Is Giving Anti-Depressants To Teens A bad Idea ?


“..The study looked at the average effect of anti-depressants rather than how they worked for individuals, and the researchers said the findings might not apply to use of the drugs over the longer term…”

 

Great documentary from the acclaimed ‘the doctor who gave up drugs’ series (see below), about the dangers of anti-depressants in kids. It has been established for a long time now that SSRI anti-depressants are unsafe for kids, but what about their use in the adult population?

Interesting segment from David Healy discussing the raw data on Seroxat in teens (see first video below). It was because of the actions of people like David Healy that Seroxat was never officially approved for use in teens in the UK. If Glaxo had gotten their way, it’s possible that Glaxo would have pushed Seroxat for a licence for kids in the UK. This would have meant more SSRI induced teen suicides.

The most interesting segment for me was the part with Andrea Cipriani, the researcher who recently analyzed a meta-analysis of studies on SSRI’s, which made waves in the media not too long ago.

Back in February, Cipriani (see second video down) said that ‘anti-depressants are effective for moderate to severe major depression in adults’. However as Dr David Healy points out, the studies that Cipriani made his analysis on, were mostly ghost written articles.

Cipriani did not study the raw data, therefore his analysis is inherently skewed. He doesn’t mention this in the many media articles he appeared in to promote this study.; he only addresses it because David Healy brought it up. It seems to me that doctors like Cipriani are merely agents of PR for psychiatry (and indeed by default then- the drug companies) than patient advocates. Every few years psychiatry needs to re-establish its dominance of the mental health paradigm.

It’s just marketing.

Why do academics like Cipriani not demand to see the raw data from the drug companies?

Why do they mislead the public?

Why does Cipriani (and indeed Carmine Pariante) not mention also that his analysis was based on very short term studies (and that these studies are not raw data studies), and that safety and effectiveness in long term use in adults has not been established? (This despite the fact that people end up on these drugs for years, sometimes decades).

I feel also that any time Carmine Pariante is interviewed on TV he should be forced to mention his links to drug companies:

His links to GSK  alone are shameful considering GSK’s vast criminality and harm to consumers and patients over the decades.

“…Dr Carmine Pariante has received Funds for a member of staff and funds for research. Professor Pariante’s research on depression and inflammation is supported by: the grants ‘Persistent Fatigue Induced by Interferon alpha: A New Immunological Model for Chronic Fatigue Syndrome’ (MR/J002739/1) and ‘Immunopsychiatry: a consortium to test the opportunity for immunotherapeutics in psychiatry’ (MR/L014815/1; together with GSK), from the Medical Research Council (UK); the National Institute for HealthResearch (NIHR) Mental Health Biomedical Research Centre in Mental Health at South London and Maudsley NHS Foundati on Trust and King’s College London; by Johnson & Johnson as part of a programme of research on depression and inflammation; and by a Wellcome Trust led consortium that also include Johnson & Johnson, GSK and Lundbeck…”

 

I don’t trust Andrea Cipriani, I don’t think he is being honest.

I also don’t trust Carmine Pariante either, however I think he is more misguided than anything else.

Anti-depressants don’t save lives.

Doctors like David Healy save lives.

Doctors like Pariante and Cipriani help drug companies to extinguish them..

 

 

Advertisements

Watch The Full Panorama Documentary ‘A Prescription For Murder’ Here…


Is it possible that a pill prescribed by your doctor can turn you into a killer? Over 40 million prescriptions for SSRI anti-depressants were handed out by doctors last year in the UK. Panorama reveals the devastating side effects on a tiny minority that can lead to psychosis, violence, possibly even murder. With exclusive access to psychiatric reports, court footage and drug company data, reporter Shelley Jofre investigates the mass killings at the 2012 midnight premiere of a Batman movie in Aurora, Colorado. Twenty-four-year-old PhD student James Holmes, who had no record of violence or gun ownership, murdered 12 and injured 70. Did the SSRI anti-depressant he had been prescribed play a part in the killings? Panorama has uncovered other cases of murder and extreme violence which could be linked to psychosis developed after the taking of SSRIs – including a father who strangled his 11-year-old son. Panorama asks if enough is known about this rare side effect, and if doctors are unwittingly prescribing what could be a prescription for murder.

