side effects would make a lot of money, so perhaps Dr Bullmore is letting us know that his employer does not have one in the pipeline.

Secondly, ‘the clinical trials…have simply not been done’ suggests ‘conservative’, perhaps ‘Cartesian’, medics selfishly want to block ‘transgressive’ and dynamic ‘immuno-psychiatrists’ from helping the 100+ million. The real reason is that ibuprofen and other NSAIDs are out of patent, so non-Pharma funding for the trials would be needed.

Thirdly, it is true that ‘a careful doctor in 2018 is likely’ not to use ‘existing anti-inflammatory drugs’ for depression, but that is because of the lack of clinical trials and, in the UK, NICE guidance, not the side-effects of generic NSAIDS.

Fourthly, the need for new anti-inflammatories for depression seems less urgent if there is only ‘some evidence that inflamed patients respond less well to anti-depressant treatment with conventional drugs, like SSRIs’. Earlier, there is a more upbeat ‘increasingly clear’ statement on this, but the only citation provided is from 2006, so perhaps the increase of clarity has levelled out in the dozen years since. There is also no mention of evidence that people with ‘inflamed’ depression either respond less to psychotherapy or have less tendency to spontaneously improve.

For all I know, the research base outlined for cytokines and other components of the immune response having a mediating, or even sometimes a more directly causal, role in depression may be quite sound. However, Dr Bullmore’s wide-ranging 2009 defence of neurosciency hype in psychiatry means that his account cannot be taken on trust. In this book he repeatedly claims that his ‘post-Cartesian’ approach reduces the ‘stigma’ of depression and other mental health problems: but in 2009 he himself attempted to smear critics using a stigmatising mental health label, as ‘neurophobic‘.

Even more self-undermining is Dr Bullmore’s highly selective account of GSK and neuroscience. How can he write about his meeting with the ‘Senior Vice President of Research and Development’ in 2012, but not mention the $3 billion ‘criminal’ and ‘civil’ convictions in the United States, for bribery and fraud which included two antidepressants (Paxil/paroxetine and Wellbutrin/bupropion), in the same year? And worryingly for the reputation of more lowly researchers in the wider field of biological psychiatry, Dr Charles Nemeroff MD, who was sacked by one University in 2008 for lying about large payments from GSK, appears to have serenely carried on as a leading researcher in the field, at another.

Dr Bullmore writes that in 2010 GSK suddenly announced it was ‘strategically exiting the whole area of mental health’, and here the account becomes rather opaque. He implies that the supply of new antidepressants dried up across the whole industry: ‘Acting rationally, companies have stepped back, not wanting to put good money after bad’. Unsurprisingly, he makes no reference to the UK’s MHRA criminal investigation into the notorious Study 329, or to CEO Andrew Witty’s knighthood in early 2012 for ‘Services to the Economy’, rather than to Health.

For me, though, the key flaw of this book is the near-absences of the placebo effect in the treatment of mild and moderate depression, whether ‘inflamed’ or not, and the tendency for most episodes to get better anyway, with adequate support. Despite a rare moment of good sense in which Dr Bullmore writes ‘Stress is one of the most well-known, and one of the least understood, causes of depression….a massive effect, especially for…major life events’, I fear that his aim is to prepare the way for new patented drugs to get through the lax regulatory frameworks which exist in both Europe and the United States.

(Added 8th May:

SeroxtkidSeroxat

GHSK.png

Psychiatry And The Cult Of The Brain..


https://www.vocabulary.com/dictionary/cult

Primary Meanings of cult

1.
n
a system of religious beliefs and rituals
2.
n
an interest followed with exaggerated zeal

zealot noun [ C ]

uk /ˈzel.ət/ us /ˈzel.ət/

a person who has very strongopinions about something, and tries to make other people have them too.

a person who is fanatical and uncompromising in pursuit of their religious, political, or other ideals.
synonyms: fanatic, enthusiast, extremist, radical, Young Turk, diehard, activist, militant;

 

This will be my last post for a while. The cold weather is coming and I need to concentrate on other things for the Autumn and Winter. I’ve had some fascinating debates on Twitter, with the president of the Royal college of psychiatry- Wendy Burn. Thanks for the engagement Wendy, however I feel we have reached an impasse. I appreciate your efforts to engage, however, I feel that you still haven’t been listening.

