Tagged: GSK

Australia Sues GSK Over Misleading Marketing Of Pain Gels…

So now GSK have moved some of their unethical marketing practices down under it seems..

Investigated for 4 years over Seroxat harming kids in the UK, and a an ongoing serious fraud office investigation there too (and accusations of fraud in several middle eastern countries and eastern European ones)- not to mention being fined 500 dollars in the biggest bribery scandal in China in 2014, and also their 2012 fine of 3 Billion in the US (biggest health care fraud of the time) it seems that GSK has now turned to the countries of the southern hemisphere to continue its fraudulent practices?…

Fair play to Australia for not tolerating GSK’s nefarious conduct..



Australia sues GSK and Novartis over ‘misleading’ marketing Watchdog takes local units to court in crackdown on pharmaceutical sector

Australia’s consumer watchdog is taking the Australian subsidiaries of GlaxoSmithKline and Novartis to court over alleged false or misleading marketing of their pain relief gels. The action is part of a crackdown on “misleading representations” across the pharmaceutical sector by the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission. Last year Reckitt Benckiser, the UK consumer goods group, was fined a record A$6m by an Australian court for making misleading claims about Nurofen, the pain relief drug.


The ACCC’s case against GSK and Novartis centres on what it alleges are “false or misleading representations” claims in the marketing of Voltaren Osteo Gel and Voltaren Emulgel pain relief products. It alleges the companies marketed Osteo Gel as specifically formulated for treating osteoarthritis conditions and more effective than Emulgel, when the products had identical formulations. “We allege that consumers are likely to have been misled into purchasing Osteo Gel thinking that it is different to Emulgel and more effective for treating osteoarthritis conditions, when this is not the case,” said Rod Sims, ACCC chairman. The ACCC found that Osteo Gel was “sold at a significant price premium to Emulgel”, and alleges that the companies engaged in a deliberate commercial strategy to differentiate the products in a manner to mislead consumers. In price sampling at supermarkets and pharmacies, the ACCC found that Osteo Gel cost as much as 33 per cent more than Emulgel.

“The alleged conduct is particularly concerning, given the significant penalties handed down by the court against the makers of Nurofen for what we consider to be similar conduct,” said Mr Sims. Last year the ACCC successfully sued Reckitt Benckiser for misleading consumers over Nurofen’s painkilling effects, in a legal case and penalty that represented a blow to pharma groups that use branding and marketing to increase sales of medicines. Days after the Australian court ruling, the British Advertising Standards Authority began its own investigation into the marketing of Nurofen in the UK. GSK said it was disappointed by the ACCC legal action.

“Our intention in marketing certain products around symptoms is to help consumers choose a product containing an appropriate active ingredient for their condition from the vast array of options available,” it said in a statement.

“In response to new guidance from the ACCC around expectations of industry regulators and consumers, we proactively made changes” to the packaging of Voltaren Osteo Gel to make it clearer that the formulation is the same as Voltaren Emulgel, GSK added. “We continue to co-operate with the ACCC.” GSK acquired Novartis’s Voltaren products in 2016 and has since been responsible for marketing and selling the products. Novartis said it was aware of the proceedings but directed queries to GSK. “As the ACCC has stated, in 2016 GSK acquired Novartis’s portfolio of Voltaren products and has been responsible for marketing and selling Voltaren products since that time,” Novartis said. The ACCC is seeking declarations, injunctions, pecuniary penalties, a publication order, a compliance programme and costs against the companies.



More News On GSK’s Tafenoquine…

Dr Jane Quinn has done research into antimalarials drug like mefloquine.
Dr Jane Quinn has done research into antimalarials drug like mefloquine.

Dr seeks review into ruling about antimalarial drugs

AN INDEPENDENT statutory body will review a Repatriation Medical Authority ruling that there is insufficient evidence controversial antimalarial drugs cause chronic brain injury.


The Federal Government’s Specialist Medical Review Council has confirmed it has been asked to review the RMA’s August ruling against establishing Statements of Principles (SoPs) in respect of “chemically acquired brain injury caused by mefloquine, tafenoquine or primaquine”.

SoPs are used in determining claims for liability for injuries, diseases and deaths under federal legislation.

Neuroscientist Dr Jane Quinn applied for the council review, which must be made within three months of an RMA decision.

Dr Quinn said she sought the review as she felt the original RMA investigation was “fundamentally flawed”.

“The way the original investigation had been worded made it very difficult for evidence to be provided,” she said.

“If SoPs can be established, it provides an avenue for people to be recognised, compensated and treated for a condition they believe they have.”

Mefloquine has been banned for use by soldiers in Germany and the US Army Special Operations Command.

It is also a drug of last resort in Australia, the US, UK and most recently Canada. Tafenoquine, which has been trialled on Defence personnel, is yet to be approved by the Therapeutic Goods Administration.

The two drugs and primaquine were given to Australian soldiers in a number of trials between 1999 and 2002.

The medications have been the subject of claims from veterans that they are linked to acquired brain injuries and chronic mental illness.

Last month, Anthony Cole, a former Irish army sergeant, sued the State in the High Court of Ireland as a result of lasting side effects he claimed to have suffered from taking mefloquine.

British newspaper The Sunday Times reported on Sunday that Mr Cole received a “significant payment” but there was no admission of liability, and the settlement involved withdrawing any claim relating to the Defence Force’s choice of mefloquine as the antimalarial drug for soldiers.

Mr Cole reportedly did not withdraw his claim that the drug had caused long-term psychological damage.

Dr Quinn said the Irish case set a legal precedent.

“If we’re having people have claims accepted for the DVA equivalent in America and now there has been the successful court ruling in Ireland, it would be a very sensible approach to use the instruments the Australian Government has to provide people with appropriate treatment and care rather than go down the path of litigation,” Dr Quinn said.

For advice on the preparation of written submissions contact the Council Secretariat on 3223 8840, or via the website http://www.smrc.gov.au.

Pandemonium And Pandemrix

Seroxat/Paxil, Avandia, Myodil, Pluserix, Lotronex, Cervarix, Tafenoquine….All GSk Drugs Not Adequately Tested Before Harming Consumers.. Pandemrix Is Just Another Of A Long Line Of GSK’s Dodgy Drugs…


Pandemonium and Pandemrix

November, 27, 2017 | 2 Comments

This Is Why We Blog..





How many people have been harmed, maimed or killed from GSK bribing doctors to prescribe drugs off label for conditions that they were never intended to treat ?

How many people died because of this?

Avandia and Paxil alone.. likely killed thousands… tens if not hundreds of thousands..

Don’t ever forget GSK Whistle-Blower Greg Thorpe’s Department of Justice complaint against GSK in 2012…





Conflicts Of Interest, Revolving Doors- The British Lords And Peers With Shares In GSK And Other Pharmaceutical Companies..


“….On Wednesday 8 November Theresa May’s government quietly made a new appointment to its ranks. But far from being an independent adviser, the person has come straight from one of the largest corporations on the planet. And to make matters worse, it is the second government appointment from this company in the space of a week.

The government’s latest crony

The government has made Dr. Patrick Vallance its new Chief Scientific Adviser.

But Vallance’s CV offers another reason for his appointment. Because he is currently President of Research and Development (R&D) at pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK); having joined the multinational in 2006, he was appointed to its Board in January. And Vallance is the second government appointment from GSK in the space of a week.

Oh! You as well?

On 3 November, Sir Andrew Witty received the appointment of Chair of the NHS’ new Accelerated Access Collaborative, a programme designed to “speed up the time it takes for patients to benefit from ground-breaking products”. The programme will accelerate the time it takes new drugs to get from laboratories like GSK’s to the NHS. Witty was CEO of GSK from 2008 until March this year, and he now sits as a Director of private healthcare company UnitedHealth. UnitedHealth was NHS England boss Simon Steven’s former employer.

Both appointments come at a time when GSK is supposedly refocusing on R&D. As This Is Money reported, its new Chair Emma Walmsley:

….is spearheading efforts to cut costs and concentrate on research into new drugs. Glaxo has lagged behind competitors in developing so-called ‘blockbusters’…

A history of controversy

But GSK has a history of controversy. As Martin Williams notes in his book Parliament Ltd [p28]:

In 2012 the drugs giant admitted bribing doctors and encouraging the use of unsustainable antidepressants for children. In the largest fraud settlement in US history, GSK agreed to pay out £1.9bn.

And as he also pointed out [p28]:

However, sixteen [House of Lords] peers still have a stake in the company, worth a minimum combined total of £800,000.

I’ve already covered some of this ground with my “Creepy Corporate Capture Our Culture’ Post, but as I mentioned in that post- the revolving doors of GSK and the UK government are the tip of the iceberg. When it comes to just how much this coporate takeover of our lives is undermining democracy and the rights of the public, consumers, and patients, GSK and the pharmaceutical industry are at the forefront of this disturbing trend.

If you’ve ever wondered why GlaxoSmithKline gets away with its abuse of corporate power (particularly in the UK), and its consistent harm to patents and consumers with dodgy drugs (like Seroxat), you need look no further than the declared interests of the United Kingdom’s House Of Lords.

Most of the members of the house of Lords have shares in pharmaceuticals or health care companies; including of course- many with shares in Glaxo. The house of Lords has the power to amend or reject bills that pass through the UK parliamentary system, and the individual members themselves usually have a lot of political, business and social clout in UK society.  The Lords might not have the power to govern directly with their limited powers in the House, however they still have a lot of sway. Their inherited peerage is in itself -symbolic- of the power that they hold from birth in the UK.

According to an article (quoted above) from the Canary website- the combined shares in GSK, declared by the UK peers in the house of lords amounts to 800,000 pounds (in 2012), however this is – again- the tip of the iceberg….

Read the (over 1000) blog posts I have correlated over ten years and feel your jaw drop at the shocking behavior of GSK over the past ten years…

With the backing of such wealthy and powerful government figures, and institutions, is it no wonder that GSK operate above the law?


BaronessLord Tim BoswellNoakes

Big thanks to –


Monday, 12 March 2012

Conservative Lords and their financial links to companies involved in private healthcare

This is a list of Conservative Lords who all have financial links to companies involved in the private healthcare industry. There are 62 of them out of a total of 217 peers who have these interests, which amounts to 28%. This represents at best a conflict of interest and at worst institutional corruption. They should not have been allowed to vote on the Health and Social Care bill with such interests, and reform of the Lords must take place to prevent this happening in the future.

After all if you are a councillor at local government level with financial interest or a partner with financial interest, then they must declare a prejudicial interest, then they must leave the room and take no further part in discussions or voting. In many cases this is left down to the discretion of the elected member but with the knowledge that this will be challenged somewhere down the line. Why are the Lords not treated in the same way?