GSK’s New York Guinea Pig Orphans…


Ginea-Pig-Kids

 

“…One New York social worker told the BBC she had never been informed that the drugs she was administering to children were experimental and highly toxic. Jacklyn Hoerger said, “We were told that if they were vomiting, if they lost their ability to walk, if they were having diarrhea, if they were dying, then all of this was because of their HIV infection.”

In fact it was the drugs that were causing many of the problems. The BBC identified pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline as one of the companies that provided drugs for the tests….”

http://allnurses-breakroom.com/lounge/bbc-reveals-nyc-86567.html

Interesting documentary from the BBC on Youtube about how GSK provided drugs to be tested on poor New York orphans.

This is an old story, however I had not seen the documentary, and I will delve into this story further at a later date…

This atrocity was reported back in 2004…

Have GSK changed?

Are they more caring?, more humane? or more ethical?

What do you think?


http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/this_world/4038375.stm

 

‘Serious side-effects’

One of the homes to which HIV positive children were taken was the Incarnation Children’s Center, a large, expensively refurbished red-bricked building set back from the sidewalk in a busy Harlem street.

It is owned by the Catholic church and when we attempted to talk to officials at Incarnation we were referred to an equally expensive Manhattan public relations company, which then refused to comment on activities within the home.

Dr David Rasnick from the University of Berkeley

Dr Rasnick is internationally renowned for his work on numerous diseases, including cancer

Hardly surprising, when we already knew that highly controversial and secretive drug experiments had been conducted on orphans and foster children as young as three months old.

We asked Dr David Rasnick, visiting scholar at the University of Berkeley, for his opinion on some of the experiments.

He said: “We’re talking about serious, serious side-effects. These children are going to be absolutely miserable. They’re going to have cramps, diarrhoea and their joints are going to swell up. They’re going to roll around the ground and you can’t touch them.”

He went on to describe some of the drugs – supplied by major drug manufacturers including Glaxo SmithKline – as “lethal”.

https://www.democracynow.org/embed/story/2004/12/22/guinea_pig_kids_how_new_york

 


BBC Journalist Seeking People Who Have Experienced Withdrawal From SSRI Anti-Depressants For A Documentary…


http://survivingantidepressants.org/index.php?/topic/13214-bbc-journalist-looking-to-expose-problems-of-withdrawal/

https://twitter.com/lesleyashmall?lang=en

Getting started

  • Members
  • Pip
  • 1 posts
  • LocationLondon

Posted 04 October 2016 – 07:07 AM

I’m a British BBC TV reporter and I want to make a film about the problems of withdrawing from antidepressants. I’m keen to hear from people who’ve struggled with SSRIs, particularly if you like in the UK. Also what you think about the lack of support groups, or if you HAVE a support group, how do you help?

Please email me your stories, confidentially at first, of course, although ultimately I’m looking for people who will be willing to stand up and speak about what’s happened to them.  I think few people know or report this sort of problem and I know many of you are really really struggling for help.  My BBC2 programme wants to expose all this, so please get in touch.

Lesley.ashmall@bbc.co.uk

Thank you very much.  This forum has been recommended to me by several long-term members, so forgive my intrusion.

Q And A- From GSK’s Andrew Witty And The BBC’s Evan Davis Interview- At Chatham House…


Back in October 2015, GSK CEO Andrew Witty had an interesting discussion with Evan Davis (from the BBC’s Newsnight).

For the majority of the interview Witty waffled on his usual script about how fantastic GSK are, and how their new ethical branding is at the cutting edge of health care etc, however in the last segment the tone changed dramatically.

Davis grilled Witty with some damning questions about the unpopularity of the pharmaceutical industry and about GSK ‘bribing doctors’ etc.

Witty looked extremely uncomfortable and did his bumbling best to deflect Davis’s awkward questions but his finely crafted showmanship fell flat and despite his slick performance at the beginning- in the end segment- he came across as little more than a GSK PR puppet.

Witty it seems, is well versed in GSK’s corporate mantras, but severely lacking in sincere humaneness. He came across as someone who would defend the indefensible (for a huge pay packet and perks of course) and maybe that’s why he got the job as CEO in the first place?