Anyhow, thanks for your time. I mean that -sincerely.

Since this is my last post for a while, I’d like to finish on something that has been on my mind for a while. During this last month of debating on Twitter with psychiatrist Wendy Burn, something began to dawn on me. At first, I really thought that Wendy would listen. She seemed interested, and then she seemed engaged. We debated publicly and privately on Twitter for weeks. There was much heated discussion, and much was discussed, however also much was avoided, and much wasn’t discussed. In the midst of all this, I started to think, why are some biological psychiatrists so stuck in their views? Why do they seem to think that their view is superior to everyone else, and why do they seem to be so utterly fixated on the brain?

Why don’t they listen? Why don’t they care about the damage to their patients? What is wrong with them?

I came to the conclusion, that for some of these top bio-psychiatrists – like Wendy Burn, Carmine Pariante, and many others- the brain is the holy grail. They are obsessed with it; utterly obsessed and fixated on it – to the point of total distraction. Wendy- has a picture of the brain on her profile pic on Twitter, and an artists depiction of brain neurons/neural pathways makes her twitter header-

BRIAN.png

Wendy regularly tweets stuff about the Brain, and when she does, she seems genuinely excited. The mere mention of brain research seems to arouse her interest like nothing else. It’s a real passion for her. I figure, for obsessives like this, it’s similar to religious fanaticism. A few weeks ago, I was stopped by a young American woman on a busy street in the city where I live, she asked did I have a few minutes?, I said ‘ok’. She then proceeded to launch into a tirade about Jesus, the second coming, and all this stuff which I have no interest in. I asked her, what organization was she with, she said ‘the Church of the latter day saints’. I said I don’t believe in religious stuff, particularly the Abrahamic stuff which was conceived in a time when humanity was primitive, and it just doesn’t make sense now for people in the modern world, I believe it has no purpose or meaning for me. She was having none of it, she started to blurt on about how Mormons (her people) believe  the bible to be the word of god, and the book of Mormon came from prehistoric prophets in the American continent blah blah etc etc.

I listened to her for about half an hour. She was young, wide eyed, and looked actually quite vulnerable despite her strong convictions. I never for a second doubted her sincerity, however I felt for her.(I must add that this woman was polite and nice, I just didn’t appreciate having such strong views shoved at me, particularly when I knew those views were not up for debate).

After she finished her missionaries agenda, I said- ‘you’re a zealot’. She said , ‘what do you mean’, I said, ‘you’re obsessed with your beliefs, and you feel the need to shove them down everyone else’s neck, even when they clearly don’t believe in what you’re saying and think it’s nonsense’, ‘but nothing will sway you because you are willingly brainwashed and you want to believe the nonsense’ , ‘so nothing I say will make any difference will it’? she listened, and in credit to her, she took it on board, but she did admit, that ‘nothing could sway her beliefs’.

‘Nothing ever’.

We parted on good terms, and I wished her luck..

Wendy Burn is a zealot. Most of these biological psychiatrists are utter zealots. The brain is the be all and end all for them. It is almost a sacred object to them, it’s mysteries as mysterious and seductive as any Mormon’s bible is to the Mormon. Psychiatrists have a kind of Brain Fetish. We can’t get through to them, because we don’t have this obsession, we don’t share their fetishization of the brain. We don’t get excited at the mention of new brain research, or new machines that will tinker with the brain.  We don’t get titillated,  fascinated and thrilled when we think about new brain experimentation, because we are not zealous about it.

You can’t reason with zealots, it’s impossible. You will never sway them, no matter how much evidence you produce, or how reasoned, and watertight your argument is, or how much sense you make, you will not sway them even the slightest bit. They might entertain your ideas, but ultimately they will disregard them, because that is the nature of zealotry. It’s an obsession. Bio-psychiatry zealots are infatuated with the enigmas and puzzles of the brain. You often see this kind of zealotry in religion, and sometimes politics (like fascism) but it’s very strong within psychiatry.

I suppose the closest thing I can relate this to myself, is my love of music. I love music, I hold it dear, it is sacred to me. I think about it a lot.  However I am not a zealot about it, if someone thinks music that I like is crap, it won’t bother me, and I won’t try and make them see that it’s not crap. That’s because I am not a Zealot. I’m just passionate about it.