The interests in private healthcare range from having shares in companies set to benefit from the bill they are voting from, being chairman, advisors of healthcare companies and getting the company in a position to benefit from the NHS privatisation. Some work as advisors for investment companies that heavily invest in companies that will benefit from the bill. Others are directors of companies that are in direct competition to the NHS. Some have donated to the Conservative party, and in fact that is why one of them was made a Lord. They represent a merry-go-round of self-interest, viewing an NHS developed by public money since its inception, they simply want to hand it over to the corporations they work for. They are corporate servants, make no mistake about that, and won’t stop unless they are made to.An e-petition has been set up which is here – http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/31991 – if you can please sign it to stop Lords voting on their own interests, this would go some way to prevent their behaviour.

  1. Lord Ashcroft: Conservative benches and funder – Until 2010, held investments in two private healthcare groups. Has voted in 16.33% of of votes in the house, below average amongst Lords. Managed to Vote on key parts of the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Ashton– Conservative – Shares in Marsh Inc insurance brokers and in Zurich Financial Services AG – In a reviewfor the Department of Health of the NHS litigation Authority – written by Marsh Inc, it recommended involving opening up clinical negligence cover over to private insurers. Zurich Financial Insurers said they didn’t have the expertise but  the Marsh review envisaged opening up a dialogue which might eventually give them the information they needed. The DoH unsurprisingly accepted the large majority of Marsh’s recommendations. Lord Ashton also has shares in a private dental company called Smilepod Hygiene Ltd. Voted loyally on Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Bell: Conservative – Chairman of Chime Communications group, whose companies include Bell Pottinger, and whose lobbying clients include Southern Cross, BT Health and AstraZeneca. Tim Bell has a conviction for ‘wilfuly, openly and obscenely’ exposing himself ‘with intent to insult a female’ under Section 4 of the 1824 Vagrancy Act. For more on this delightful personality, which bears little relevance to the NHS but says so much about the character click here.If that isn’t enough then please click hereto see their attempts to work with the Ubekistan dictatorship. Has voted in 14.66% of votes, below average amongst Lords. Managed to vote on the Health and Social Care bill amendments.
  1. Lord Blackwell: Conservatives – Chairman of Interserve, consultancy to NHS and private healthcare firms. Involved in PFI hospitals – Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.

Quotes on bill: We are now 10 years further on from that and it is important that the changes are not lost in the voices that will always oppose changes that are necessary to reform the way that the NHS works. I hope that, while listening to those voices, the Minister can assure us that these essential reforms will be carried through and that the period of uncertainty for the NHS will not be any longer than it needs to be before we can get to the kind of reformed NHS that we all want to see.

  1. Lord Blyth of Rowington: Conservative – Senior adviser to ­investment bankers Greenhill. Former Boots Chemists deputy chairman.
Tory Donor. Stands to gain from the break up and privatisation of the NHS wants and would surely like to buy the Walk in Centres at an agreed cut-price with Cameron. Didn’t vote on bill.
  1. Lord Boswell– Conservative – Has shares in Reckitt Benckiser which produces drugs for the NHS amongst other health institutions. NHS is currently suing Reckitt Benckiser for £90 millionfollowing an investigation that ruled the company had abused its dominant position in the heartburn market. The company has just paid a fine for £10.2 million in 2010 following a ruling by the Office of Fair Trading which found them guilty of illegal anti-compative behaviour relating to their heartburn product Gaviscon. Lord Boswell’s shares have in brackets household part of the company, but in the end it is the same company. He also has shares in GlaxoSmithKline PLC pharmaceuticals. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Baroness Bottomley of Nettlestone: Conservative – The former Conservative Health Secretary Virginia Bottomley is a Director of BUPA, the health insurance, private hospital and care group.Voted on key amendments in of the Health and Social Care bill, despite having a below average vote turnout of 23.33%. Click here for more indepth look at why Baroness Bottomley shouldn’t have been allowed to vote.

Quotes on bill:  ‘I give this Bill an unequivocal and extraordinarily warm welcome.’  

‘It is romantic poppycock to think that the Secretary of State should be personally involved …’

  1. Lord Brittan – Conservative – Advisor to Teijin who are a conglomerate of global companies. One part of the business is the medical and pharmaceutical business group. Teijin Home Healthcare Limited supply products to the NHS and Teijin Pharma Ltd provides pharmaceuticals to the NHS. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Baroness Byford– Conservative – has shares in Reckitt Benckiser (personal care). which produces drugs for the NHS amongst other health institutions. NHS is currently suing Reckitt Benckiser for £90 million following an investigation that ruled the company had abused its dominant position in the heartburn market. The company has just paid a fine for £10.2 million in 2010 following a ruling by the Office of Fair Trading which found them guilty of illegal anti-compative behaviour relating to their heartburn product Gaviscon.

Shares in GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals which supply the NHS. Shares in Uniliver plc (domestic products) Unilever whose European venture capital arm Unilever Ventures joined with a company called Vectura to form a pharma arm to their company. Shares in Croda International plc which has a health division which products and has extensive links with the NHS. Voted loyally on the Health and Social care bill.

  1. Lord Carrington– Conservative – has shares in GlaxoSmithKline pharmaceuticals, suppliers to the NHS. shares in Unilever plc. Unilever has a European venture capital arm Unilever Ventures joined with a company called Vectura to form a pharma arm to their company.Although Lord Carrington’s shares are stated as being in household products, in the end it is the same pot. Voted loyally and managed to get into vote despite having just a 9.54% vote turnout record.
  1. Lord Chadlington: Conservative – Chief executive of Huntsworth communications group with several lobbying firms. Huntsworth Health chaired a meeting on commissioning on behalf of Healthcare Communications Association, a group whose members consist of PR agencies and pharmaceutical companies. Members set to make increasing profits from the Health and Social care bill.  Voted on key areas of the Health and Social Care bill. For more on Lord Chadlington and why he should be allowed to vote on this bill, click here.


  1. Lord Coe:Conservative – In February 2011 became Director of AMT-Sybex Group, IT supplier to the NHS. Same company that paid for a trip of former MP Robert Keys. A very low 8.21% vote turnout, voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Baroness Cumberlege of Newick: Conservative – Former Tory health minister, runs Cumberlege Connections, a political networking firm that works “extensively” with the pharmaceutical industry. Used to be non-excutive director of PR firm for healthcare huntsworth PLC, of which Lord Chadlington is Chief Executive.  Former executive director of healthcare consulting firm MJM healthcare solutions. Voted loyal on the health and Social Care bill, despite having a below average turnout.

Quotes on bill: ‘I applaud the flexibility of the Bill.’

  1. Lord Deighton: (New) Conservative – Shares in Synergy Pharmaceuticals, Inc – a biotechnology company.
  1. Lord Dixon-Smith– Conservative – has shares in Vodaphone group plc – Vodaphone produced a report by themselves, which showed how they can help drive efficiency in healthcare costs promoting the use of SMS texts which go via them and other mobile phone companies. South-Central ambulance service NHS trust have appointed Vodaphone UK as its communications partner. Voted loyally on Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Baroness Eccles – Conservative – Has shares in GlaxoSmithKline (Healthcare) – GlaxoSmith Kline. GSK is the UK’s leading supplier of COPD medicines. Voted loyally on Health and Social Care bill.

Quote on the bill. ‘My Lords, I am delighted to support this bill.’ ‘I hope that this bill will initiate a sea change in the way that we approach the nation’s health…’

  1. Lord Edmiston– Conservative – Shareholdings in Bupa Finance plc – a Bupa director is Baroness Bottomley– Bupa provides health insurance, private hospital and care group in direct competition with the NHS. Shares in Fidelity International Ltd, which acquired Telehealth Solutions Ltd in 2011 – Telehealth have partners in the NHS and private healthcare – and has several contracts with the NHS. Has won award for work in the NHS and telehealthcare is promoted by Andrew Lansley. Voted loyally on Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Feldman of Elstree– Conservative – Shares in BTG pharmaceuticals – BGT are a UK company that manages commercialisation activity in pharmaceuticals. BTG acquired Biocompatiibles in 2010. Biocompatibles supplies medical devices.  Voted loyally on bill.
  1. Lord Feldman– Conservative – Shares in Inverness Medical, now Alere, a global healthcare company who work with many PCTs including the ‘healthcheck programme.’ Voted loyally.
  1. Lord Fink– Conservative – Director of multiple companies including: The Global PR network Ltd, which covers the health and medical sector, in which he has shares. Chairman and Director of Zenith hygiene Group plc, an approved NHS supplier. Shares run independently by Lombard Odier the company in charge of his share portfolio include: Abbott Laboratories ltd (pharmaceuticals), Allianz SE, which offers medical insurance, Prudential plc, which offers private health insurance, Siemens AG, which supplies medical equipment to the NHS, Vodaphone group, South-Central ambulance service NHS trust have appointed Vodaphone UK as its communications partner. Voted loyally in the Health and Social care bill amendments.21. Lord Flight – Conservative – director of Investec Asset Management –

Investec Asset Management is a specialist provider of investment products and services. Their clients include healthcare and some of the world’s largest private and public sector pension funds, insurers and corporates, and range from foundations and central banks to intermediated and direct investors. Voted with the government on all key divisions of the Health and Social Care bill.

Chairman of Arden Partners plc who have invested in Deltex Medical Group. The company produce a telehealth product adopted by the NHS.

  1. Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: Conservative – Senior adviser to ­Evercore, bank involved in huge healthcare deals. Voted loyally on health and Social care bill.
  1. Lord Freeman: Conservative – The ex-health minister is chairman of the Advisory Board of ­PricewaterhouseCoopers, which claims to have “been at the heart of shaping ­[healthcare] reforms and working with clients to respond to the opportunities they present”. Director of Parity Group plc – Parity group plc won a contract with NHS direct to develop and support a new Health Information Search Portal for £1.4 million. Lord Freeman became non-executive chairman in 2007. Voted loyally on Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Garel-Jones: Conservative – MD of UBS bank, whose healthcare division earned the firm over $1billion since 2005. Voted on key dates of the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Glendonbrook– Conservative – Has shares in Ansell Ltd NPV (healthcare), Abbott Laboratories, supplies NHS with Lab equipment, reagents. Shares in Astrazeneca biopharaceuticals – The NHS is the primary customer for Astrazeneca medicines in the UK. Shares in GlaxoSmithKline Ord 25p (healthcare), GlaxoSmithKline (healthcare), Johnson & Johnson, which supplies the NHS. Shares in Novartis who threatened to pull out of the UK becaue the NHS safety trial rulesShares in Novo Nordisk (pharmaceuticals) supplies NHS, shares in Pfizer Inc (pharmaceuticals) supplies NHS. Shares in Serco group, which has multiple contracts with NHS including PFI hospitals. Shares in Siemens AG, which supplies medical equipment to the NHS. Shares in Smith & Nephew, hip-replacement and bandaging group. Unilver plc, whose European venture capital arm Unilever Ventures joined with a company called Vectura to form a pharma arm to their company.Voted loyally on the Health and Social care bill.