He is, after all, a sales man, and a marketing man, who grafted his way up the corporate ladder- to the top of GSK- over  25 year period. How ruthless would an individual have to be to do that?

You can watch Witty’s performance on Youtube (video above), and it’s very interesting, if only even as just a mere example of how these big corporations wriggle and squirm their way out of any accountability for the crimes that they commit (and in doing so- also- the harm that they cause innocent people- their customers- in the process).

I recently came across a Q and A segment from the Chapham House website, it’s not part of the original video intereview and seems only to be in text format.

Nonetheless, it’s also very interesting in parts.

Particularly this bit:

https://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/chathamhouse/events/special/20151022CorporateLeadersSeriesQA.pdf

Question 3
Building on the last question a bit, but perhaps from a slightly more generic point of view, you talked about the breakdown of trust and eroding trust in big pharma, in big business generally, in institutions around the world.

What does a leader do to restore that trust?

Andrew Witty
I think you have to try harder. I think a lot of it is around resilience, because no doubt, when you’re in an industry and I think in any big business where there is challenge, where actually, rightly, you don’t need to have a bloc vote to be heard anymore in this world, right?
You need a Twitter account. You need a way of getting your message around. That’s a good thing but it definitely creates a kind of pressure, so you need resilience.
You need to have a point of view, a point of view which is beyond this week, this quarter. A point of view which is, in my view, multi stakeholder and more and more critically global. I think for a lot of the established global companies, the reality is we’ve been American and Western Europe. The world is rapidly becoming much more than America and Western Europe. So you have to absolutely be thinking about, what’s important to China? What’s important to India?
Where is China going to go, how is it going to open up its western villages and rural areas? What does it need?
How is India going to democratize its health care system? Those are the big elements you have to think about.
Then you have to be prepared to take the rough with the smooth. The criticism is difficult. When things go wrong, it’s obvious, nobody likes to be in a situation when things go wrong. It’s much harder to make the positive change, because actually what you’re doing is you’re standing up in front of your organization, in front of your shareholders, in front of everybody who’s got used to the business model that exists whether they consciously did that or unconsciously, they’re used to the status quo ante. Then you’ve got to stand up and say: I’m going to change all that. Actually that’s the most difficult part, and that’s where you have to be deter mined, resilient and really believe in what you’re trying to drive forward. Hopefully, you generate quick wins, quickly, to give yourself and everybody else confidence you’re moving forward.
Evan Davis
The first thing you have to ask yourself though is, is this a messaging problem that people are not liking, or is it a problem problem that people are not liking? In some of these cases, it has been a public distrust of a lot of people and a kind of distrust in these anonymous big corporations. But some of it has been
Andrew Witty
It’s back to this issue of things like transparency. There’s no question that there is a substance issue there which
Evan Davis

It’s not the PR that’s bad, it’s the behaviour.

Andrew Witty
Again, if you look at our response, we have not, I think, tried to PR our way out of this.
Evan Davis
 
No, the way you get the trust is to behave in a trustworthy way.
There’s no shortcuts.
Andrew Witty
Exactly. If you look at what we’ve done, we’ve changed our commitment to transparency. We’ve changed the IP model. When I stood up and said we’re going to liberalize our IP model for the developing world, people thought I was nuts. People actually wrote to me and said, you are going to destroy the pharmaceutical industry doing this. You know what, the sun still comes up in the morning, even though we figured out there was a different way to manage IP in Africa and the LDCs.
So you have that.
We’ve changed the way our salesforces are managed. People said that’s the end of the world. It’s not. People said doctors won’t speak on your behalf if you don’t pay them. Actually, they will.
Half of the physicians will speak on our behalf. People said you can’t focus on development of medicines which don’t have an economic return. You can. Those are all substantive elements of the business model which we hope, over time
Evan Davis
Over time, in ten years, if you keep it up, people will say, they’re not so bad