Wendy is a zealot, and so are most of the colleagues who she is in league with in her Royal college. They are an organization run by zealots. This zealotry dominates everything they do. Nothing will sway their conquering of the brain, the holy brain that they hold so dear.

Nothing will stop them. Ever.

Because they are zealots.

Once I started to understand this zealotry of psychiatrists and why it’s futile trying to get them to understand your views. I began to feel relieved, it all made sense now.

These brain obsessed zealots need access to brains, in order to quench their thirst for knowledge about the brain. Don’t forget- the brain is their fetish, they can’t stop obsessing about it. It is everything to them. They need to know everything about the brain, and they are on a mission. Nothing you do – or say- will stop their mission. It’s also so difficult to engage psychiatrists in your experiences and viewpoints because they believe their zealotry is backed up by science and they believe they have knowledge that you don’t understand. The fact that you don’t go along with their crazed obsession of the brain goes on to further prove to them just how ignorant you are. The more you argue your point- the more they think you don’t understand- and are therefore – in their minds- automatically inferior, and only worthy of disregard, and contempt. The most dangerous kind of zealot is also the zealot that believes their obsession does good for the world. Wendy believes this, she really does. I  always said I never doubted her sincerity, however that doesn’t mean I don’t think that her zealotry is not dangerous. All zealotry is dangerous. Unchecked zealotry, cult-like zealotry, that believes it is superior and above reproach, and criticism, is the most dangerous of all.

Psychiatry is a cult of the brain.

The mental illness industry of psychiatry, along with the drugs industry that supports it is a well oiled powerful machine that provides the zealots with a never ending supply of brains to experiment on, all sanctioned by the government, the law and society!

Imagine that! How exciting for someone with a brain fetish to get involved in a career that not only pays them well, but also they get to feed their brain obsession day in- day out, every day for the rest of their lives! Psychiatry is a zealot brain obsessive’s wet dream isn’t it? They can have access to so many brains! It would be like winning the brain fetish lottery!

Scary..

The problem is, most of the general public is not aware that the organization of psychiatry is actually run by brain obsessed zealots, who are on a mission to understand the brain (to conquer it too!), even if that means that they damage people’s brain’s in the process. Most of the general public think that these psychiatrists are there to help them with their mental illness. Most people imagined they would help us deal with our emotional problems. I certainly had no idea myself- that all they wanted was to experiment on my brain.

This is the problem..

If you look throughout psychiatric history, you see a history of human experimentation, brain experimentation mostly, to be exact. The traumatized humans who get sucked into psychiatry, and get labeled and drugged, and electrocuted and lobotomized, have had  no idea that what they are being sucked into is a cult of the brain. A cult of the brain, hell bent on using your brain, anyone’s brain, (apart from their own of course) to experiment on.

Psychiatry is the perfect cover for those with the brain fetish. They get free reign, on willing (but often naive, vulnerable and impressionable) participants.

They get brains all day, every day. Psychiatry gives them a bonanza of brains to fiddle with. It’s like a brain fest for them year in- year out.

If a stranger stopped you on the street, and said, “I have a brain fetish, I am obsessed with it, and I want to put a chemical in your brain, or maybe electrocute it, or stick magnets on your head, or cut a bit of your brain out and see what happens to you, or give you multitudes of experimental psychotropic drugs (that might make you have nightmares, lose your libido, make you aggressive, and get urges to kill yourself and others) for years and see what kind of state you end up in’ – you would tell them to “F*ck off”, you might then scream ‘HELP!’…  you’d then probably run away… and you’d probably also then call the police ..

But when it’s done this way :when you’re vulnerable, and you’ve no idea that the person in the white coat is a brain obsessed zealot, they’re a doctor aren’t they? they sound reasonable, they look professional and society says they will help with your distress; they seem qualified.

You’re hurting, and they say they will help you with the hurt. You’re distressed and they say they have the answers.

You trust the psychiatrist.

