SSRI Anti-Depressants : Harmful Or Helpful?

“It is absolutely horrendous that they have such disregard for human lives.”
Professor Peter Gotzsche, Nordic Cochrane Centre

I’m blogging over 9 years (I started this blog in 2007), and in that time I have read tons of stuff about SSRI anti-depressants, psychiatry, and the pharmaceutical industry. I have focused my attention, in particular, upon the SSRI anti-depressant drug Seroxat, and the pharmaceutical company that manufactured it- GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). However, even before I started this blog, I had been educating myself about SSRI’s, the pharmaceutical industry, and ‘mental illness’ related issues. All in all, I have been reading, writing and researching about this stuff since at least 2001 (15 years). I had a particularly bad reaction to Seroxat, and I have no love for the pharmaceutical company who created it (GSK). I think GSK should have warned me about the dangers of Seroxat, and I believe that by suppressing information on Seroxat over the years, much harm was caused to me and to many many others.

The story of Seroxat is still as scandalous as ever.

I am particularly disturbed at how GSK behave generally too. They are an extremely sociopathic company, and they have absolutely no regard for patient well being, the law, or basic human values or ethics. They have been proven numerous times to be corrupt, devious and downright evil in how they behave. They have been fined numerous times for breaking ethical and legal codes in varous countries, however in their home turf of the UK it seems (because of the vast wealth that they bring there and the huge influence they have upon academia/industry etc) they are never brought to book. There are over 1000 blog posts on this blog detailing how GSK have corrupted doctors, the regulators and psychiatry, and I think my blog backs up my opinion on these subjects- ten fold. I had hoped, that by documenting GSK and Seroxat, others might not end up damaged by a pharmaceutical drug like Seroxat, I did it to bring awareness, it was that simple. I didn’t expect this blog to become the force that it has, I didn’t plan on being a blogger. I experienced an injustice from being prescribed the dangerous drug- Seroxat. I should have been warned, and I wasn’t. I met others who suffered because of Seroxat, and I felt compelled to do something about it- this blog spawned as a result of that impetus.

I have had some people e-mail me and thank me for saving their life, others have sent words of support and encouragement, or mentioned how my writing validated their experience, and I have received a lot of kindness because of my writing, and all of this has been extremely humbling for me, but none of this was planned.

(I have also had some psychos/stalkers/assholes and others who have pestered me from time to time- but those idiots will never stop me from helping others and bringing awareness).

Nevertheless, in all that time, and after digesting so much information about all this stuff, one of the most striking aspects of all this which I noticed is – just how polarized the debate about SSRI anti-depressants has been- over these years. There are those who swear blind that SSRI drugs are really helpful, and that the ‘risks’ are worth the (so called) ‘benefits’. There are people (usually biological psychiatrists) who claim that anti-depressants save lives, and they claim that SSRI anti-depressants are vital in the treatment of depression. Then there is an opposing camp who claim that these drugs are causing suicides, and that there risks far out weigh the benefits. I fall (like most reasonable people) somewhere in the middle…

I believe, or actually, in fact- I know (from my own experience, of almost 4 years on the SSRI Seroxat) that these drugs can be extremely harmful for a lot of people. I do understand that they can be somewhat helpful to others (perhaps very short term with close monitoring in extreme cases, or in a hospital setting), but I believe that the harms far out weigh the ‘benefits’. I also think that the so called ‘benefits’ are largely illusory, and often quite transient and subjective (if they exist at all). The benefit is an illusion just as much as the effect of any mind altering drug/substance is an illusion. Nevertheless, the only people who really know if these drugs are harmful or helpful are the people who take them. I don’t think that these drugs are helpful long term, nor do I think they should be prescribed as first line treatment.

These are potent, heavy, seriously addicting psychotropic/psychoactive/mind altering drugs; they are powerful and their affect on the mind is extremely difficult to predict in each individual. Some people will experience increased anxiety, increased suicidal ideation, hallucinations, distortions in their reality/perceptions/personality etc, and others might not experience these effects too badly. Most will experience some, or variations of these effects over time, and the longer you’re on them the more toxic you become. Withdrawal from them is often horrific too. However, most people will experience the physical side effects of nightmares, sweating profusely, stomach problems, irritability, tension, sexual side effects, nervous system side effects etc. The physical side effects in themselves can be extremely debilitating and disturbing. These drugs are quite toxic physically and they have been way too over-prescribed to too many people, mostly without adequate monitoring or informed consent.