I find this exchange between Andrew Witty and Evan Davis extraordinary, it’s as if they are having two different conversations.
Witty is so immersed in GSK’s marketing PR delusions that he fails to see what Davis is trying to say to him. It’s no use claiming to be ethical when you behave unethically. Under Witty’s tenure GSK paid 3 Billion in fines to the US department of Justice in 2012, and the China Bribe Scandal in 2014 happened directly under his leadership.
Witty has never once apologized for the Seroxat Scandal, or multitudes of other scandals that GSK have been embroiled in (and continue to be embroiled in) over the years, therefore, for Witty to claim that GSK have somehow redeemed themselves through a few shallow half baked PR token gestures- in regards to the many decades of fraud, bribery, lies and unethical profiteering (leading to the deaths and harm of thousands of people) is absurd and ridiculous.
Evan Davis called Andrew Witty out on his Bullshit, and I wish more people would..
I was harmed by a GSK drug- Seroxat- as were many others- many of them now friends of mine….
I have at least 40 years left on this planet…  and no amount of shallow PR from GSK will stop me from drawing attention to it.
The Seroxat Scandal is an example of the epitome of corporate evil in this world and people like Andrew Witty make millions by playing their part in this pharmaceutical harm to hundreds of thousands of vulnerable people, year after year. The Big Pharma’s between them kill tens of thousands every year. A lot of it is from defective substandard drugs, and a lot of it is from shoddy trials, hidden outcomes, and some is from just plain lies and deceit.
Witty is well aware of this…
How he sleeps soundly at night, is beyond my comprehension…

 

Prescription Drugs Are Killing Us – Meet One Doctor (Out Of Many) Who Just Published A Paper About It

The most recent example of this kind of corruption in relation to antidepressants comes from a study that was published last week in the British Medical Journal by researchers at the Nordic Cochrane Center in Copenhagen. The study showed that pharmaceutical companies were not disclosing all information regarding the results of their drug trials:

[This study] confirms that the full degree of harm of antidepressants is not reported. They are not reported in the published literature, we know that – and it appears that they are not properly reported in clinical study reports that go to the regulators and from the basis of decisions about licensing.  (source)

Researchers looked at documents from 70 different double-blind, placebo-controlled trials of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI) and serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake inhibitors (SNRI) and found that the full extent of serious harm in clinical study reports went unreported. These are the reports sent to major health authorities like the U.S. Food and Drug Administration.

Tamang Sharma, a PhD student at Cochrane and lead author of the study, said:

We found that a lot of the appendices were often only available upon request to the authorities, and the authorities had never requested them. I’m actually kind of scared about how bad the actual situation would be if we had the complete data. (source)

This is not the first time that pharmaceutical companies have been caught manipulating science in order to get antidepressants onto the shelves. It was only a couple of months ago that an independent review found that the commonly prescribed antidepressant drug Paxil (paroxetine) is not safe for teenagers, even though a large amount of literature had already suggested this previously. The 2001 drug trial that took place, funded by GlaxoSmithKline, found that these drugs were completely safe, and used that ‘science’ to market Paxil as safe for teenagers.

Gotzche’s two main areas of focus are antidepressants and “non-steroidal anti-inflammatory” painkillers like ibuprofen, tylenol, celecoxib, and diclofenac. Another is Vioxx, which was actually withdrawn after it was discovered that it caused more than 100,000 cases of serious heart disease in the United States during the five years that it was on the market.

According to Gotzche, these deaths are just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to the failure of the drug regulatory process to protect patients:

These terms for our drugs are invented by the drug industry. They had a huge financial interest in calling these things anti-inflammatory. It lured doctors into believing that these drugs somehow also had an effect on the disease process and reduced the joint damage.

In his paper he also notes that antidepressants have replaced drugs that were found to be harmful, like Valium and Xanax, but are just as addictive and their side effects just as dangerous.