  2. Viscount Goschen– Conservative – is paid by though it doesn’t say in which capacity by Korn/Ferry International – is an international executive search firm – they run healthcare services – Among the diverse range of healthcare organisations they have secured and developed top healthcare executives are hospital systems, multi-specialty physician practices, pharmacy benefit management companies, long-term care/assisted-living companies, home health companies, healthcare associations, and other service delivery companies. Voted loyally on the Health and Social care bill.

Vanni Treves who is a director elect of Homerton Hospital NHS Trust, is also chair of Korn/Ferry International and Intertek Group Plc.

In 1993 when Virginia Bottomley was health secretary, Korn Ferry made the news when it was revealed Oxford Regional Health Authority forked out £30,000 to Korn Ferry to find its new £80,000-a-year chief executive; Oxford District Health Authority spent pounds £60,000 to get its new chief executive and director of finance; and Oxford Family Health Services Authority paid £30,000 for a replacement chief executive.

The worst thing about this particular case is that, for one of the posts, the company did little more than place an advert in newspapers and draw up a short list.’ No doubt Koln Ferry will be recruiting for the new NHS.  

  1. Lord Griffiths of Fforestfach: Conservative – Director of Goldman Sachs bank, provider of services to healthcare firms. Chief executive of Circle Ali Parsa was an Executive Director of Goldman Sachs –  Voted loyally on the Health and Social care bill.28. Lord Hamilton of Epsom– Conservative: Has a directorship with MSB Ltd (managing consultancy), who have NHS, Bupa and CareUK listed as their clients. Care UK chairman John Nash funded Andrew Lansley’s office. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.

Quotes: ‘My Lords, surely one of the problems of the National Health Service is the wall of money that was thrown at a totally unreformed NHS by the last Government? Do we not need management consultants now to show us the way forward on the savings that need to be wrung out of the NHS so that it can survive into the future?’ Hansard source (Citation: HL Deb, 13 February 2012, c556)

Earl Howe responded – Yes, we do, my Lords. Part of the benefit of the modernisation programme will be to streamline the architecture of the NHS.

  1. Lord Hayhoe – 
    Conservative – shares in Abbott Laboratories ltd (pharmaceuticals, and medical products) supplies NHS. Didn’t vote.

30. Baron Higgins of Worthing: Conservative – Holds in excess of £50,000 of shares in Lansdowne UK Equity Fund, backers of private hospital group Circle Holdings. Voted loyally.

  • Lord Hill– Conservative – Shares in  Huntsworth plc  – company funded the Conservative party – the founder and chairman is Lord Chadlington. Huntsworth gave £15,500 to the Conservative party in August last year and has given money every year since 2008.  Following the exposure, Huntsworth were forced to admit they had given money stating the money was given by buying tickets for ‘Conservative events’, a classic way for lobbying to take place.  Furthermore, Lord Chadlington, and his wife have personally given more than £20,000 to the local party since 2007, including a sum of £10,000 for his leadership campaign. Voted loyally.


32. Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts – Conservative – Chairman, Nova Capital Management – who own Accentus Medical and formerly owned life science company Sterilin Limited and healthcare call center services company notifymd.

  • Baroness Hooper: Conservative – Until July 11, chairman of Advisory Committee of Barclays Infrastructure Funds, one of the most experienced investors in hospital PFI deals. Voted loyally.


  1. Lord Howard of Lympne: Conservative – Senior adviser to ­Hawkpoint Partners, a corporate finance firm. Provide staff to NHS and Private Healthcare providers. Lord Howard replaced Douglas Hurd in early 2011, thus keeping the connection of influence in parliament. Andrew Lansley met Hawkpoint partners for dinner on 30th June 2011. What was said? Voted loyally.
    35. Earl Howe – was a patron of pro-market health think tank 2020health up until the election. The rules allow patronage without the need to register. 2020health have produced multiple publications sponsored by the likes of Pfizer, Tunstall and other healthcare companies. Hey have a membership list that is hidden. There are currently four patrons of 2020health – who all have healthcare links. For more on the Earl please click here.
  1. Lord Hunt of Wirral: Conservative – Partner in Beachcroft, a law firm that offers incisive analysis on the full range of government, parliamentary and regulatory matters in the health sector. Voted loyally.
  2. Baroness James– Conservative – has shares in AstraZeneca (pharmaceuticals). The NHS is the primary customer for Astrazeneca medicines in the UK. GlaxoSmithKline plc (healthcare) supplies the NHS. Shares in Reckitt Benckiser Group plc, which produces drugs for the NHS amongst other health institutions. NHS is currently suing Reckitt Benckiser for £90 million following an investigation that ruled the company had abused its dominant position in the heartburn market. Serco Group (business services), which has multiple contracts with NHS including PFI hospitals. Smith and Nephew (healthcare) supplies hip replacement and bandaging to the NHS. Shares in Vodafone Group (communications) – Vodaphone produced a report by themselves, which showed how they can help drive efficiency in healthcare costs promoting the use of SMS texts which go via them and other mobile phone companies. South-Central ambulance service NHS trust have appointed Vodaphone UK as its communications partner. Has a 10.34% voting turnout but managed to vote on a lot of the Health and Social Care bill amendments.
  1. Lord Lang of Monkton: Conservative – Director of Marsh & McLennan Companies that “help hospitals, insurers, pharmaceutical companies and industry associations understand the implications of changing policy environments”.Voting record is below average, but managed to vote on the Health and Social care bill amendments,
  2. Lord Lawson– Conservative – Chairman of Oxford Investment Partners whose investment management team ‘has more than 50 years of investment experience with a dedicated focus on communications, healthcare and sustainability.  Lawson once said ‘the NHS was the closest thing the English had to a religion’. Perhaps the closet thing the Lords have to a religion is money? Oxford Capital Partners invested £550,000 in Oxitec Ltd led investments in a number of science and technology companies including several spin outs from UK universities. Our current investment portfolio includes 8 university spin outs of which four are from the University of Oxford: Avidex (drug discovery); g-Nostics (pharmacogenetics); Oxonica (nanotechnology) Vote is below average – voted loyaly on the Health and Social Care bill.
  3. Lord Lloyd-Webber – Conservative – Shares in Catlin Group Limited, began writing Healthcare Professional Liability insurance in London in 1994. They offer extensive knowledge of medical, healthcare and pharmaceutical markets. Shares in Smiths Group plc, which produces medical equipment. Shares in AstraZeneca (pharmaceuticals). The NHS is the primary customer for Astrazeneca medicines in the UK. Shares in Gilead Sciences, a research-based pharmaceutical company, which supplies the NHS. hares in GlaxoSmithKline (pharmaceuticals), and Johnson & Johnson (pharmaceuticals), which both supply to the NHS. Standad life, which supply Private Medical Insurance plans to both corporate and individual customers and have an extensive range of healthcare products. Raffles medical group – operates a network of 74 multi-disciplinary clinics across Singapore. Shares in Stryker Corporation orthopedic market and is one of the world’s largest medical device companies. Has voted in 1.49% of votes in this House with this affiliation — well below average amongst Lords. (From Public Whip). Voted in the Health and Social care bill on commissioning.
  1. Lord Macfarlane: Conservative – Has shares in Prudential plc, which offers private health insurance. Shares in Aviva plc, which offers private health care. Shares in Smith & Nephew (Pharmaceuticals) hip-replacement and bandaging group.Has voted in 6.25% of votes in this House with this affiliation — well below average amongst Lords. (From Public Whip). Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Magan of Castletown: Conservative – Director of the SISK Group of healthcare companies. Member of the advisory board on Axa Private equity, which invests heavily in healthcare. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill
  1. Lord Maples – (deceased 9th June 2012) Shares in Berkshire Hathaway Inc the company run by Warren Buffet – the conglomerate invests heavily in private healthcare companies – 6 out of their 41 stocks are in healthcare. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Marland– Shares in Tristel Ltd plc – a leading provider of infection control products into the NHS. Shares in Jardine Lloyd Thompson plc – their website states ‘the placing and serving of healthcare insurance…is a specialist field in which we excel.’ Their insurance covers hospitals, Physician  cover, Clinics, Long-term care, allied health professionals and more. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord McColl – Conservative -was a paid a fee as a consultant to a new private healthcare company that provides a fee-paying rival to the National Health Service’s family doctor service.

Endeavour Health, which was set up by two hedge fund advisers, claims to be Britain’s first comprehensive GP network, offering access to the best doctors and the opportunity to beat NHS queues and have appointments at any time they want. Endeavour Health was founded last year by two financial advisers, Briton Yadin Shemmer and American Jonathan Weiss, to compete with the NHS. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6801270.ece– has since claimed no ties with the company. Voted loyally on the Health and Social care bill.

  1. Lord Moore:Conservative – Shares in Johnson & Johnson, which supplies the NHS. Merck & Co inc (pharmaceuticals, Novartis AG (pharmaceuticals), which supplies the NHS. Shares in BT group, which is one of the largest suppliers of communications to the NHS. BT was involved in the failed NHS computer system overhaul. Shares in Vodaphone group: Vodaphone produced a report by themselves, which showed how they can help drive efficiency in healthcare costs promoting the use of SMS texts which go via them and other mobile phone companies. South-Central ambulance service NHS trust have appointed Vodaphone UK as its communications partner. Has voted in only 14.53% of votes below average, but managed to vote on all the Health and Social Care ones.
  1. Lord Naseby: Conservative – Was until October 2011 Chairman of and a share-holder in Invesco Perpetual Recovery Trust. Trust voluntarily wound down on October 27th 2011 – One fifth of their investments were in pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
    Quotes on bill:‘I want to make it clear that I support the Bill. More importantly, I support the need for the Bill.’ 

‘Finally, competition is good for any industry…Competition gives people pride and responsibility.’

  1. Lord Nash: (New) Conservative – In November 2009, John Nash made a donation of £21,000 to then shadow health secretary Andrew Lansley, now Secretary of State for Health. Nash and his wife Caroline are regular Tory donors who have given £300,000 to the party since 2006. In August 2010 Nash was one of four City figures invited by UK chancellor George Osborne to join the HM Treasury Independent Challenge Group,

whose remit is to “question the unquestionable” in the Treasury’s austerity drive.

Until 2010, Chairman of Care UK, one of the leading private healthcare providers in the UK – he sits on the free market board of the Centre for Policy Studies who have produced several papers on dismantling the NHS and turning it into a health insurance system. His wife Caroline has made significant donations, giving £172,500 to the Conservative Party between 2008 and 2010. At least Lord Nash didn’t vote on the bill as he was made a Peer in January 21st 2013. However, despite these interests, he would still be allowed to for any future bill that is on healthcare.

Lord Nash was also a founder of City firm Sovereign Capital, which runs a string of private healthcare firms. Fellow founder Ryan Robson is another major Tory donor who has given the party £252,429.45. His donations included £50,000 to be a member of the party’s “Leader’s Group”, a secretive cash-for-access club. Sovereign Capital also back several healthcare companies. He also has shares in Aviva who do private health insurance. See article on Lord Nash.