You have no idea that the psychiatrist has an obsessive brain fetish, and a preoccupation with all things brain related, and that they don’t really believe in soul, or spirit, or anything like that. You’ve no idea that all they want is to get access to your brain, to try concoctions of drugs on it, and maybe electrocute it, or whatever. You have no idea that they are utterly and totally fixated on the brain, and they they think everything originates there, and that the brain is the center of everything to them; that they worship it like a sacred relic, it’s holiness so special that only they can have access to interfere with it, which in turn makes them feel special and feeds their warped ego-needs. You don’t realize that they view the brain as the center of their fixation and that your trauma is immaterial to them. You’re completely ignorant of the fact that psychiatrists are status obsessed, fanatical and control freakish about grading the human condition, and rigid in their thinking to the point of cognitive dissonance and duplicity that is off the scale in human terms. You’ve no clue that they are utterly absorbed in their obsession and that their career is based on the dodgy experimentation on the brains of the vulnerable. You’ve no idea that the psychiatric profession has a history of destroying people on their quest for human experimentation of the brain kind. You’ve no idea that the profession is owned by Pharma, and that psychiatry doesn’t care, and sees no problem with it. You’ve no idea that psychiatry is littered with nutty professors, sociopaths, narcissists, zealots and pharma-whores! but when you think about it- psychiatry is the perfect breeding ground for those personality types isn’t it?

The image below is from Wendy’s twitter (I added the speech balloons just to lighten things up!). The guy beside her is another psychiatrist – Tim Millward- who has started to promote a new brain massaging machine. Like all psychiatric brain experimentation, it claims to have little or no side effects, but also like all psychiatric brain experiments they claim they don’t really know how it works! but that it does of course- work!

Personally, I would not be enticed by Wendy and Tim’s picture of the new brain experimentation machine. In all honesty, it’s possibly one of the creepiest images I have ever seen on Twitter.

It’s kinda scary…

 


 

 

 

Page_1.jpg

Weirdness aside, what the picture illustrates is – these psychiatrists are obsessed with getting to experiment on our brains. They want access to brains, new brains, old brains, young brains, fresh brains, any brain.

Remember Nothing will stop them. They are zealots. They want brains.

Who better to entice into your zealot brain fetish experiments than those who are seeking relief from their suffering?

The mentally ill provide the zealots with a constant stream of desperate new customers. They can experiment on your brain, and then they can even claim that there is no damage when you know that there is! What an amazing opportunity for the brain obsessive! How exciting for them!

Psychiatric history is the history of failed human experimentation and brain experiments. It’s also filled with Frankenstein-esque brain obsessed, brain-fetish psychiatrists willing to do anything to understand what happens to the brain. Another compulsion they seem to have is the desire to treat the brain with brutality.

From insulin therapy, to lobotomies, to shock, to psychiatric drugs. They will slice, and electrocute and drug, and scan, and theorize all day and night about the brain. The human that the brain inhabits (you), is just a host. It’s the brain that they want… if they can’t experiment on your brain then they can’t ‘treat’ you.

You- the human guinea pig…

Psychiatrists are on an insatiable quest to understand the brain, and human beings-vulnerable human beings (us- the mentally ill) -have been fodder for their never ending fetish. It’s really quite disturbing and horrifying when you research the history of psychiatric brain experiments. Psychiatric history is like a horror film.

Because the professional organization of psychiatry itself is a global hive of zealots who are mostly all obsessed with the same unstoppable brain fetish- they have a group think that is close to impenetrable. Like the Vatican is to the Catholic church, the Royal college is the ultimate authority and Wendy, like the psychiatric pope- is the high priestess. Her word is gospel. It is impossible to reason with the hive mind- group think of a collective of zealots. They will not take any criticism of their ideology and like all zealots the preservation of the myth is sacrosanct. That’s why the public can’t get anywhere with psychiatry. No criticism can dent the ideals of thousands of zealots all grouped together in the cult of the brain.

Wendy claims she has tried the new brain magnet machine (pictured above) however we’ll have to take her word for that won’t we! And anyhow, she said she tried it for a very short time, and it wasn’t unpleasant. Tim said that he tried the new brain experiment, but not long enough to provide therapeutic benefit.

It seems to me that both Wendy and Tim would like the public to think, well if they tried it themselves it has to be safe doesn’t it?

Not so…

Because both Wendy and Tim might not have tried it long enough for it to cause real damage, who knows what damage this machine will cause when they try it on people for months and years?

Already there are varying reports of seizures and headaches…

We won’t know the full effects of that for years to come.

And you can bet your life that in the meantime the damage will be played down and the benefits hyped. A Zealot will deceive and lie to preserve the hive-mind group think of the zealot’s guild. They have a loyalty to the other zealots and the ideology that they follow above and beyond everything else- including your life, and your health.