According to Professor Gotzsche, here’s a list of things you want to avoid:

  • Antidepressants for all, because they probably don’t work for severe cases of depression
  • All brain-active drugs in children
  • Anti-psychotics and other brain-active drugs for the elderly. Psychotropic drugs should be used as little as possible and mostly in very acute situations, as they are very harmful when used long term
  • Non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs used for arthritis, muscle pain and headaches, including over-the-counter, low dose ibuprofen. These drugs should be used as little as possible
  • Mammography screening, as it doesn’t prolong life whereas it makes many healthy women ill through over diagnosis and leads to the premature death for some because radiotherapy and chemotherapy increases mortality when used for harmless cancers detected at screening.
  • Drugs for urinary incontinence, as they very likely don’t work

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses, and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness.” – Dr. Richard Horton, the current Editor-In-Chief of the Lancet (source)

Here is a great video that I share in most of my articles that have to do with this topic. It’s a clip of Dr. Peter Rost, a former vice president of Pfizer and a whistleblower of the pharmaceutical industry. Author of “The Whistleblower, Confessions of a Healthcare Hitman,” Rost is an insider expert on big pharma marketing.

 

A Game Called Big Pharma… (Peter Humphrey On BBC Radio)


Interesting discussion on BBC’s ‘Business Daily’ yesterday- with an interview with Peter Humphrey (who was unjustly jailed in GSK’s china-bribe scandal a few years ago). { LISTEN HERE } -Also as part of the discussion, the panel highlights Tim Wicksteed’s ‘A Game Called Big Pharma‘ which is a real game that echoes the real-life shenanigans of Big Pharma (such as GSK’s bribery and corruption etc).

The most interesting part of the interview (second link down) is with Peter Humphrey in the second half of the recording, it’s well worth a listen.

Peter worked for most of the well known pharmaceutical companies for 15 years and in this interview he says- he thinks that the ‘quality of leadership’ by pharmaceutical companies on a China level and a Global level,has a lot to do with the corporate strategies of  the pharmaceutical companies themselves.

Perhaps, it is these corporate strategies which have an affect upon how these corporations behave? (or in the case of GSK- misbehave).

Andrew Witty was leading GSK for many years up until the China-Bribe scandal. How much he knew about what was going in with GSK’s operations in China leading up to the scandal, is anyone’s guess…

One thing is for sure though, these corporations (like GSK) act like mafioso. They often hover far above the law, and until the top executives are held accountable for crimes that the corporate entity commits, nothing will change.

_84214306_de27

http://www.bigpharmagame.com/

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/p002vsxs/episodes/downloads

 

Big Pharma

GSK Have Been Bribing For A Long Time… Why Change A Successful Business Model?


From the BBC 2002

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/1869162.stm

uesday, 12 March, 2002, 16:35 GMT

Glaxo probed over doctor freebies
Mascot Footix holds a replica of a ticket for the World Cup in Paris in 1998.

World Cup ticket giveaways are under investigation

German prosecutors are investigating the offer of perks, such as free World Cup and Formula One trips, to thousands of German doctors by British pharmaceuticals company GlaxoSmithKline (GSK).

Europe’s biggest drugs firm said it was cooperating fully with the investigation and added the accusations stemmed from the period between 1997 and 1999, before Glaxo Wellcome merged with SmithKline Beecham in 2000.

“These are allegations we take extremely seriously … We are investigating this internally and we will review this on a European wide basis,” Christopher Viehbacher, President of European Pharmaceuticals at GlaxoSmithline told the BBC’s World Business Report.

Munich’s chief prosecutor Manfred Wick said GSK offered money, free trips and other benefits to about 4,000 hospital doctors, and that there were suspicions of bribery and tax evasion.

The prosecutor said cash sums ranged from 50 to 25,000 euros (£30 to £15,400).

GSK’s defence

GSK said it had offered the prosecutor “active support” but had “no further information, beyond what is already presently in the media”.

“Two years ago the police came in on some suspicion of commercial activities and carted away 600 files and in the last two years have been going through those,” said Mr Viehbacher.

The accusations cover the period from 1997 to 1999, the company said in a statement.

“The company has been newly restructured through the merger of Glaxo Wellcome and SmithKline Beecham and many positions have been newly defined and filled; responsibilities have changed,” added the statement.

The allegations

The prosecutor’s office in the Bavarian capital Munich said in a statement it had uncovered evidence of 5,900 instances where SmithKline Beecham had illicitly paid for doctors to take business and training trips.

“The gifts amounted to several thousand marks, in some cases between 10,000 and 50,000 marks (£3,150 and £15,750),” it said.