It seems to me that those who defend the drugs without question are usually biological psychiatrists with a vested interest (either directly through pharmaceutical affiliation or indirectly through other means of the psychiatric profession) in keeping knowledge of the harms of these drugs as suppressed as possible.

The problem facing biological psychiatrists who defend the use of SSRI’s -almost evangelically – is- the cat is now fully out of the bag. You can’t defend these drugs in an extreme quasi-religious manner anymore without coming across as some kind of irrational zealot nutcase, because even the most eminent drug experts (the Cochrane group for example) now agree that there are serious issues with these drugs and in fact these drugs are very likely causing more harm than good. It has taken a few decades for the truth to finally become known, but the widespread consensus seems to be leaning towards the fact that these drugs are causing serious harm to a considerable number of people, and they have been for a very long time.

There will always be some biological psychiatrists who (seemingly desperate to hang on to some semblance of power and prestige in their own insecure minds) will defend these drugs like they are some kind of sacred religious iconography. They deem any criticism of the drugs as close to some kind of blasphemy. They imagine that if the drugs they dish out are undermined in any way, they themselves will be undermined also, and their beliefs and ideology will be debased as a result.  With their ego, their profession and their world view under threat of extinction from the truth, some of these psychiatrists can get very irrational and volatile indeed. Their egos just cannot take this perceived assault so they continue to deny despite the evidence rendering their denials redundant and ridiculous, because denial is all they have left as a defense.

Unfortunately, the ship of reason has sailed, and those psychiatrists are not on it.

These hell-fire and brimstone biological psychiatrists are few and far between nowadays, as most ‘clever’ psychiatrists are slowly starting to change their own discourse about SSRI’s so as to make it appear that they were never fully behind the widespread use of them in the first place (most of them really were, but at least some of them have the appearance of decency-or ‘devious intelligence’- to accept the truth and follow the tide of consensus).

It must be very difficult for some psychiatrists to accept that the drugs which they have been peddling for a very long time have perhaps harmed (and in some cases killed) many of their patients. It understandable what a hard pill of truth this might be to swallow (pardon the pun) for some of these individuals but the truth is self evident now. However continuing to deny the realities of the side effects of these drugs, and the harms that they caused, and continue to cause- is not acceptable.

Defending the drugs as a means of protecting the psychiatric ideological paradigm -at the expense of patients’ lives and public health- is utterly reprehensible- in my opinion.

There have been a flurry of articles, in the media recently, about the side effects of SSRI’s and much debate has ensued. However, instead of writing my opinion on each, I think it might be best to combine them all in one post.

The latest damning article about SSRI’s and their dangers comes from the Telegraph UK. The Telegraph article is based on a study from the Nordic Cochrane group. The Cochrane group are among the most respected (and widely cited) academics in the field of medicine.

Here are some excerpts from the article:

“…Antidepressants can raise the risk of suicide, biggest ever review finds

Antidepressant use doubles the risk of suicide in under 18s and the risks to adults may have been seriously underestimated, researchers found

Antidepressants can raise the risk of suicide, the biggest ever review has found, as pharmaceutical companies were accused of failing to report side-effects and even deaths linked to the drugs.


An analysis of 70 trials of the most common antidepressants – involving more than 18,000 people – found they doubled the risk of suicide and aggressive behaviour in under 18s.


Although a similarly stark link was not seen in adults, the authors said misreporting of trial data could have led to a ‘serious under-estimation of the harms.’

For years families have claimed that antidepressant medication drove their loved ones to commit suicide, but have been continually dismissed by medical companies and doctors who claimed a link was unproven.

The review – the biggest of its kind into the effects of the drugs – was carried out by the Nordic Cochrane Centre and analysed by University College London (UCL) who today endorse the findings in an editorial in the British Medical Journal (BMJ).

After comparing clinical trial information to actual patient reports the scientists found pharmaceutical companies had regularly misclassified deaths and suicidal events in people taking anti-depressants to “favour their products”.