Just like lobotomies, and insulin, and shock, and psychiatric drug damage- the human experimentation goes on… never mind the damage to the vulnerable people…

But in the meantime, the thirst of the brain fetish of psychiatrists gets quenched doesn’t it?

Their obsession continues…

Don’t let these brain fetish obsessed Frankensteins near your brain!


2018

 

 


Hear Wendy Burn harp on about the brain here

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

BRIAN.png

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

2018

 

What Constitutes A ‘Pharma-Whore’ And What Doesn’t?


pharmawhore.jpg

davidbaldwin

After I posted my post about Dr David Baldwin’s long, incestuous, and financially lucrative relationship with the Pharmaceutical industry (see here), I was asked by (Royal college of psychiatry president) Wendy Burn to take down the post.

In messages to me on Twitter, Wendy was adamant that she totally understood my… ‘worries about people accepting money from the drug industry and willing to explore it but it doesn’t automatically make them evil’….

She also said :… “if they conceal research results. That is clearly completely wrong and I can’t understand how they could. But accepting payment for lectures ect isn’t the same….”

“….Years ago (more than 20) I accepted some money to talk to GPs about antidepressants. Didn’t affect what I said….”

I replied with :

“….You must be joking me.  Pharma has psychiatry under its thumb

Everyone seems to see this apart from you and many of your colleagues

There have been many books written about it for gods sake

Its not just my opinion

It wouldn’t be so bad, if Pharma were ethical

but they are not. They are corrupt and they have corrupted psychiatry…”

Wendy Replied With-

 

  • “..I know. And I stopped taking money because I saw how it looked…

 

I didn’t say David Baldwin was evil, I said he was a Pharma-Whore. This phrase is not my invention, I have heard it used in various forums on the internet in relation to doctors, psychiatrists and academics who do extensive work for pharmaceutical companies. Similar to the phrase Media-Whore, Pharma-Whore is an expression that has developed appropriately to describe something distinctly.

Wendy didn’t take issue with the actual Pharma-Whoring itself, nor did she seem concerned about how the Pharma-Whoring led to the (over) prescription of a drug (Seroxat) which should never have been licensed. David Baldwin was being paid by drug companies (and he still is being paid by drug companies), and at the same time he was promoting drugs like Seroxat, in the media .In 1998 – He was touting Seroxat to be – ‘one of the safest drugs ever made’.

GSK wouldn’t even have the audacity to say that Seroxat, or any other drug, for that matter, is one of the ‘safest drugs ever made’. No pharmaceutical company would have the nerve to market a statement like this. They wouldn’t be stupid, or arrogant enough, to make that claim. Nobody in their right mind would, but David had no problem saying that to the Independent Newspaper UK in 1998.

It seems that psychiatrists, academics and doctors on Pharma’s payroll play multi-purposes whilst serving Pharma’s interests: to talk up benefits, to play down risks, and to gain public trust in the drugs. They can also make outrageous soundbite statements about the drugs that Pharma can’t. None of these interests serve patient interests. David is a leading psychiatrist, he is a key opinion leader, therefore other psychiatrists, and doctors, would have believed David when he said this about Seroxat, and perhaps also patients- upon reading the article- could have believed David too.

I was prescribed Seroxat in 1998, did this influence my GP’s, and my Psychiatrist’s prescribing to me? Who knows? Who knows how much influence a statement like this had?

One thing I do know is- Seroxat is not one of the safest drugs ever made, it is perhaps one of the most dangerous. I say this from personal experience, and from the 10 years of research I have done (all of which can be read on my blog here). I know that from the multitude of patient testimonies, news articles, forums, blogs, court cases, documentaries etc etc which are all over the internet. All highlighting what a dangerous drug Seroxat/Paxil is- and always was.

Dr David Healy, said of the Seroxat Scandal, in the early 2000’s that Seroxat was ‘one of the biggest medical scandals ever’…. and he was right.