49. Lord Newton of Braintree
: (deceased) Conservative – Advisor to Oasis Healthcare on dentistry and general healthcare matters. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.

  1. Baroness Noakes– Conservative – Shares in BT Group (communications), which is one of the largest suppliers of communications to the NHS. BT was involved in the failed NHS computer system overhaul. Shares in Astrazeneca (Pharmaceuticals) – The NHS is the primary customer for Astrazeneca medicines in the UK.GlaxoSmithKline (pharmaceuticals) supplies the NHS. Vodaphone Group plc, Vodaphone produced a report by themselves, which showed how they can help drive efficiency in healthcare costs promoting the use of SMS texts which go via them and other mobile phone companies. South-Central ambulance service NHS trust have appointed Vodaphone UK as its communications partner. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.

Quotes on the bill: I hope that other noble Lords will not encourage the Government to keep any limits which constrain the NHS from maximising its assets for the purposes of the NHS.’

  1. Lord Patten– Conservative –  Senior Advisor for Charterhouse Development  Capital Ltd – who purchased Tunstall for £510 Million in 2008. Tunstall are a Telecare provider. Tunstall provides services that allow the elderly to be able to be monitored remotely. Chief executive of Tunstall supported Andrew Lansley’s bill. Following the takeover in 2008, Tunstall were awarded a three-year contractfor services to NHS North Yorkshire and North. Tunstall have also been given a framework agreement to provide telecare, telehealth and telecoaching to NHS services, which forms part of Andrew Lansley’s vision for developing telecare across the UK. The framework agreement began on 16th of August 2010. Has voted on 27.52% of votes in the Lords, below average amongst Lords. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Patten of Barnes: Conservative – Adviser to private equity firm Bridgepoint. Has invested heavily in multiple private healthcare companies. Has voted on 7.54% of votes as a Lord but managed to vote on Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Popat – Conservative – Founder of TLC group Ltd who run private care homes. Lord Popat gave David Cameron a donation as a gift for £25,000 a week after the Conservatives’ unveiled their health ‘reforms’. David Cameron made businessman a peer shortly after getting into ten Downing street. Voted on the Health and Social Care bill loyally.
  1. Lord Ribeiro: Conservative – Adviser on hospital reorganisation to PricewaterhouseCoopers (PWC). PWC is heavily involved in consultancy services to the NHS and gets paid for setting up contracts amongst many other services. Voted loyally on Health and Social care bill.
  2. Viscount Ridley: Conservative – appointed February 8th 2013 – shares in Diageo plc (drinks) – (See Andrew Lansley) – Johnson & Johnson Inc (pharmaceuticals)
  1. Lord Saatchi– A partner and shares in M&C Saatchi plc – a marketing company. Involved in multiple campaign projects for the governement including the Change4Life project aimed at promoting healthier living to tackle obesity. M&C Saatchi also worked for PPP healthcare, AXA insurance. Saatchi have multiple pharmaceutical clients, including; Astrazeneca, Pfizer and Merck. There website says: ‘We transform raw data about life-changing brands into real meaning for healthcare professionals.’ Has voted in 15.33% of votes in the house – well below average. Voted on key parts of the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Earl of Selborne:Shares in Prudential, which offers private health insurance. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Sheikh:Chairman and director of Macmillan Sheikh plc – insurance and financial services which offers private health insurance – voted loyally on Health and Social care bill.
  1. Lord Sheppard– Has shares in Diageo, a drinks company who have been awarded money to teach midwives in England and Wales on the dangers of alcohol. No, you can’t make it up. Lansley used to hold a directorship at Profero who had Diageo as one of their clients. Didn’t vote.
  1. Lord Swinfen– Unpaid director of Swinfen Charitable Trust who have American Telemedicine Association as their partners for global crisis work using telehealth technology. Lord Swinfen is also an unpaid director of The American Telemedicine Association, which has multiple memberswho supply the NHS and private health care. The members according to the website: ‘Play a special role in shaping the future of the telemedicine industry. The American Telemedicine Association has written a new legislative proposal to the American congress to expand the use of telemedicine. Telecare is expanding throughout the NHS as a way of treating people from home. These companies that are part of the American Telemedicine Association are set to benefit. Voted loyally on Health and Social Care bill.
  1. Lord Tugendhat– Conservative: Shares in MetLife, which is America’s largest life insurance company also operates in the UK. It offers accident protection for clinical health care workers, to cover specified infectious illnesses contracted at work for those who work in the UK health care industry.It also offers health insurance. Set to benefit from the Health and Social Care bill. Has voted in 25.43% of votes in this House with this affiliation — below average amongst Lords. (From Public Whip) – Voted loyally for the Health and Social Care bill. Supported large chunks of the bill, but spoke out against the top-down re-organisation.

Quotes on the bill: ‘The Government’s mistake was to introduce a Bill that sought to impose a massive programme of management and structural change on top of an ambitious cost-cutting programme.’ Declared his interest as chairman of the Imperial College healthcare trust, but not of his shareholdings in MetLife. Adviser to Trilantic Capital Partners, a private equity firm “active” in healthcare. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.

  1. Lord Wade
    – Director, unpaid of RisingStars Growth Fund Ltd an early stage venture capital company – The fund prefers to invest in amongst other sectors, healthcare. Rising Stars Growth Fund invests in multiple healthcare companies that supply the NHS. Has voted in 28.33% of votes in this House with this affiliation — below average amongst Lords. (From Public Whip) Voted loyally.
  1. Lord Wakeham: Conservative – Advisor to L.E.K. Consulting, which specialises in helping private healthcare companies identify “growth and new business development” and “opportunities with the government”. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.

  2. Lord Waldegrave
    – Tory Adviser, UBS Investment Bank UBS bank, whose healthcare division earned the firm over $1billion since 2005. Fellow Tory peer Lord Garel-Jones is MD of UBS bank. Has voted in 7.88% of votes in this House with this affiliation — well below average amongst Lords. (From Public Whip) – Voted in key votes on the Health and Social care bill.  Director of Biotech Growth Trust plc – which is managed by Orbimed. OrbiMed is the world’s largest healthcare-dedicated investment firm, with approximately $5 billion in assets under management. Has just a 7.88% vote turnout, well below average but turned up to vote loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  3. Lord Wasserman– Conservative – Shares in Diageo plc a alcohol drinks company who have been awarded money to teach midwives in England and Wales on the dangers of alcohol. No, you can’t make it up. Lansley used to hold a directorship at Profero who had Diageo as one of their clients. Shares in Johnson & Johnson Inc, which supplies the NHS. Shares in Procter & Gamble Co, which supplies the NHS. Walgreen Company – American pharmaceutical company. For more on Walgreens. The bill will give pharmaceuticals even more diverse healthcare providers to build relationships with. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.
  4. Baroness Wheatcroft:Conservative: Business Consultant, DLA Piper (legal services) a global law firm providing lobbying services to “clients in the health and social care sectors”. DLA Piper, which advised ministers on the failed £12 billion IT project for the NHS. Member of the Advisory Board, Pelham Bell Pottinger (financial and corporate communications) – Bell Pottinger whose lobbying clients include Southern Cross, BT Health and AstraZeneca. For more on Pottinger see Lord Pottinger. Voted loyally on the Health and Social Care bill.

67. Lord Wolfson – Conservative – Shares in Cable & Wireless plc – Cable & Wireless solutions for the Health Sector are ‘intended to meet all the communications requirements of the health service, from the largest Trusts to the smallest GP surgeries. Some offer special features, and the service levels are available exclusively to NHS customers.’ The services have already been selected through the NHS procurement procedure. Voted on key amendments dates on the Health and Social Care bill.

68 . Lord Young – Lord Young is Director, shareholder and principal investor in TSSI security.  It supplies equipment to the MOD, the NHS, the General Medical Council, universities, pharmaceutical firms, banks and corporations. Its blue chip customer list includes the NHS with a NHS smartcard system. TSSI were responsible for the first ever electronic database of doctors. The NHS Occupational Health Smart Card Scheme (OHSC) was sponsored by the  Dept of Health and newly created NHS Employers in 2001.The scheme was expanded in 2005 to include graduating medical students and in 2006 trusts were able to update records without doctors having to present their smart cards. NHS Employers Guidance for doctors on Smart Cards:

TSSI clients include Ramsay Healthcare.

Chairman of Camcom Medical – which has moved into healthcare through medical manufacturing.

KYP Holdings ltd (Marketing) – ShareholdingsKYP is a global marketing company based in London, New York and China which only launched in 2005 but has major clients, some of which are in the healthcare industry. PR newswire statesKyp’s approach is grounded in consumer psychology and refined by creating custom solutions for an impressive list of leading brands including Procter & Gamble, AstraZeneca’. ‘Other shareholders participating included The Right Honorable Lord David Young of Graffham’.

Myodil Sufferer Derek Morrison Brings Vigil To Washington..

…“This dye was used in 107 countries. I believe 186,000 people were injected with Pantopaque in Australia, more when you take into account Myodil,” he says…



GSK’s Myodil scandal is horrific..

Please see Derek Morrison and his brilliant expose on GSK’s horrific X Ray dye..

Do you think Emma Walmsley, Andrew Witty or Patrick Vallance (GSK executives) give a damn about people like Derek?

Or do they give a damn about those dead from Seroxat or Avandia (other GSK drugs)…

I doubt it, because if they did they would do something!

Yet they don’t.. they just continue to pick up their GSK pay checks. Their GSK stocks and shares will make sure that they live a life of luxury while people like Derek’s lives are destroyed and ruined…



This is bigger than tobacco or asbestos.” On August 25th, 2017, chemically induced Adhesive Arachnoiditis (CIAA) sufferer Derek Morrison traveled alone from his home in Australia to set up a vigil in front of the White House, where he presented his disturbing findings from 25 years of historical medical research into the main cause of CIAA: an FDA-approved x-ray dye that was developed and tested under questionable regulatory procedures and then distributed, marketed, and used by doctors for decades on millions of x-ray patients who were never informed of the risk. This video is intended to raise awareness of CIAA and to invite public and official review of Derek’s research findings, which can be found at the following website: https://pantopaque.wordpress.com Please share this video! If just one person can learn about the source of their physical pain from watching this video, then you’ll have made a difference in the world. Thank you!!

Delving Into GSK’s Dexedrine..




“…..Dexedrine allowed me to zone out like no other drug did, not because it was better than cocaine….. but because unlike cocaine, it was legally sanctioned and morally sanctified—my teachers, many of my peers, and society at large approved of my addiction.

I’d gone through the medical establishment to get drugs, so I had a stamp of approval, a legal document that gave me permission to get high, mentally drop out of my life, and get a pat on the back in the process. That’s the perversity of prescription drugs

Dexedrine was a sign of my progress, not a sign of my demise.