Experts said the review’s findings were “startling” and said it was “deeply worrying” that clinical trials appear to have been misreported….”

Tarang Sharma of the Nordic Cochrane Centre, Copenhagen, Denmark admitted: “The analysis suggests that clinical study reports, on which decisions about market authorisation are based, are likely to underestimate the extent of drug related harms.”

Four deaths were misreported by one unnamed pharmaceutical company, who claimed they had occurred after the trials had stopped.

One patient strangled himself unexpectedly after taking venlafaxine but because he survived for five days, he was excluded from the results because it was claimed he was no longer on the trial while he was dying in hospital.”


Leonie Fennell is a dedicated patient advocate, and genuine mental health activist, who has done stellar work in bringing awareness to the dangers of SSRI medications (her focus is on the SSRI Cipramil in particular, and Lundbeck the pharma who makes it). Her latest post explores some of the themes which I have mentioned in my post thus far. You can read her full post here, but in the meantime here are some very poignant excerpts from it :

“...Yesterday’s BMJ article that found antidepressants double the risk of suicide and aggression in young people, made headlines worldwide. From America, Australia to india, caution was advised when prescribing in this age bracket. Not so in Ireland. The one newspaper article referring to the BMJ article can be found in today’s Irish Examiner here, entitled ‘Drug link to child suicide queried by expert’. So did it warn prescribers of the suicide and aggression risks, advise stricter guidelines or just advise caution when prescribing to children? None of the latter. Instead the Irish Examiner published an article allowing Professor Patricia Casey to question the findings of the Nordic Cochrane Centre..”

Both the Cochrane group’s report on the doubling of aggression side effects, and suicidal side effects etc, and Leonie’s excellent commentary upon it, is no surprise to me because I experienced these side effects directly from GSK’s notorious Seroxat SSRI. I know just how dangerous these drugs are. Leonie Fennell also knows just how dangerous these drugs are because Cipramil killed her son Shane, and tragically also Cipramil caused Shane to be violent- and as a result of this side effect of SSRI induced violence came the death of Sebastian Creane too. Anyone on an SSRI could end up in Shane’s altered state of mind, I’ve been there, and I know of many others, who have expressed similar experiences. These drugs can make people violent and volatile, they can literally snap your mind. Shane should have been warned and monitored properly for emerging suicidal ideation/akathisa/aggression etc. He wasn’t warned, and neither was his family, and the tragedy that followed could have been prevented had they been.

Although I have been drawing attention to these issues for a long time, it is heartening to see my views legitimized by studies from a group as prestigious and respected as the Nordic Cochrane group. It’s high time the public knew just how dangerous these drugs are for all age groups. The studies highlighting the dangers in adolescents and the young show very clear dangers, however this is the proverbial ‘canary in the coal-mine’. All ages, adults and younger, can experience the same deadly side effects of SSRI’s.

I’m not a huge fan of Peter Hitchens (I preferred his brother- Christopher), however he has been good at covering the dangers of SSRI’s and his latest article on the Cochrane study on SSRI’s pulls no punches in that regard.

Here are some excerpts:

28 January 2016 4:26 PM

Time for Some Serious Thought about ‘Antidepressants’

I expect to have more to say about this, but today’s BMJ? UCL/ Nordic Cochrane Centre analysis of research on ‘antidepressants’ should surely change the terms on which we debate this subject.

I should say that all intelligent people should draw lessons about the difference between what they think is happening, and what is actually happening,  from two major Hollywood films – The Big Short’ and ‘Spotlight’. In both cases – the sub-prime mortgage disaster and the widespread unpunished sexual abuse of children by priests – complacency prevented serious concern for years. In both cases the alarm was raised by outsiders, and most people refused to believe what was being said.

I believe that psychiatric medication contains a similar problem, which in a few years, everyone will acknowledge as fact. But at the moment, it is still difficult to raise it without being accused of being a crank. Complacency rules.

For some years now I have been more or less begging my readers to obtain the book ‘Cracked’ by James Davies’ and to study two clearly-written and straightforward articles on the subject by Dr Marcia Angell, a distinguished American doctor, and no kind of crank, in the New York Review of Books. I link to them (yet again) here. They are devastating, not least because of their measured understatement. The alleged scientific theory (the Serotonin theory) which underpins the prescribing of such drugs is, to put it mildly, unproven. The drug companies themselves have kept secret (until compelled to disgorge them by FoI requests) research results which suggest their pills are, again to put it mildly, not that effective.