The majority of individual cases had been dropped due to the small sums involved, but 100 cases against doctors and 380 involving SmithKline employees were being pursued, the prosecutor said.

Mr Viehbacher said the 380 SmithKline employees “pretty much would represent our field force prior to the merger”.

 

 

Disturbing, Revealing, And Absurd, Interview With Andrew Witty, The CEO Of GlaxoSmithKline..


Page_1


Andrew Witty

“Things go wrong. We have inevitably – of course, we go through all the processes with the regulators to get a drug to be as safe and effective as it can possibly be. But the reality is, every time a human takes a drug, it’s like a clinical trial. You don’t really know what’s going to happen.

Everybody can react a different way. So on the one hand, what is the story of the drug industry? The story of the drug industry is wonder drugs. On the other hand, it’s danger drugs. Those are the two extremes that we have.

It’s kind of unavoidable.”

(Translation: “often we release dangerous drugs like Seroxat and Avandia. We make billions on them and the people that get killed are just collateral damage, some of our drugs and products help people so we make up for the other GSK drug-induced deaths from poisons like Seroxat- that way. It all balances out in the end- we kill some, we help some.. it’s the nature of the pharmaceutical  business and kinda just tough if you get harmed”).

Evan Davis:

-“But you’re saying there are bad apples, and it goes wrong. Is that right, or is it – for example, in the China case. Was it that there was a bad apple and it went wrong, or was it that that was normal behaviour in certain markets, and it just got called out in that particular case?”

Andrew Witty:

-“For obvious reasons, I’m not going to get into all the details of that.”

(translation: “I don’t answer questions about our criminal behavior”)


Andrew Witty Sociopath


Mr Witty, “I think the bigger question” is: are you- and is your company-sociopathic?

It’s not often that we get to see the CEO of one of the biggest (and notably most corrupt) pharmaceutical companies on the planet (GSK) squirm like a little snake in an interview. Usually someone like Andrew Witty would have no fear of being asked awkward questions about fraud, bribery or corruption in interviews. Usually, Sir Witty would expect nothing short of the red carpet treatment from the media who court people like him. However, in the last seven minutes, of a recent interview between the BBC’s Evan Davis and Andrew Witty, the unethical behavior, of his company GSK, comes under intense scrutiny.

It’s important to note that under Andrew Witty’s tenure as CEO of GSK (since 2008), as recently as last year (2014) the company has been caught operating a massive bribery network in China, and the company is also under several investigations spanning several other countries for similar corruption allegations, and has been for some years now.  In 2012 GSK paid 3 billion to settle the biggest health care fraud in US history. There is also the issue of an ongoing serious Serious Fraud Office UK investigation and many other ethical issues concerning GSK’s unethical shenanigans which have yet to be resolved. These issues, serious though they are, don’t even touch upon the other GSK issues which affect people’s lives directly in horrible damaging ways- such as kids developing Narcolepsy from GSK’s Pandemrix, or kids dying from GSK’s notorious Seroxat (Paxil) drug.

GSK have been killing and harming consumers for decades.

Witty knows this, he just doesn’t care, because he is paid millions to care about GSK. His self interest, and the company’s self interest, values the profitability of GSK above human life, ethics and morality. That is the essence of his several minutes of uncomfortable avoidance in this fascinating interview.  Our lives mean nothing to him, he more or less said that in this interview. He said it’s “kind of unavoidable’.  What’s unavoidable? That people get killed and damaged? What is he saying- “tough shit- your life means nothing?” What’s unavoidable Andrew? That you corrupt psychiatrists, doctors? That your company lies about side effects of its drugs which leads to deaths?

He sees us (the public) as collateral damage. That much is clear.

As one of the direct casualties of GSK’s defective and dangerous drugs (Seroxat), I have to admit, I find it satisfying to see the CEO responsible for Seroxat, asked uncomfortable questions about GSK’s criminal behavior. His responses though, could be perceived as a master-class in how to avoid and deflect uncomfortable questions, however, despite his obvious skills in avoidance I think Witty comes across very badly in this video clip for a number of reasons.