Of course, beyond the buzz was something dangerous. Pain lurked right underneath the surface of my supposed OK-ness. As each pill started to wear off, I’d feel an immense, crushing sadness. It was part normal amphetamine withdrawal, and part realization that I hated my life….”

I don’t feel resentment over the years I was on speed because I know I’m in good company. I take solace in the fact that I’m not just a lost boy with a crisis in personal responsibility. I’m a statistic in America’s drug problem.

There was a 17 percent increase in ADHD prescriptions between 2010 and 2011. Now, one in five high school boys are diagnosed with ADHD. In 2011, 57 million prescriptions were filled for anti-psychotics, a scary class of psycho-pharmaceuticals that have been called “chemical lobotomies”, but which are increasingly used to treat depression (even though there’s very little evidence they work to treat depression). Over the last two decades, antidepressant use has spiked by 400 percent. One in five American women are currently on an antidepressant…..”

Excerpts taken from-

All My Friends Are Dead



Dexedrine is an ADHD drug manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline, and like most GSK drugs that we read about, it also comes with its fair share of controversy. I haven’t delved into it before, but the more I do the darker it gets.

I believe that a diagnosis of ADHD is a massive abuse of a child’s human rights. The majority of kids- at some point- become boisterous, or have phases when they are hyper. Sometimes this can be difficult for parents, but…

This is normal behavior.

What is not normal is the mass drugging of kids with psych-drugs.

I understand that some kids are hard to control, and are much more hyper than others, but is drugging them with a schedule II controlled substance like Dexedrine, for years of their childhood, not setting them up for failure? surely the side effects from an amphetamine like Dexedrine, and the damage it would cause over time, is seriously bad in the long run? And furthermore, how is a stimulant supposed to calm a hyper-active child?

It seems to me, that ADHD diagnoses could be one of the easiest conditions to mis-diagnose, as many kids could display these behaviors at any time; and in many cases, this passes like all behavior growing up does. Therefore many kids are being drugged unnecessarily and turned into addicts before they reach their teens. This is wholly wrong.

ADHD has become a catch-all diagnoses for psychiatrists who seem all to keen to get kids on to ADHD drugs. Of course this is a boon for the drugs industry, and like antidepressants, ADHD drugs are a big money spinner. It’s a scandal that’s worth drawing attention to, but I won’t go too deep into it with this post.

I have to admit, after blogging about Seroxat, and other GSK patient abuses, over the years, it’s often hard to shock me, but I was deeply disturbed when I read the PIL (patient information leaflet) of Dexedrine.

Bear in mind that this drug- GSK’s Dexedrine- is prescribed to (and marketed directly for use in) kids from the ages of 3 years to 5 years old, and also from 6 and over. It’s pushed on adults too of course- with the newer adult ADHD diagnosis: another boon for psychiatry and their drug company buddies. Imagine being put on a drug like Dexedrine from the age of 3? What kind of damage would that do to a person?

Read through Dexedrine’s horrific side effect profile (excerpts below), and ask yourself, do you think the CEO of GlaxoSmithKline- Emma Walmsely (apparently a mother herself) would allow her kids to take a drug like Dexedrine?

Would Walmsley prescribe her kids a drug that has bold warnings about its main side effect of SUDDEN DEATH?

Would she recommend Dexedrine (or Seroxat/Paxil for that matter) to the other mothers at her kid’s schools?

Does she even believe in the dubious ADHD diagnoses?

Does she think that it’s ok to drug kids with Dexedrine and Seroxat?

Does Emma Walmsley think that drugs like Seroxat and Dexedrine are appropriate drugs for anyone- considering  that both drugs have a vast and disturbing side effect profile listed in their PILS? (side effect profiles so vast that they would indicate that the risks clearly outweigh any perceived benefits).














Similar to Seroxat, Dexedrine has a huge side effect profile (see Seroxat’s massive side effect profile here). Like Seroxat too, Dexedrine, has also been controversial, particularly in terms of the warning of sudden death.

Back in 2006, the FDA forced GSK to put a Black Box Warning on Dexedrine because of this side effect. GSK’s Seroxat drug (Paxil in the US) also has a Black Box warning in America (mainly because Seroxat can induce suicide).

Both of these drugs harm kids. GSK is responsible for that.

Dexedrine was on the market, for GSK, since 1952, that’s a long time.

GSK first marketed Seroxat in 1991.

How many people has Dexedrine harmed, damaged or killed over the years?

As many as Seroxat perhaps? or maybe more..

Is anybody keeping count? does anybody even care?



Deaths force GSK to add warning to attention deficit disorder drug

The Independent Online


The US Food and Drug Administration has ordered GlaxoSmithKline to put a black-box warning on its Dexedrine drug for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder to alert doctors and patients to the risk of heart problems and psychotic behaviour.

The FDA said there had been reports of sudden death caused by stimulant treatment in children and adolescents with serious heart problems. The new labels will also alert patients to the risk that pre-existing psychotic disorders, such as bipolar illness, may be exacerbated. New psychiatric symptoms such as hallucinations can also emerge.

The FDA decided in May that all manufacturers of ADHD drugs should update their warnings about the risks they carry. This affects Novartis’s Ritalin, Shire’s Adderall XR, Eli Lilly’s Strattera and Johnson & Johnson’s Concerta.

GSK wrote a Dear Doctor letter advising US practitioners of the changes in the labelling of Dexedrine. The letter was published on the FDA’s website on Monday. Dexedrine is one of GSK’s oldest drugs, having been launched in 1952. The company said it had a 0.8 per cent share of the American ADHD market. “It’s a really small part of our business,” a spokeswoman said.

Ritalin also hit the market in the 1950s and is used by 8.4 million patients a year worldwide. “It is not one of our top 10 products,” a Novartis spokeswoman said.

Its smaller rival, Shire, relies on Adderall for much of its growth. It captured a record 26 per cent of the American ADHD market last year, with sales of $730.8m (£387.5m).

Five million Americans use ADHD drugs, 3.3 million of them under 19. FDA reports describe a seven-year-old boy who after taking ADHD drugs thought he saw people coming into his house and stealing presents



ADHD: A Destructive Psychiatric Hoax


Earlier this year, Alan Schwarz, an investigative reporter for the New York Times, published his latest book:  ADHD Nation.

The blurb on the jacket states:

“More than 1 in 7 American children get diagnosed with ADHD—three times what experts have said is appropriate—meaning that millions of kids are misdiagnosed and taking medications such as Adderall or Concerta for a psychiatric condition they probably do not have.  The numbers rise every year.  And still, many experts and drug companies deny any cause for concern.  In fact, they say that adults and the rest of the world should embrace ADHD and that its medications will transform their lives.

In ADHD Nation, Alan Schwarz examines the roots and the rise of this cultural and medical phenomenon: The father of ADHD, Dr. Keith Conners, spends fifty years advocating drugs like Ritalin before realizing his role in what he now calls ‘a national disaster of dangerous proportions’; a troubled young girl and a studious teenage boy get entangled in the growing ADHD machine and take medications that backfire horribly; and Big Pharma egregiously over-promotes the disorder and earns billions from the mishandling of children (and now adults).”

And who could argue with any of that?  But the blurb continues:

“While demonstrating that ADHD is real and can be medicated when appropriate, Schwarz sounds a long-overdue alarm and urges America to address this growing national health crisis.”

And there, of course, is where we must part company.

When I first read the jacket blurb, I was curious as to what kinds of arguments Alan Schwarz would marshal to support the contention that ADHD is “real”, and that it sometimes warrants “medication”.  And let us be clear as to the meaning of the word “real”.  Nobody is denying that inattention, hyperactivity, and impulsivity can be real problems.  The issue at stake , however, is whether it makes any sense to conceptualize this loose cluster of vaguely-defined problems as an illness.  Usually when people say or write that ADHD is “real”, they mean that this cluster of problems listed in the APA’s catalog (DSM) is a genuine, bona fide illness – just like diabetes; and that people who “have” this so-called illness must take their “medication” in the same way that diabetics must take insulin.  So, the promise on the jacket that Mr. Schwarz would demonstrate that ADHD is a real illness seemed significant, and as I said earlier, I was particularly interested in whether he had anything new to add to this debate.

Here’s the opening page of the Introduction.

“Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is real.  Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.

A boy who careens frenziedly around homes and busy streets can endanger himself and others.  A girl who cannot, even for two minutes, sit and listen to her teachers will not learn.  An adult who lacks the concentration to complete a health-insurance form accurately will fail the demands of modern life.  When a person of any age has a combination of these struggles—severely enough to impair his daily functioning—with no other plausible explanation for them, then he could very well have a serious, if still somewhat mysterious, condition that medicine has decided to call ADHD.

No one quite knows what causes it.  The most commonly cited theory is that the hypractivity, lack of focus, and impulsivity of classic ADHD result from some sort of dysfunction among chemicals and synapses in the brain.  A person’s environment clearly plays a role as well: a chaotic home, an inflexible classroom, or a distracting workplace all can induce or exacerbate symptoms.  Unfortunately, as with many psychiatric illnesses, such as depression or anxiety, there is no definitive way to diagnose ADHD, no blood test or CAT scan that lets a doctor declare, ‘Okay, there it is’—all one can do is thoughtfully assess whether the severity of the behavior warrants a diagnosis.  (After all, we all are distractible or impulsive to varying degrees.)  One thing is certain, though: There is no cure for ADHD.  Someone with the disorder might learn to adapt to it, perhaps with the help of medication, but patients young and old are generally told that they will deal with their abnormal brains for the rest of their lives.” (p 1)

And there is it.  Let’s take a closer look.

“Attention deficit hyperactivity disorder is real.  Don’t let anyone tell you otherwise.”

The reality or otherwise of “ADHD” is the fundamental issue of this entire debate, and it is clear from this opening statement that Mr. Schwarz has not approached this question with anything resembling the kind of open-mindedness that one expects from an investigative journalist.

But it gets worse.

“A boy who careens frenziedly around homes and busy streets can endanger himself and others.”

Mr. Schwarz is clearly trying to create the impression that this kind of behavior is fairly typical of children who “have ADHD”, and he is also pointing out that the behaviors are serious.  What he doesn’t mention, however, and perhaps isn’t even aware of, is that physically dangerous activity – including running “into street without looking” – was one of the specific criteria for ADHD in DSM-III-R, but was diluted to “runs about or climbs excessively” in DSM-IV.  And in DSM-5, the word “excessively” was dropped.  Here are the actual items from the three editions:

DSM-III-R (1987):
“(14) often engages in physically dangerous activities without considering possible consequences (not for the purpose of thrill-seeking), e.g., runs into street without looking” (p 53)

DSM-IV (1994)
Under the sub-heading Hyperactivity:
“(c) often runs about or climbs excessively in situations in which it is inappropriate (in adolescents or adults, may be limited to subjective feelings of restlessness)” (p 84)

DSM-5 (2013)
Under the sub-heading Hyperactivity and impulsivity:
“c.  Often runs about or climbs in situations where it is inappropriate.  (Note: in adolescents or adults, may be limited to feeling restless.) (p 60)

So, a boy who careens frenziedly around homes and busy streets would probably meet the standard in all three editions, but – and this is the critical point – there is no requirement in the latter editions of such extreme behavior to score a “symptom” hit.  Contrary to Mr. Schwarz’s implied assertion, a child does not have to engage in such extreme or dangerous behavior to meet any of the APA’s criteria for this so-called illness. And it needs to be noted particularly that since 1994, the only requirement under this item for adults and adolescents is that they experience feelings of restlessness!