Dr Mike Shooter, the president of the Royal College of psychiatry at the time said (after seeing the shocking Panorama evidence presented about Seroxat in their documentaries about it)

“…it has huge implications, I think once again we’re seeing the SSRI’s being the focus for something much wider in psychiatry and we’re seeing psychiatry being the focus for something much.. much wider in medicine as a whole. I think, you know, a few years down the line we’re going to be talking about this with many more sorts of medication than psychotropic medication…”

And how right was he? Since that time, the entire class of SSRI’s have come under scrutiny, and the anti-psychotic class of drugs, have also proven to be unsafe too. Risperdal and Zyprexa are two particularly nasty examples. The Big Pharma’s themselves have been fined continually in regions of billions for the past decade. They have been inundated with claims of bribery, concealment of side effects, and fraud allegations.

Wendy doesn’t seem concerned about any of this. She doesn’t seem concerned that the Seroxat scandal goes right into the heart of medicine, right into the heart of psychiatric medicine in particular, and right into the heart of psychiatry.

Wendy isn’t concerned about conflicts of interest, or the kids (and adults) who died on Paxil/Seroxat, or the fact that GSK, and all the other Big Pharma’s have been caught lying about side effects, and have paid billions in fines, because of this. She doesn’t seem to be concerned that the dead bodies have been piling up from psychiatric drugs like Seroxat for almost 3 decades now.

That’s a lot of iatrogenic harm.

This doesn’t concern Wendy, she is concerned that David Baldwin, one of the most Pharma funded psychiatrists in the UK, was called a Pharma-Whore.

If Wendy, or indeed her close colleague, David Baldwin, can tell me what makes David Baldwin not a Pharma-Whore.  I would be willing to amend the post with their explanations.

I’d also like to know the sums of money that UK psychiatrists have been receiving from Pharma for the past 30 years. I’m talking about exact details, and amounts.

You know where to find me Wendy…

Thanks..

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/mar/17/mentalhealth.politics

The Guardian 2003-

“….Dr Baldwin declared a personal interest in Lundbeck, manufacturers of the drug Citalopram. According to the minutes, however, he did not declare his connections with five other companies, including Seroxat manufacturers SmithKline Beecham, which is now GlaxoSmithKline.

Questioned by the Guardian, he said that although it was hard to remember the detail, he did declare participating in advisory boards for SmithKline Beecham, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Eli Lilly, Organon, and Pharmacia. His department had also been funded for studies by the same five companies and he had been paid by them for speaking at symposia to other doctors about the drugs. “I mentioned all this at the meeting,” he said….”

 

 

Pharma-Facts-853x480

Professor David Baldwin’s Lovefest With The Pharmaceutical Industry….


davidbaldwin

David… did you miss the part where it says on the doctors oath’ First do no harm?.

What did you think it said, ‘First do for Pharm(a)?’ …

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/mar/17/mentalhealth.politics

“…Dr Baldwin declared a personal interest in Lundbeck, manufacturers of the drug Citalopram. According to the minutes, however, he did not declare his connections with five other companies, including Seroxat manufacturers SmithKline Beecham, which is now GlaxoSmithKline…..”

The Guardian 2003..

https://player.fm/series/mad-in-america-science-psychiatry-and-social-justice/episode-47-conflicts-of-interest-questioned-in-review-of-prescribed-drug-dependence

Prof David Baldwin was instrumental in the promotion of Seroxat in the late 90’s. I hold him partly responsible for the damage that Seroxat did to me, and to many tens of thousands of others. He didn’t warn us of the serious side effects like akathisia, aggression, suicidal thoughts and withdrawals. He benefited (financially) while, I- and many others- suffered, being poisoned on a drug that should never have been licensed.

In the 1990’s Seroxat was a relatively new drug on the market, promoted and pushed heavily, by GSK and its legion of psychiatrists, academics, and doctors on its payroll at the time.

David Baldwin said of Seroxat, in 1998 (the year I was prescribed it -ironically).

“...Dr David Baldwin, senior lecturer in psychiatry at the University of Southampton, said it was one of the safest drugs ever made…

I find it remarkable how David Baldwin could state at the time that Seroxat was one of the safest drugs ever made, when little was known about how Seroxat would be received (in terms of millions of people being prescribed it). How could Baldwin know that Seroxat was one of the safest drugs ever made? He simply couldn’t know that, and to make a statement like that, is really quite audacious.

What Baldwin didn’t tell the public at the time (that he was making these outrageous statements to the media about Seroxat), was that he was also an utter whore to the pharmaceutical industry (and still is). He has more conflicts of interest than I’ve had hot dinners.