Dr Angell’s articles are themselves reviews of important recent books on the subject.

I have also drawn attention to the huge sums of money involved, and to a recent case in which a major drug company was fined *three billion dollars* for (amongst other things) mis-selling ‘antidepressants’.

Hitchens is astute in his analysis of the Cochrane study. He draws attention to what I have been drawing attention to on my blog for 9 years. The reason why these drugs have been so widely promoted boils down to one thing- money.

The pharmaceutical industry makes billions on them, that’s why they have got away with all these years of cover-ups, lies, death and destruction. Psychiatry would lose its status (and its profitability) as a ‘legitimate medical specialty’ without the drugs- that’s why they deny the problems- even in the face of overwhelming evidence against their use. For psychiatry – raising awareness of the dangers undermines the profession… and we all know how highly paid some psychiatrists are don’t we?…

Nobody likes their bread and butter threatened do they?…


Money, it’s a crime
Share it fairly but don’t take a slice of my pie
Money, so they say
Is the root of all evil today
But if you ask for payrise it’s no surprise
That they’re giving none away
Away, away, way
Away, away, away

(Pink Floyd – Money)


Interesting post about Seroxat from another blog


About my thoughts and findings on OCD

Friday, 27 November 2015

Seroxat: Patient Information Leaflet Revision: Changes from August 2014 – March 2015


Patient Information Leaflet (PIL)



  • These are my own notes of changes I’ve noticed whilst eyeing up the leaflets. These are not definitive and I may have missed changes, misinterpreted a change or misspelled a word. Do not take what I’ve written as absolute. Please see your doctor or pharmacist if you have any concerns over the contents of your PIL.
  • For the definitive list of revisions or to enquire about the revisions if you have any concerns, please see your doctor or pharmacist.
  • Online information on revisions to Seroxat PIL can be found but is very thin on what the changes are, hence why I do this blog post.

 Changes from PIL dated August 2014 

to PIL dated March 2015

What’s been added

Section 2: What you need to know before you take seroxat

Under “Important side effects seen with seroxat”:

“or neuroleptic malignant syndrome” added to sentence after “Other patients develop something called serotonin syndrome …”

“feeling very agitated or irritable, feeling hot, muscle stiffness” added to list belonging to sentence which says“… where they have some of all of the following symptoms”

Under “Other medicines and seroxat”

“Pravastatin, used to treat high cholesterol” added to list.

Section 4: Possible Side Effects

After “Allergic reactions to Seroxat” … “(shortness of breath)” has been added after the symptom “difficulty breathing”

After “Allergic reactions to Seroxat” the following symptoms have been added … “and feel weak or lightheaded resulting in collapse or loss of consciousness”

Section 4: Possible Side Effects

Under “Frequency Unknown” section, the following has been added “Some people have experienced aggression whilst taking seroxat”.

Under “Other possible side effects during treatment”, under “Uncommon side effects, likely to affects 1 in every 100 people”, the following has been added “If you are a diabetic patient you may notice a loss of control of your blood sugar levels whilst taking seroxat. Please speak to your doctor about adjusting the dosage of insulin or diabetes medications.”

Under “Other possible side effects during treatment”, under “Rare side effects, likely to affects 1 in every 1,000 people”, the following has been added “Menstrual period disorders (including heavy or irregular periods, bleeding between periods, and absence or delay of periods.”

Section 6: Contents of the pack and other information”

Under “Marketing Authorisation Holder and Manufacturer” there are now two manufacturers.

Previously it was just the manufacturer in Romania. Now the “Seroxat 20mg film-coated tablets” are made by manufacturer in Poland and the “Seroxat 10 and 30mg film-coated tablets” are made by the manufacturer in Romania.