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“A girl who cannot, even for two minutes, sit and listen to her teachers will not learn.”

How can Alan Schwarz – or anyone else, for that matter – deduce that a girl who doesn’t pay attention to her teachers, can’t pay attention.  This is an invalid inference, but is standard procedure in psychiatry.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“When a person of any age has a combination of these struggles—severely enough to impair his daily functioning—with no other plausible explanation for them, then he could very well have a serious, if still somewhat mysterious, condition that medicine has decided to call ADHD.”

This again is standard psychiatric patter:  the flaw is contained in the phrase “…with no other plausible explanation for them…”

Anyone who has had even the slightest experience working with children and families can attest to the fact that there are always alternative psychosocial explanations, if one is prepared to look for them.  The reality, however, is that within the practice of psychiatry, these alternate explanations are almost never sought.

And the reason they are not sought is because psychiatry has effectively closed the door on these kinds of deliberations.  Within the psychiatric framework, if a child (or adult) meets the arbitrary and inherently vague criteria listed in the DSM, then he has a brain illness called ADHD.  So the notion of even looking for psychosocial explanations not only doesn’t happen, but would be seen within psychiatry as ridiculous.

In real medicine, if a person has pneumonia, then that is the explanation of his persistent cough, nasty phlegm, weakness, etc..  The notion of a physician in such circumstances casting around for an alternative psychosocial explanation would be pointless.  Similarly, psychiatrists, firmly wedded as they are to their spurious illness perspective, don’t look for ordinary human explanations of the problems they encounter.  The difference, of course, between psychiatry and real medicine is that the latter’s diagnoses are indeed genuine explanations of the presenting problems.  In psychiatry, the “diagnoses” are merely labels that psychiatrists assign to the loose clusters of vague problems, and have no explanatory value whatsoever.

To demonstrate this, consider the two following hypothetical conversations.

Client’s parent:  Why is my son so distractible; why does he make so many mistakes in his schoolwork; why does he not listen to me when I speak to him; why is he so disorganized?
Psychiatrist:  Because he has an illness called attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder.
Parent:  How do you know he has this illness?
Psychiatrist:  Because he is so distractible, makes so many mistakes in his schoolwork, doesn’t listen when you speak to him, and is so disorganized.

The critical point being that in psychiatry, the only evidence for the “illness” is the very behavior it purports to explain.  In other words:  your son is distracted because he is distracted.

Contrast this with a similar conversation in real medicine.

Patient:  Why am I so tired; why did my temperature spike; why am I spitting up such dreadful-looking phlegm?
Physician:  Because you have pneumonia.
Patient:  How do you know I have pneumonia?
Physician:  Because I can hear characteristic sounds through the stethoscope; your chest X-ray shows large quantities of fluid in both lungs; your sputum labs are positive for pneumococcus; and because everything you have told me is consistent with this diagnosis.  I can show you the X-rays if you like.

In this conversation, there is no circularity to the reasoning.  The pneumonia is the cause of the symptoms and constitutes a genuine and useful explanation.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“No one quite knows what causes it.”

Well actually, lots of people know what prompts children to “careen frenziedly around homes and busy streets”.  It is very simply that the discipline and self-control to refrain from this kind of activity has not been instilled at an appropriate age.  And it’s not “somewhat mysterious”.  It’s something that parents and grandparents have been dealing with probably since prehistoric times.  And the same goes for the other ADHD behaviors, misleadingly called “symptoms” in the DSM.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“The most commonly cited theory is that the hyperactivity, lack of focus, and impulsivity of classic ADHD result from some sort of dysfunction among chemicals and synapses in the brain.”

And just when we thought that the long-discredited chemical imbalance hoax was about to die!  Mr. Schwarz seems unaware that most leading psychiatrists are at the present time busy distancing themselves from this particular inanity, which was a mainstay of the psychiatric hoax for decades.  The very eminent and highly prestigious Tufts psychiatrist Ronald Pies, MD has even gone so far as to claim that psychiatry never promoted this hoax – an assertion that adds an entire new dimension to academia’s allegorical ivory tower.

Then Mr. Schwarz gets to the point:

“Unfortunately, as with many psychiatric illnesses, such as depression or anxiety, there is no definitive way to diagnose ADHD, no blood test or CAT scan that lets a doctor declare, ‘Okay, there it is’—all one can do is thoughtfully assess whether the severity of the behavior warrants a diagnosis.  (After all, we all are distractible or impulsive to varying degrees.)”

So despite the earlier vagueness, and despite Mr. Schwarz’s condemnation of what he describes as the over-diagnosis of ADHD, he is clearly a firm supporter of psychiatry’s contention that inattention, impulsivity, and general gadding about constitute an illness, if the behaviors cross some ill-defined threshold of severity.

This is another of psychiatry’s core fallacies, routinely promoted, not only in the successive editions of the DSM, but also in the defensive writings of psychiatry’s most prestigious promoters:  if a problem of thinking, feeling, or behaving crosses some arbitrary and vaguely defined thresholds, of severity, duration, or frequency, it becomes, through some alchemy known only to psychiatry, an illness.  The fact that no organic pathology has ever been identified is of no consequence.  If the problem is severe enough, then it’s an illness.

And the reason for this travesty is that within the looking-glass realm of psychiatric diagnosis, the cause of the problem is irrelevant.  This is the essential point of Robert Spitzer’s phenomenological approach as embodied in his DSM-III and in subsequent editions.  Why a person exhibits a problem is of no consequence.  If, in the case, say of “ADHD”, a child is inattentive, overly active and impulsive to the degree specified, albeit loosely, in the text, then he has the illness.  Whether he emits these behaviors because of lax parenting, inconsistent parenting, indulgent parenting, sibling rivalry, emotional abuse, or some other cause, makes no difference to the “diagnosis”.  In marked contrast to real medicine, where diagnosis and cause are virtually synonymous, in psychiatric diagnosis, the cause of the problem is immaterial.  If the child emits the behaviors in question, for any reason or cause, then he “has the illness”.  The “illness” in fact is nothing more than the presence of the vaguely-defined problem behaviors.  There is no requirement of neurological pathology, nor any evidence that the behaviors in question entail a neurological pathology.  DSM-III describes this approach as “…atheoretical with regard to etiology or pathophysiologic process except with regard to disorders for which this is well established and therefore included in the definition of the disorder.” (p xxiii), which is not the case with ADHD.

Far from acknowledging the obvious dishonesty of this “atheoretical” approach, DSM-III-R actually makes of it a virtue:

“The major justification for the generally atheoretical approach taken in DSM-III and DSM-III-R with regard to etiology is that the inclusion of etiologic theories would be an obstacle to use of the manual by clinicians of varying theoretical orientation since it would not be possible to present all reasonable etiologic theories for each disorder.” (p xxiii)

In reality, however, by ignoring etiological questions, the APA created the context in which “mental disorders” could be created at will on the basis of any human problem, and these “disorders” could be, and indeed are, morphed readily into “mental illnesses”, and, of course, as we see in Mr. Schwarz’s text, neuro-chemical imbalances.  Psychiatry has conveniently abandoned the notion that new diagnoses must be grounded on proven organic pathology.  Real doctors discover new illnesses through painstaking research and study – often taking years or even decades.  Psychiatry just makes them up and confirms their ontological validity by a committee vote.

For decades, psychiatry, confident in the knowledge that few people read the DSM,  simply lied with regards to the absence of organic pathology.  They told their clients, the public, and the media the blatant lie that the “chemical imbalances” existed and were the cause of the problems.  And – the biggest whopper of all – that the drugs corrected these non-existent imbalances.  They also routinely asserted that their “patients” would in many (or perhaps most) cases have to take the drugs for life.  And here again, Mr. Schwarz follows his psychiatric mentors, lock step.

“One thing is certain, though: There is no cure for ADHD.”

Again note the dogmatic arrogance.  Children who are inattentive, unruly, disobedient, and disruptive to the inherently vague degree specified in the DSM are incapable of acquiring an age-appropriate level of discipline!  How in the world could Mr. Schwarz know this?  As early as 1973, Huessy, Marshall and Gendron (Five hundred children followed from grade 2 to grade 5 for the prevalence of behavior disorder, Acta Paedopsychiatrica, 39(11), 301-309), showed that hyperactivity is not a stable pattern across time.  There is also an abundance of research going back to the 60’s that demonstrates clearly that children who are habitually inattentive, impulsive, and hyperactive  even to an extreme degree, can be trained readily to behave in a more productive and less disruptive fashion.  In fact, prior to the mid-60’s, no such research was needed, because parents and teachers routinely and successfully trained children to control their movements, and to pay attention to their studies and to their chores.  Indeed, parents and teachers accepted that this was an intrinsic part of their responsibilities.  But in 1968, with the publication of DSM-II, psychiatry’s “top experts” decreed that these problem behaviors constituted an illness that required specialist attention.  This “illness” was labeled hyperkinetic reaction of childhood.  The description ran to four lines:

“308.0  Hyperkinetic reaction of childhood (or adolescence)*
This disorder is characterized by overactivity, restlessness, distractibility,
and short attention span, especially in young children; the
behavior usually diminishes in adolescence.” (p 50)

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

“…patients young and old are generally told that they will deal with their abnormal brains for the rest of their lives.”

Despite decades of lavishly funded and highly motivated research, and despite the numerous enthusiastic, and subsequently discredited, claims to the contrary, there is not one shred of evidence that people who have been given the ADHD label have any brain pathology whatsoever.  In fact, no edition of DSM, including the present DSM-5, has ever included any kind of brain pathology as a criterion item for this so-called illness.  DSM-5 does include ADHD in the Neurodevelopmental Disorders section, but all that this entails is that the onset of the problem was in the developmental period.  There is no requirement of neurological pathology.  “The neurodevelopmental disorders are a group of conditions with onset in the developmental period.  The disorders typically manifest early in development, often before the child enters grade school, and are characterized by developmental deficits that produce impairments of personal, social, academic, or occupational functioning.” (p 31)  Describing “ADHD” as a neurodevelopmental disorder strikes me as extraordinarily deceptive, in that most people would interpret the term “neurodevelopmental disorder” to entail some kind of neurological pathology.  What the APA has done here is convey the impression that there is a neurological pathology involved in “ADHD”, without having to produce evidence that this is the case.