Of course, in the UK, there is virtually no transparency in relation to how much financial gain doctors like Baldwin get from promoting pharmaceutical products to the public whilst receiving payments from the drug manufacturers. Even when they do have to declare conflicts, it only has to be declared in relation to the topic at the time, and only in the last 3 years. Therefore, it can seem like doctors are a lot less in conflict that they usually are.

David Baldwin has blood on his hands from his promotion of Seroxat. How much money did GSK give him over the years? why don’t you tell the public, and the media, that David? and while your at it- why don’t you disclose the total sum of financial gain you’ve made from your faustian pact with the entire pharmaceutical industry (throughout your career) defending anti-depressants against criticism in the media?

What would Dr Baldwin say to all the families, parents, and friends of those who killed themselves from being prescribed a drug that is as harmful as Seroxat?

I hope Baldwin enjoys his piles of pharmaceutical money in this mortal sphere, you can’t spend it in hell David can you?

Because, for people like you, hell wouldn’t be hot enough.

Seroxat is not one of the safest drugs ever made David, it’s one of the most dangerous. You profited while people died on it. You promoted it, whilst also getting paid by the drug company. I almost lost my life on Seoxat, and it’s because of the greed and arrogance of psychiatrists like you that many people have been harmed by psychiatric medications. It doesn’t seem to matter to you that GSK are one of the most corrupt pharmaceutical companies on the planet, with a record of dodgy drugs, fraud, lies, and harm to patients.

You would take money from them despite knowing this.

You are sick.


For more on Dr Baldwin’s absolute prostitution of himself to the pharmaceutical industry see here-

https://holeousia.com/?s=David+Baldwin

For extensive links to Seroxat study 329, and its harms to kids, see here-

https://study329.org/

For other links to Seroxat horrors see here-

https://seroxatsecrets.wordpress.com/

For links to a complaint made about Baldwin see here –

http://cepuk.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/03/Complaint-to-RCPsych.pdf


Professor David Baldwin MA DM FRCPsych FHEA

David Baldwin is Professor of Psychiatry and Head of the Mental Health Group in the Clinical and Experimental Sciences Academic Unit of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Southampton in the UK. He trained in medicine at Charing Cross Hospital Medical School, in psychiatry at St Mary’s Hospital Medical School and the Maudsley Hospital, and in medical humanities at Birkbeck College. He is an Honorary Professor in the University of Cape Town in South Africa and Visiting Professor at Suzhou University Guangji Hospital in China.He is current Chair of the Psychopharmacology Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Past President of Depression Alliance, a Medical Patron of Anxiety UK, Editor-in-Chief of Human Psychopharmacology, and author of over 260 full articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Professor Baldwin aims to improve clinical outcomes in mood and anxiety disorders: by investigating the role of neurobiological and psychological factors in causing and maintaining illness; through improving trial design when evaluating efficacy and tolerability of treatment interventions; by assessing the effectiveness and acceptability of treatment interventions in wider clinical practice; through identifying more accurately those patient groups at particular risk of poor outcomes; and by offering a tertiary referral specialist clinical service to patients with chronic and treatment-resistant conditions.

Declaration of interests

Personal pecuniary interests: In the last three years (September 2014–August 2017), I have received honoraria for giving educational lectures in meetings organised by AstraZeneca, Janssen, H. Lundbeck A/S, Pierre Fabre and Pfizer. I have received financial support from the Ministry of Defence relating to my membership of its Research Ethics Committee. I have also received financial support from the Wiley publishing company relating to my editorship of the Human Psychopharmacology journal.

Personal family interest: My wife has received a personal honorarium for participating in an advisory board organised by H. Lundbeck A/S.

Non-personal pecuniary interest: In the last three years, my employer has received reimbursement for my time spent in attendance at advisory board meetings organised by Liva Nova and Mundipharma.