What’s been altered

Section 4: Possible Side Effects

After “Very rare side effects, likely to affect up to 1 in every 10,000 people:” the first bullet point has had the title altered from “Allergic reactions to Seroxat” to “Allergic reactions, which may be severe to seroxat”

What’s been removed

SSRI Devastation … “once you’ve survived withdrawal, you are just glad to be alive…”

Lives ‘left in ruin’ by rising tide of depression drugs

More people are being put on the pills but some experts are now warning they do more harm than good. Julia Llewellyn Smith reports

Jo Thompson

Jo Thompson ended up in hospital on anti-anxiety pills, and wanted to die when she stopped them  Photo: Geoff Pugh/Telegraph

But in 1995, a bout of flu left Henry, then 31, exhausted and lethargic. He visited his GP, who told him he was depressed, and prescribed the world’s most popular antidepressant, Prozac. “Everything appeared completely benign — he said depression was a common complaint, the drugs would fix it and then I’d stop taking them.”

More than a decade later, Henry was far from cured and still taking antidepressants. “None of the drugs I was prescribed made me feel better, and most made me considerably worse. But every time I stopped them, the symptoms of what I thought was depression — but now know were of withdrawal — returned even more strongly, so I went back to the pills.”

By 2009, he was so unwell that he had to give up work. Finally, suspecting the drugs were the cause of his problems, he quit them, only to enter a new hell.

“It was torture. I thought I was going to die, and I didn’t care. For two years, I was in severe physical pain and so weak I lay all day on the sofa. My cognition was severely affected, I was dizzy, with blurred vision, I couldn’t read a bedtime story to my son and couldn’t remember things that had happened just a few seconds previously.”

Henry — who does not want to reveal his last name because of pending legal action against the drugs manufacturers — is just one of an estimated four million people in Britain taking antidepressants, a number that is rising sharply.

Last year, 53 million prescriptions were issued for antidepressants in England alone, nearly double the number prescribed a decade ago, and a six per cent increase in the past year. According to recent research, one in three British women and one in 10 men now take the medication, including popular brands such as Prozac, Cipramil and Seroxat, at some point in their lives.

But a growing number of experts now believe depression is vastly overdiagnosed and the drugs can cause far more harm than good.

This week, a new organisation, the Council for Evidence-Based Psychiatry (CEP), whose members include psychiatrists, academics and withdrawal charities, is launching, to educate the public about the risks of antidepressants. A keynote speech will be given by Prof Peter Gøtzsche, co-founder of the Cochrane Collaboration, an international, non-profit organisation that examines vast amounts of medical data to help doctors and patients reach informed conclusions about health.

Prof Gøtzsche, author of Deadly Medicines and Organised Crime: How Big Pharma has Corrupted Healthcare, believes that some drug companies have obfuscated the truth about antidepressants, much as tobacco firms attempted to hide the dangers of cigarettes.

“My research has led me to the uncomfortable conclusions that these drugs help very few people. They are often being taken needlessly and, in many cases, ruining lives.

“GPs and psychiatrists hand out these drugs for the most unbelievable reasons — when patients are having marital problems, have failed exams, split up with their boyfriends — occasions that would make anyone feel sad and stressed but don’t indicate clinical depression.

“In such cases, and also in truly depressed patients, the patients will feel better anyway with the passing of time, but doctors and patients attribute their recovery to the antidepressants. When they stop the drugs, withdrawal symptoms will often make them feel bad. This is often misdiagnosed as the depression not being cured, so they are told to continue taking the pills, sometimes for life.”

Jo Thompson, 31, an NHS researcher, was prescribed antidepressants three years ago for anxiety about her university final exams. “What I was going through — worrying about the future and choices I was making — was completely normal, in retrospect,” she says.

Her GP wrote her a prescription for lorazepam, a potent benzodiazepine or anti-anxiety drug, which are currently in vogue, with 16.5 million being prescribed in the UK last year, and to which around one million people are thought to be “accidentally” addicted — compared with 300,000 illegal heroin and crack cocaine addicts.

Miss Thompson took the pills but rather than feeling calmer, she went “through the roof”. “Within days, normal life became unmanageable,” she says. “I stopped eating. I’m a very sociable person but I became a hermit. Any sudden sensation terrified me, to the point where I daren’t step into the shower, so I stopped washing. I thought I was going mad.

“In my naivety, it never occurred to me that they might be the drugs’ side effects. They had been given to me by a doctor to make me better, so how could they be making things considerably worse?”