Then Mr. Schwarz gets to the main theme of his book:  that ADHD is being grossly over-diagnosed, a theme incidentally that many psychiatrists have adopted in recent years in an attempt to rescue their crumbling profession from the criticisms of anti-psychiatry.  Watch how Mr. Schwarz does this:

“The American Psychiatric Association’s official description of ADHD, codified by the field’s top experts and used to guide doctors nationwide, says that the condition affects about 5 percent of children, primarily boys.  Most experts consider this a sensible benchmark.

But what’s happening in real-life America?

Fifteen percent of youngsters in the United States—three times the consensus estimate—are getting diagnosed with ADHD.  That’s millions of extra kids being told they have something wrong with their brains, with most of them then placed on serious medications.  The rate among boys nationwide is a stunning 20 percent.  In southern states such as Mississippi, South Carolina, and Arkansas, it’s 30 percent of all boys, almost one in three.  (Boys tend to be more hyperactive and impulsive than girls, whose ADHD can manifest itself more as an inability to concentrate.)  Some Louisiana counties are approaching half—half—of boys in third through fifth grades taking ADHD medications.

ADHD has become, by far, the most misdiagnosed condition in American medicine.

Yet, distressingly, few people in the thriving ADHD industrial complex acknowledge this reality.  Many are well-meaning—they see foundering children, either in their living rooms, classrooms, or waiting rooms, and believe the diagnosis and medication can improve their lives.  Others have motives more mixed:  Sometimes teachers prefer fewer troublesome students, parents want less clamorous homes, and doctors like the steady stream of easy business.  In the most nefarious corner stand the high-profile doctors and researchers bought off by pharmaceutical companies that have reaped billions of dollars from the unchecked and heedless march of ADHD.” (p 2-3)

But what Mr. Schwarz doesn’t mention, and perhaps isn’t even aware of, is that 69% of those “top experts” in psychiatry who “codified” the criteria for ADHD for DSM-5, and whose prevalence estimates Mr. Schwarz accepts implicitly, were also in the pay of pharma.

Nor does Mr. Schwarz seem to be aware that these same “top experts” who codified the criteria for ADHD have progressively liberalized the criteria for this so-called illness.  I have listed the DSM-IV (1994) relaxations in an earlier post.  The relaxations for DSM-5 (2013) were:

– the number of inattention “symptoms” required for adolescents and adults reduced from six to five (p 59)

–  the number of hyperactivity/impulsivity “symptoms” for adolescents and adults also reduced from six to five (p 60)

–  DSM-IV specified that some symptoms of ADHD had to have been present prior to age 7 (p 84).  DSM-5 relaxed this age-of-onset criterion to 12 (p 60).

It needs to be stressed that none of these relaxations were, or indeed could have been, based on empirical evidence or science.  There is no definition of ADHD other than that set down in successive revisions of the DSM.  The notion that the pharma-paid “top experts” compared ADHD-as-it-really-is with the description in the DSM, and found discrepancies, is simply not possible.  There is no ADHD-as-it-really-is.  There is no definition other than the one that the APA made up, and they can, and do, change it at will.  And, so far, the vast majority of the changes have been in the relaxation direction.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

And this is the central point.  To bemoan the over-diagnosis of ADHD is an empty, futile exercise.  Given the facts that:

– the criteria are impossibly vague and subjective, and
– pharma makes more money the wider the net is cast, and
– psychiatry shares in these profits through a variety of avenues, and
– the drugs are addictive, and
– schools receive additional funding for every ADHD child on their rolls,

“diagnosis” creep is inevitable.  “Diagnosis” creep is not some accident or some pharma-produced sabotage that has befallen psychiatry despite its best efforts to remain pure and undefiled.  “Diagnosis” creep is an integral component of the monster that psychiatry has consciously and deliberately created.  “Diagnosis” creep is an integral part of psychiatry’s expansionist agenda, and was facilitated enormously by Robert Spitzer’s atheoretical, phenomenological approach in DSM-III (1980).  Though, incidentally, in the case of “ADHD” it was occurring prior to 1980.  Here’s a quote from Ullmann and Krasner’s A psychological Approach to Abnormal Behavior,  Second Edition, (1975):

“The treatment of children who have received the label of ‘hyperactive’ has been a source of further controversy in both psychology and pediatrics…Drug therapy, particularly stimulants such as amphetamines, have become the popular form of treatment including up to 10% of all students in some school districts…” (p 496)

And even then, forty-one years ago, there were clear dissenting voices:

“The label plus the drug treatment brings the child into the mentally ill or sick category and the social and self-labeling that follow…The use of drugs enhances the belief in the efficacy of outside agents rather than attribution of change to one’s own efforts (an important element in the development of self control in children and responsibility in teachers).” (Op. Cit. p 497)

If should also be noted that the relaxation of criteria is not confined to “ADHD”.  DSM-5 also relaxed the APA’s definition of a mental disorder, effectively expanding the net for all their so-called diagnoses.

The definition of a mental disorder in DSM-IV (1994) was:

“… a clinically significant behavioral or psychological syndrome or pattern that occurs in an individual and that is associated with present distress (e.g., a painful symptom) or disability (i.e., impairment in one or more important areas of functioning) or with a significantly increased risk of suffering death, pain, disability or an important loss of freedom.  In addition, this syndrome or pattern must not be merely an expectable and culturally sanctioned response to a particular event, for example, the death of a loved one.  Whatever its original cause, it must currently be considered a manifestation of a behavioral, psychological, or biological dysfunction in the individual.  Neither deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) nor conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are mental disorders unless the deviance or conflict is a symptom of a dysfunction in the individual, as descried above.” (p xxi-xxii)

This definition can, I think, be accurately paraphrased as:  any significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving.  And indeed, it is extremely difficult to think of a significant problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving that is not listed within DSM.

The definition of a mental disorder in DSM-5 (2013) is similar to that quoted above, but contains additional verbiage, and one enormous relaxation of the definition.  To enable readers to judge this for themselves, here’s the DSM-5 definition:

“A mental disorder is a syndrome characterized by clinically significant disturbance in an individual’s cognition, emotion regulation, or behavior that reflects a dysfunction in the psychological, biological, or developmental processes underlying mental functioning.  Mental disorders are usually associated with significant distress or disability in social, occupational, or other important activities.  An expectable or culturally approved response to a common stressor or loss, such as the death of a loved one, is not a mental disorder.  Socially deviant behavior (e.g., political, religious, or sexual) and conflicts that are primarily between the individual and society are not mental disorders unless the deviance or conflicts results from a dysfunction in the individual, as described above.” (p 20) [Emphasis added]

The word usually on the fourth line expands the potential range of psychiatric “diagnosis” enormously.  One might even say that it becomes so wide as to embrace the entire population.  The point being that in DSM-IV, the problems had to reach a certain level of significance or severity.  But in DSM-5, that requirement was effectively dropped.  Admittedly, both phrases are vague, but DSM-IV’s requirement that distress or disability be present, is obviously a more stringent standard than DSM-5’s assertion that distress or disability is usually present.  In effect, the severity threshold has been abandoned, and there is a clear invitation to practitioners to assign “diagnoses” to individuals with increasingly milder presentations.  And it needs to be stressed that this change was not based on any kind of scientific information or discovery.  This change was simply a decision by the APA to expand the prevalence of their so-called illnesses to virtually everyone on the planet.  It also needs to be stressed that this is not an empty issue, but has already been implemented in the case of “ADHD”.  Compare the severity criterion for ADHD in DSM-IV with that in DSM-5:

“D.  There must be clear evidence of clinically significant impairment in social, academic or occupational functioning.” (p 84) [Emphasis added]

“D.  There is clear evidence that the symptoms interfere with , or reduce the quality of, social, academic, or occupational functioning.” (p 60)

Here again, both statements are vague, but significant impairment in… is obviously a tighter standard than interfering with, or reducing the quality of….

Given all of these considerations, it’s extremely difficult to avoid the conclusion that the APA not only supports the wide expansion of this so-called diagnosis, but has actively pursued and facilitated this expansion for decades.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 


 Mr. Schwarz has done a good job of exposing pharma’s tactics and strategies.  Although much of this story is well-known and has been told before, he does present the scam in a detailed and readable form.  He also addresses the problem of parents pushing to get their children “diagnosed” and on drugs, and the undeniable fact that people do become addicted to these products.  He also exposes the link between CHADD and pharma.

Perhaps now he can take a look at the even bigger scam:  psychiatry’s spurious and destructive medicalization of literally every problem of thinking, feeling, and/or behaving, including childhood inattention, impulsivity, and general lack of discipline.

Pharma does indeed push their products using very questionable methods.  But they couldn’t sell a single prescription for methylphenidate or for any other psychiatric drug without psychiatry’s bogus and self-serving “diagnoses”.  And they couldn’t have increased their sales to the extent that they did, without the commensurate relaxation of the “diagnostic” criteria, that psychiatry knowingly and willingly provided.  Bemoaning the use of hurriedly-completed facile checklists is empty talk, unless one is also willing to turn one’s criticism against the DSM’s equally facile “symptom lists”, of which the checklists are simply mirrors.

Psychiatry is nothing more than legalized drug-pushing.  There is not one shred of intellectual or scientific validity to their so-called taxonomy.  They invent these so-called illnesses to expand their turf, and then liberalize the criteria to expand it further.

Under the guise of medical care, they routinely rob people of their sense of competence, their dignity, and in many cases, their lives.  They have radically undermined the concept of success-through-disciplined-effort, and have ensnared millions of people worldwide in their ever-expanding web of drug-induced dependency and self-doubt.  They are not the thoughtful and expert codifiers of genuine illnesses, as Mr. Schwarz contends.  Rather, they are drug-pushing charlatans and hoaxsters who have systematically and deliberately deceived their clients and the general public to enhance their own prestige and their incomes.

If there was ever a subject that called for thorough investigative journalism, psychiatry is it.

About Phil Hickey

I am a licensed psychologist, presently retired. I have worked in clinical and managerial positions in the mental health, corrections, and addictions fields in the United States and England. My wife Nancy and I have been married since 1970 and have four grown children.



GlaxoSmithKline ranked worst in business group’s list of well run companies in the UK


GlaxoSmithKline ranked worst in business group’s list of well run companies in the UK

Drinks giant Diageo topped the Institute of Director’s ranking for good governance

Pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been ranked bottom in a list of the UK’s top companies for good governance. 

The owner of well-known consumer brands, such as Aquafresh, Horlicks and Sensodyne, came in at number 103 in the Institute of Director’s 2017 good governance report.

The IoD explained that GSK’s low ranking was down to its score in the audit and risk/external accountability category of the report, which had a strong weighting in this year’s overall ranking and was GSK’s worst score across the categories.

Rankings are based on 47 factors relating to how companies are run, including board diversity, directors’ pay, how long businesses have been with an auditor and whether they have a whistleblowing policy. The list included 103 of the largest companies.