Personal non-percuniary interest: I am a Medical Patron of Anxiety UK and the University-nominated Governor on the Board of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (April 2017 onwards).


https://www.socialaudit.org.uk/43800073.htm

 

Dr Baldwin helped the manufacturers to launch Seroxat for social anxiety disorder, when he reportedly said, “Seroxat is one of the safest drugs ever made.” He co-authored two papers on this drug (1999 and 2000) one of which disclosed sponsorship by the manufacturers; the other didn’t but probably should have done. (Baldwin D, et al, (on behalf of the paroxetine study group) Paroxetine in social phobia/social anxiety disorder, Br J Psychiatry 1999 Aug, 175: 120-126. and Baldwin DS, Clinical experience with paroxetine in social anxiety disorder Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2000 July, 15 Suppl 1; S19-24)

Dr Baldwin was principal author of a Wyeth sponsored study, published in 2002. He was also identified as a member of the advisory board of Wyeth (Baldwin DS et al., Can we distinguish anxiety from depression? Psychopharmacol Bull, 2002 Summer, 36 Suppl 2, 158-165.)

Dr Baldwin has been identified also as a member of the Bristol Myers Squibb study group on CN-104-070 (nefazodone) (Baldwin DS et al, A randomised double blind controlled comparison of nefazodone and paroxetine in the treatment of depression: safety, tolerability and efficacy in continuation phase treatment, J Psychopharmacol, 2001 Sept, 15(3), 161-165.)

In 1997, Dr Baldwin co-authored a paper on SSRIs with an employee of Pfizer (Lane R, Baldwin D., Selective serotonin reuptake Inhibitor-Induced serotonin syndrome, J Clin Psychopharmacol, 1997 June, 17(3), 208-221


https://www.medicinejournal.co.uk/article/S1357-3039(12)00194-6/abstract

David S Baldwin MBBS DM FRCPsych is Professor of Psychiatry and Head of Mental Health Group, University of Southampton, Faculty of Medicine, UK and Honorary Professor of Psychiatry, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Competing interests: DSB has acted as a consultant to and holds or has held research grants (on behalf of his employer) from a number of companies with an interest in anxiety and depressive disorders (Asahi, AstraZeneca, Cephalon, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, GSK, Lundbeck, Organon, Pharmacia, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Sumitomo, and Wyeth)


 

 

 

 

 


 

https://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/health-news/antidepressant-seroxat-linked-to-suicide-attempts-among-adults-5347383.html

The antidepressant Seroxat has been linked to an increase in suicide attempts among adults. Researchers suggest that patients and doctors should be warned of the propensity to suicidal thoughts while on the drug.

Experts have already warned that Seroxat is not suitable for children and adolescents due to an increased risk of self harm.

In the new study of 916 adults on the drug, seven attempted to take their own life. Dr Ivar Aursnes and colleagues at the University of Oslo compared these findings with 550 patients taking a placebo, of whom one tried to commit suicide. Their conclusions are published in the journal BMC Medicine.

They say: “We conclude that the recommendation of restrictions in the use of paroxetine (Seroxat) in children and adolescents … should include usage in adults.”

Is GSK Trying To Pool The Wool Over The FDA’s Eyes Again?…


https://endpts.com/the-pain-wont-stop-gsk-ends-the-week-with-a-slapdown-on-its-nucala-application-for-copd/

GlaxoSmithKline $GSK just completed an unnecessary and embarrassing lap at the FDA with a fresh slapdown.

At a time the company is hoping to begin to demonstrate that the pharma R&D group has begun a long-awaited turnaround, the FDA just completed its latest humiliation on a new application for Nucala with a widely expected complete response letter.

In a short statement out late Friday, the pharma giant noted:

The CRL states that more clinical data are required to support an approval. GSK will work closely with the FDA to determine the appropriate next steps for the supplementary biologics licence application.

The FDA was clearly unimpressed with GSK’s application package. And an expert panel voted 16 to 3 against an approval, leaving no margin for success.

 

GlaxoSmithKline $GSK just completed an unnecessary and embarrassing lap at the FDA with a fresh slapdown.

At a time the company is hoping to begin to demonstrate that the pharma R&D group has begun a long-awaited turnaround, the FDA just completed its latest humiliation on a new application for Nucala with a widely expected complete response letter.

In a short statement out late Friday, the pharma giant noted:

The CRL states that more clinical data are required to support an approval. GSK will work closely with the FDA to determine the appropriate next steps for the supplementary biologics licence application.

The FDA was clearly unimpressed with GSK’s application package. And an expert panel voted 16 to 3 against an approval, leaving no margin for success.

 

“…..GSK’s trial design also spurred questions — with no baseline collection of asthma history — which could have influenced the outcome of the study. How could GSK properly define the patient population for this drug?…”