His body language speaks volumes, when asked the first uncomfortable question at the beginning of this video, and when it’s obvious that the tone of the interview is about to change dramatically, Witty suddenly looks visibly annoyed, tense, fidgety, and uncomfortable. His squirming demeanor, followed by a big gulp, bowed head, contortions in his seat, and shameful expression, speak to me of a man who knows exactly how badly his company has behaved. I’d say he knows it all too well.

Nevertheless, this doesn’t stop him doing what he is paid (millions of pounds) to do: defend the company at all costs.

This is his own personal, ethical and moral weakness (he just doesn’t realize it).

(You’re defending the indefensible Witty- you sold your soul to GSK in 1985).

I don’t think that Witty was successful at all in this interview.

He doesn’t seem to realize that ‘normal’ (non sociopathic) people find it disturbing when they hear people trying to attempt the defend the indefensible.

I think he would have been better off being humble and apologizing for GSK’s widespread and well known criminality over the decades. Trying to pretend it didn’t really happen and is all just some kind of misconception is just an insult to people, we all know it did, there are hundreds documents and articles online, and on this blog, which detail GSKs vast and extensive criminality. People aren’t stupid, and the internet has documented all of GSK’s behavior now, no amount of deflection can argue with the facts…

The second video is taken from a recent interview from an Australian news piece with Jon Jureidini, a child psychiatrist from the university of Adelaide, who was also part of a RIAT team who re-assessed a GSK study (study 329) which came to the conclusion that GSK’s Seroxat (Aropax/Paxil) drug has harmed (and killed) many thousands of teens since it was first pushed on kids in the late 90’s.

GSK’s corporate spokesperson, Bernadette Murdoch, seems to have no problem coming out in defense of the indefensible. Similar to Witty, she tries to muddy the water with red-herring statements that are both meaningless, and also an insult, to all those who died, or were harmed, by GSK’s Seroxat (Paxil/Aropax) drug over the past few decades.

I’ve said it before, and I’ll say it again…

How do these corporate executives sleep at night?

Are they just sociopaths?

Do they not possess consciences?

(Kudos To Bob Fiddaman Of Seroxat Sufferers Blog for finding this video – see his post on it here)


For Recent news on GSK’s Dangerous Seroxat drug see here-

http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/sep/16/seroxat-study-harmful-effects-young-people

“This is a very high rate of kids going on to become suicidal. It doesn’t take expertise to find this. It takes extraordinary expertise to avoid finding it.”

In an article published with the re-analysis, Peter Doshi, associate editor of the BMJ, said the new paper “has reignited calls for retraction of the original study, putting additional pressure on academic and professional institutions to publicly address the many allegations of wrongdoing.”

He said few trials had been as controversial as study 329, whose lead author was Martin Keller from Brown University. In 2002, the year after its publication, the US Food and Drug Administration said it should be considered a failed trial because the depressed adolescents taking the drug did no better than those on placebo.

In that same year, more than two million prescriptions for paroxetine were written for adolescents and children in the United States, on the back of an advertising campaign which claimed the trial had shown “remarkable efficacy and safety”.

GSK was fined $3bn in 2012 for fraudulently promoting the drug.


For further reading on GSK’s China bribery scandal see here-

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-29274822

China has fined UK pharmaceuticals firm GlaxoSmithKline $490m (£297m) after a court found it guilty of bribery.

The record penalty follows allegations the drug giant paid out bribes to doctors and hospitals in order to have their products promoted.

The court gave GSK’s former head of Chinese operations, Mark Reilly, a suspended three-year prison sentence and he is set to be deported.

Other GSK executives have also been given suspended jail sentences.


Peter Humphrey (Freed Investigator In GSK China Corruption Scandal) Speaks Out..


http://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-33490446

Investigator Peter Humphrey warns over GSK China ordeal

  • 1 hour ago
  • From the section China
Peter Humphrey: “We are pursuing justice not revenge.”

It’s exactly two years since the door of Peter Humphrey’s Shanghai bedroom was kicked in by police and he disappeared into a prison nightmare which ended only three weeks ago with his deportation from China.

In an exclusive interview with the BBC, the British corporate investigator who became embroiled in GlaxoSmithKline’s (GSK) China corruption scandal tells me his story is “a cautionary tale which many people can learn from”.