A GSK spokesperson said: “We take our responsibilities with regard to corporate governance very seriously, particularly in areas such as executive pay, board governance, employee diversity, audit management and relations with external stakeholders. While there is always more we could do, we don’t recognise the conclusions of this work and will seek to understand the findings fully.”

The next lowest ranking businesses on the list were cruise company Carnival at 102 and security services firm G4S at 101.

Ken Olisa, deputy chairman of the IoD and chairman of the Good Governance Report advisory panel, said: “Corporate governance has rarely been out of the headlines since we first set about creating a way to rank the UK’s top companies’ performance in 2015, and with each scandal pressure grows for the imposition of tougher regulation along with calls to report statistics of dubious merit. This is the wrong approach. Corporate governance is about much more than compliance – it’s about achieving competitive advantage.”

The ranking is supported by the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI). Its director of policy, Estelle Clark, said the report challenges the assumption that corporate governance is solely a financial issue. “Corporate governance is much more than the narrow issue of executive pay and the misuse of zero hours contracts. Companies with potential governance issues will not find the remedy solely in the audit and remuneration committee.”

Drinks maker Diageo, which owns Guinness, Smirnoff and Johnnie Walker, was the UK’s top company for good governance.

Diageo was followed in the rankings by insurer Aviva in second place and engineering firm GKN in third. Also in the top 10 were Barclays, Smiths Group, Prudential, RSA Insurance Group, International Consolidated Airlines, InterContinential Hotels Group and Compass Group.

Across the 100 companies studied, IT firms underperformed compared to the average score, while energy businesses outperformed.

The size of the company seems to have no effect on the position of the 100 companies studied.

The IoD said its intention in producing the report is to encourage companies to consider a broad range of factors when doing a health check of how well their board and executive are functioning.

The report combines publically available data with over 2,000 rankings of the companies from people with knowledge of what good governance looks like, including members of the IoD and the CQI.

The number of measures the report examines was expanded for 2017 to give a more detailed view of how well a company works for shareholders, employees and customers.




Despite The Headlines.. Peter Humprey’s Legal Case Against GSK Is Not Over Yet..


U.S. judge dismisses ex-sleuths’ lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline


“….(Reuters) – A U.S. judge has dismissed a lawsuit by two former corporate investigators who accused GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK) of misleading them into investigating a whistleblower in China, leading to their arrest amid a bribery scandal involving the drugmaker…..”

If you happened to read this headline (above) by Reuters recently, you could be forgiven for thinking that Peter Humprey’s case against GlaxoSmithKline was finished at the first hurdle- however this is far from the case.  Peter -and Yu’s- legal cases are ongoing, and a number of points should be made about them- for the record.

There is a major inconsistency between the fact that the SEC and the DOJ can punish companies for bribery offences committed abroad under the FCPA, and the fact that this judge feels that a company can no longer be held to account under the RICO law in a US court for issuing criminal orders from its US and UK headquarters to its gang members in China to commit the offences against Humphrey and Yu that led to their imprisonment, orders which constitute racketeering and organised crime.

This first round ruling in Philadelphia only concerns the applicability of the jurisdiction of this particular court on these particular charges outlined in Humphrey & Yu’s writ. It should be pointed out that the order does not say that their allegations are untrue. It is also worthy to note that GSK has not denied the allegations of Humphrey and Yu. That is because it cannot refute the charges – it knows that they are true and can be proven. For that reason, it is trying to block a trial in open court and trying to force Humphrey and Yu to sue or arbitrate in China – knowing that legal action in China is impossible because Humphrey and Yu are banished (thanks to GSK) from that country and cannot pursue a case there, and knowing that Humphrey (thanks to GSK) is frail, having been denied medical treatment in captivity, which led to his cancer. And knowing that China would not allow such a court case anyway because it is too political for China’s communist dictators. As Peter has said in interviews, and as it well known anyhow- there is no rule of law in China. How cynical and callous can GSK get?

They have ruined the lives of Peter and Yu. This does not surprise me however, as I have documented thousands of lives ruined by GSK’s behavior over the past decade. This blog shows a history of GSK’s unethical practice, and it serves a purpose: to highlight the human collateral damage from GSK’s indiscriminate human rights abuses, and their flagrantly unethical and immoral actions in the pursuit of profits before human life. People’s lives have been destroyed, some people have even been killed because of GSK’s greed. Their behavior has harmed many.

Humphrey and Yu can and should appeal against this erroneous court ruling. Humphrey and Yu also clearly have options to use other venues for litigation and to pursue other charges in addition to those cited in their writ. They also have the option – not yet pursued -of suing individuals and not just the company.

Furthermore, there is also a much larger court than a court of law. That is the court of public opinion and reputation. In that greater court, we all know how GSK will be judged and condemned for its callous criminal behaviour. GSK have had decades of negative headlines, do they need more?

Humphrey and Yu obviously have masses of evidence that has not yet been presented to the public. We can only look forward to that coming out, while GSK must be nervous by that prospect and will not wish that evidence to be aired in any court at all. Who knows, they might even prefer to negotiate. Either way, it seems that these cases are far from over.

I wish Peter and Yu well in their fight against GSK (a deplorable company with absolutely no shred of human decency). See Greg Thorpe’s Department of Justice legal complaint against GSK from 2012 and read for yourself just how low GSK’s unethical behavior goes..



“No Smoke Without Fire” : GSK’s Controversial HPV Vaccine -Cervarix- Examined In New Documentary ‘Sacrificial Virgins’ .


The HPV scandal: pain and suffering for young women. Sacrificial Virgins II

 Launch of Pain and Suffering: part two in the trilogy of films, Sacrificial Virgins
 HPV vaccine is by far the world’s biggest source of vaccine adverse reactions
 Film uncovers reasons for HPV vaccine’s poor record
 YouTube: Pain and Suffering

October 05, 2017, London, UK. Press Dispensary. The HPV vaccine – one of the world’s most popular vaccines – is also the world’s greatest source of serious adverse reactions, on a different scale to any other mass-administered vaccine, according to a new film launched today on YouTube. Pain and Suffering, part two of the three-part series Sacrificial Virgins, examines why the reported number of adverse reactions associated with the HPV vaccine is so great, offering a shocking analysis of what may have gone wrong.

It is a medical scandal,” asserts the film’s writer and narrator, Joan Shenton. “The Human Papilloma Virus vaccine – or HPV vaccine – is in a class of its own when it comes to causing pain and suffering, and in Sacrificial Virgins we are asking why.

The vaccine is supposed to prevent cervical cancer in later life. In part one of our series, we lifted the veil on that claim. Now, in part two, we look at what adverse reactions really mean and uncover an appalling potential cause for them: replacing long established vaccine additives with new additives or new combinations of additives that have not undergone long-term safety trials.

The leading HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, are widely administered, often freely in schools or through national immunisation programmes. In the UK, the uptake in adolescent girls is well over 85%(1); in the US, it’s 60% of adolescent girls and boys(2). Japanese rates were comparable with the UK’s until the government suspended the programme in 2013 because of the number of adverse reactions(3).

There has been no such suspension in the UK, US or most countries. Yet UK government records, revealed in the film, show that in the years 2008-2014 reports of adverse events attributed to the HPV vaccine far exceeded reports for any other vaccine, including those on the most common mass vaccination programmes: by April 2017, such reports had reached nearly 9,000, including more than 3,000 “serious” reports(4). No other vaccine comes close.

Christopher Exley, professor of bioinorganic chemistry at the UK’s University of Keele, points to the manufacturers’ choice of new aluminium additives as the probable cause. For 90 years, aluminium “adjuvants” have been added to vaccines, to enhance the body’s immune response, but the formulations in both the leading HPV vaccines are not the traditional ones.

In the film, Professor Exley censures Cervarix for trialling its vaccine without including its new adjuvant mixture – “All of the safety trials for Cervarix did not use the mixture” – and Gardasil for using “a completely new aluminium adjuvant – one which has essentially not been used before.” Exley also criticizes the manufacturers of both vaccines for adding aluminium to the placebo group in their safety trials: “This is clearly crazy. This is clearly something which has been designed … so the whole vaccine looks safe.

Dr Christian Fiala, Viennese specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology, also censures the use of aluminium in the vaccine placebo groups: “This is what basically would be called cheating. In scientific terms, it is called bias.

Pain and Suffering shows how adverse effects can be fundamentally life changing, including severe neurological conditions. The film introduces two young women who suffered exactly such conditions shortly after receiving HPV vaccine treatments. Ruby Shalom, now 16, became almost entirely paralysed as a young teen after receiving her first HPV vaccine injection and Chloe Leanne Brooks became ill after her second injection at the age of 12: she too has suffered a form of paralysis and her condition has deteriorated to the point where, unable to eat, she is now wholly dependent on intravenous fluids, medications and her mother’s care.

Joan Shenton concludes: “There is no smoke without fire. These young women are suffering, like so many others. Society, as well as manufacturers and governments, have to ask if it is right to allow a vaccine which has not even been shown to be effective against cancer to continue to damage girls and young women.

YouTube: Pain and Suffering

– ends –

Notes for editors
(1) UK government report: http://bit.ly/HPV-UKgovt
(2) US government infographic: http://bit.ly/HPV-USgovt
(3) The Lancet: http://bit.ly/HPV-Lancet
(4) UK Secretary of State for Health: http://bit.ly/HPV-UKsecState

Sacrificial Virgins is a series in three parts written and narrated by Joan Shenton and directed by Andi Reiss. It is a co-production between Meditel Productions and Yellow Entertainment.

Part one, titled Not for the Greater Good, is now live on YouTube at http://bit.ly/SV-NotGood

Part three, A penny for your pain, will be launched soon and will look at the litigation around the world, including a potential game-changing class action in Japan.

A 30 minute version of Sacrificial Virgins will be presented to international film festivals, starting later in the year.

Joan Shenton has extensive experience of producing and presenting television and radio programmes, including many peak time network documentaries for the BBC, Channel 4, Central TV, and Thames TV.

Joan Shenton’s independent production company, Meditel Productions, has won seven television awards and was the first independent company ever to win a Royal Television Society Award for an episode of Channel 4’s Dispatches. It has produced eight network documentaries for Channel 4, Sky News and M-Net, South Africa on the AIDS debate. “AIDS – The Unheard Voices” won the Royal Television Society Award for Current Affairs.

The HIV/AIDS documentary film, Positive Hell, has won a wide array of film festival awards since 2015, most recently the Special Jury Prize for Global Social Impact at the prestigious Queens World Film Festival in Queens, New York. Like Sacrificial Virgins, Positive Hell was written and narrated by Joan Shenton and directed by Andi Reiss, and is a co-production between Meditel Productions and Yellow Entertainment.

For further information please contact
Joan Shenton, Sacrificial Virgins
Tel: 011 44 79 57 58 55 15
Email: joanshenton@clara.co.uk
YouTube: http://bit.ly/SV-Pain