Miss Thompson ended up in hospital. “I was a shivering shell, not sleeping at all,” she says. Increasingly concerned at doctors’ insistence on trying different antidepressants and upping doses, she discharged herself and decided to stop the drugs overnight. As with Henry, and 72 per cent of antidepressant users surveyed by CEP, doctors had given her no warning about the dangers of “cold turkey” withdrawal from benzodiazepines.

“I had no idea of the horrors that awaited me. Every second of the day was hell. I was a zombie, but one that couldn’t sit down. I just paced up and down, and asked my parents if I was going to die. I couldn’t be left alone. In the car, I was overwhelmed with the urge to throw myself out on to the motorway.”

When Miss Thompson later tackled her GP about his lack of advice, he became very defensive. “He just mumbled about not having any training,” she says.

During his time as an NHS psychotherapist, Dr James Davies, co-founder of CEP, was amazed at how freely antidepressants were handed out. “People were being medicated entirely unnecessarily, when they weren’t suffering from mental-health disorders but from understandable, sometimes even necessary, human experience.”

Although official advice is to prescribe antidepressants in conjunction with counselling, in practice long waiting lists mean this rarely happens.

“It’s cheaper and quicker to prescribe antidepressants than investigate the root cause of sadness,” says Dr Davies. “The other problem is mental health practitioners aren’t introduced during training to the growing body of critical research on the drugs.”

Antidepressants enjoy global popularity (the World Health Organisation recently warned that antidepressant use in many countries had gone “through the roof”, with one in 10 people in Iceland taking the drugs), but they were invented only by accident, when scientists searching for a tuberculosis cure noticed, in 1952, that sick people became more cheerful after taking the anti-infection drugs they were developing.

No one understood how the drugs worked, but since mental illnesses were usually tackled through partial lobotomies, brain injections or the electroshock treatment recorded by Sylvia Plath in The Bell Jar, a straightforward pill was hugely appealing.

Over the following decades, drug companies explained that depression was caused by a chemical imbalance that drugs could cure. But this theory has never been proven. “These drugs create a chemical imbalance, which is why it is so difficult for patients to get off them,” says Prof Gøtzsche.

In fact, he says, there’s little evidence that antidepressants help anyone. “In cases of mild depression, their effect is small. Nice [the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence] recommends that antidepressants are not routinely prescribed for people with mild depression. But even in severe cases, research shows only 10 per cent of people will feel better than if they used a placebo.

“Some people ask me if I’m worried that by pointing this out people will decide to come off their drugs and become very ill,” he continues. “But I’m not afraid of that, provided patients taper off their drug slowly in collaboration with their doctor. What I’m afraid of is the harm being done to so many healthy people.

“Furthermore, there are case reports in patients and controlled experiments on animals that suggest that the drugs could perhaps cause permanent brain damage; we are currently studying this.”

Miss Thompson is still suffering. “Three years have passed, but the ringing in my ears has never gone away and I’m so much more anxious than previously about things that would never have once concerned me. But once you’ve survived withdrawal, you are just glad to be alive.”

Nine years after he began withdrawal, Henry estimates he is only 80 per cent better and has just returned to work.

“Last year, a psychiatrist told me it’s unlikely I ever had depression at all, I was just run down and needed rest. Because I innocently accepted my GP’s diagnosis, I’ve lost 20 years of my life,” he says.

BBC Panorama Investigates Seroxat Withdrawal 13 years ago

Listen to the podcast here :

Tuesday, August 25, 2009

Podcast from Shelley Jofre BBC Panorama

 Podcast from Shelley Jofre BBC Panorama speaking at Coventry University UK.

Shelley has taken on the likes of GSK, The MHRA – Confronted the patronizing Martin Keller.

She has grilled MHRA Chairman, Alasdair Breckenridge, put GSK’s Head of European Clinical Psychiatry, Alastiar Benbow, on the spot [“We haven’t got a licence in children yet”]

In this Podcast, Shelley discusses the four Panorama programmes where Seroxat was highlighted.

We all owe a great deal of thanks to Shelley – The decline in Seroxat prescriptions since the airing of her investigative programmes is not a coincidence.

This blog gives Shelley a 21 gun-salute.

You rock!

Powered by