The risks of doing business in China, he says, are “on the same scale as the opportunities”, and governments, including the British government, “have not been doing a very thorough job of making business understand the risks”.

“Absolutely any company going to China could be the next party to suffer our fate if they fail to understand this,” he says.

The fate suffered by Peter Humphrey and his wife Yu Yingzeng was to spend two years in squalid and crowded jail cells, to be denied urgent medical attention and to be separated from each other and from their son. The corporate investigator says it was both a shattering experience and a miscarriage of justice.

“None of our staff did anything illegal,” he told me. “We engaged third parties to help us with some parts of our work. We always instructed them to follow legal means but had no control over the methods they used.”

So why the prosecution and the prison term?

“It doesn’t stack up at all when you analyse our case and the GSK case on the basis of the information you have. It doesn’t stack up at all.”

Peter Humphrey was convicted in 2014

The couple were corporate investigators who became embroiled in a Chinese police investigation of corruption at GSK. The British pharmaceuticals giant had bribed Chinese doctors and hospitals to buy its medicines.

Mr Humphrey and his wife were in no way implicated in that corruption, but had been hired by the company to investigate the source of a secretly filmed sex video of GSK’s top boss in China and of whistleblower emails sent to company headquarters in London.

“I believe we were collateral damage in a wider dispute between a company and the authorities which led to us being dragged in,” he said.

Even now, Peter Humphrey is reluctant to discuss the details of the GSK case or of his relationship with his former client. Asked why, he tells me:It’s not impossible that we may sue some of these parties or through other means try to seek redress.”

Corruption crackdown

He says he watched the TV coverage of the GSK trial from his Shanghai prison cell. The company was found guilty of systematic bribery and fined £300m. He was shocked by the contrast between his punishment and theirs.

“Suspended jail sentences for three or four of the main culprits when I and my wife had been sentenced to years in prison,” he says.

“Someone asked me recently why someone like Mark Reilly (GSK China’s boss) could be set free and we were in jail. I think it’s very simple, we don’t have half a billion dollars. That story was about money from the beginning. Money got them into trouble and money got him out.”

The events which led to these trials took place in the early part of 2013 when China’s new President Xi Jinping had just declared nationwide campaigns against corruption and for the rule of law.

Peter Humphrey says that at the time he welcomed these developments: “We felt hopeful that a new era with a genuine crackdown against corruption, had arrived.

“What we were doing for companies in the private sector was very similar to what the government now seemed to be doing in the public sector. Unfortunately though, when such a crackdown is driven in a sort of campaign style, throughout China’s history in the past 60 or 70 years, we have seen that campaigns are often taken advantage of and used to conduct personal vendettas and I think that’s what happened to us. Someone took offence and then orchestrated an act of personal revenge.”

Peter Humphrey and Yu Yingzeng said they had backed the crackdown on corruption

Having been deported from China, Peter Humphrey does not know whether he’ll ever be able to go back. His two years in prison do not erase his 40 year affection for the country.

“I love China. I love the Chinese people I’ve known over the years. I’ve had many positive memories and experiences. This does not erase them,” he says.

But once the investigator, always the investigator. From a world away in south-east England, Peter Humphrey needs to focus first on getting the medical treatment that he was denied in prison. But he is also determined to work out exactly what triggered his two year nightmare in Shanghai.

“I and my wife are not vengeful people. But we are angry because an injustice occurred. We are pursuing justice not revenge,” he adds.

How the case unfolded:

  • January 2013: Email alleging bribery sent to GSK boss, followed in March by sex tape featuring China chief Mark Reilly
  • April 2013: Peter Humphrey’s company ChinaWhys by GSK hired to investigate
  • June 2013: Mr Humphrey delivers his report to GSK
  • July 2013: China announces investigation into GSK China, police detain four Chinese GSK employees
  • August 2013: Mr Humphrey and his wife arrested for allegedly buying and selling personal information
  • May 2014: Chinese authorities accuse Mr Reilly of overseeing bribery network
  • August 2014: Mr Humphrey and his wife go on trial and are convicted
  • June 2015: Peter Humphrey and Yu Yingzeng are freed early from prison