Tagged: Ian Hudson

New Post From Bob Fiddaman Blows The Lid On The Gates Foundation And Its Dodgy Links To GSK…

Well worth a read..

Great post Fid.



Monday, December 11, 2017

British Medicines Watchdog Announce New Partnership


First off, watch the short announcement from the MHRA’s CEO, Dr. Ian Hudson.

He looks almost apologetic, don’t you think? Either that or he is embarrassed?

Before taking his role as CEO of the British Medicines Watchdog (MHRA), Hudson was the agency’s licensing director, responsible for the majority of its medicines licensing activities. Prior to that, he was the World Safety Officer for GlaxoSmithKline. He can be seen here defending Paxil, also known as Seroxat, (under oath) during a one-hour video deposition that was aired during the Tobin Vs GlaxoSmithKline case. A case which saw the Jury return a verdict against GlaxoSmithKline and, indeed, Paxil. (Fig 1)

Fig 1
Who Are The Gates Foundation?
Better known as the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation, it was launched in 2000 and one of its primary aims is to “enhance healthcare and reduce extreme poverty.”
What Are They Currently Involved In?
Well, aside from teaming up with the MHRA and having a say on the safety monitoring of medicines in low and middle-income countries, they are also embroiled in serious issues regarding a vaccine study they sponsored that was carried out in India in 2009.
Bill and Melinda’s foundation funded the Program for Appropriate Technology in Health (PATH) to carry out the studies in which 5 young girls died after receiving the Human Papilloma Virus (HPV) vaccine, Gardasil, manufactured by Merck.
According to The India Times, “…consent for conducting these studies, in many cases, was taken from the hostel wardens, which was a flagrant violation of norms. In many other cases, thumbprint impressions of their poor and illiterate parents were duly affixed onto the consent form. The children also had no idea about the nature of the disease or the vaccine “
In 2015, Judges in India’s Supreme Court demanded answers regarding the violations. An investigation carried out by the British newspaper, The Daily Mail, found that “children as young as nine suffered side-effects after being used as unwitting human guinea pigs for the new drug.”
The Daily Mail adds:

An investigation by an Indian parliamentary committee had previously concluded that the trials amounted to a serious breach of trust and medical ethics amounting to child abuse and ‘a clear cut violation of the human rights of these girl children and adolescents’.

The committee’s report said it had been established that clinical trials of the vaccines had been carried out ‘under the pretext of an observation/demonstration project’ in violation of all laws and regulations laid down by the government for such trials.

GSK is also embroiled in the controversy. Shortly after the Gardasil debacle, two more deaths were reported from Vadodara, Gujarat, where tribal children were also vaccinated with another brand of HPV vaccine, GSK’s Cervarix.
Earlier this year, things got so bad that India’s health ministry decided to take over funding responsibility for the immunization program backed by the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation. The reason? “A possible conflict of interest arising from the foundation’s tied to pharmaceutical companies.” (Business Standard)
So now, we seem to have gone full circle with today’s MHRA announcement from Dr. Ian Hudson, who claims…

“We are delighted to be involved in such an important global initiative. New drugs and vaccines are being brought to the market for the first time in public health programmes in settings where the safety monitoring and regulatory systems need strengthening. The expertise we can bring to the project will help national safety monitoring centres identify risks and benefits early and take appropriate regulatory action to support global health.”

So, let’s get this straight. Bill and Melinda Gates funded an immunization program in India. That program kills a number of children and the protocol was found to be ‘a clear-cut violation of the human rights of children’. Next, Ian Hudson, the former World Safety Officer at GSK, announces that Bill and Melinda Gates will be teaming up with the MHRA to strengthen “the safety monitoring and regulatory systems.”
Someone pinch me.
If this hasn’t got you thinking outside of the box, ladies, and gentlemen, then maybe this will?
An article published in 2012 entitled, ‘The Gates Foundation connection to the Glaxo drug fraud scandal’, is a fascinating read. It highlights, amongst many things, that Tachi Yamada, former head of global health for the Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation was formerly the head of research and development for GSK.
Yamada, while he was head of global health for the Gates Foundation, was accused in a U.S. Senate hearing of bullying a scientist to not publish negative findings of a GSK diabetes drug called Avandia. The same drug that Glaxo failed to report important data to the FDA showing that it increased heart risks in patients by 43%. Despite agreeing to a misdemeanour count in 2012, GSK still maintains “the civil settlement is not an admission of any liability or wrongdoing in the selling and marketing of Avandia.” However, they agreed to pay $3 billion imposed on them by The Department of Justice for failure to report Avandia safety data.
I’m sure Ian Hudson knows of the links between GSK and the Gates Foundation. Probably why his announcement (in the video at the top of this post) looks like it’s being delivered by someone who has soiled his underpants. Either that or he has become nauseous after being trapped in the incestuous revolving door at the MHRA!
Bob Fiddaman

Great New Website Calling For Reform Of The MHRA (UK Medicines Regulator)

Great to see my blog highlighted on a new web-site calling for reform of the MHRA.

I think it speaks for itself- check it out-







Why Campaign?

 A change in practice means  


have a chance to be saved 

Jeremy Hunt – Secretary of State for Health

Ben Goldacre – journalist, author and campaigner.

Consumers for Health Choice – An organisation dedicated to fighting for individual rights and freedom of choice in health matters.

David Tredinnick MP- Homeopathy advocate

Bach Flower Remedies- Nelsons UK- Powerful flower remedy business

ESCOP -The European Scientific Cooperative on Phytotherapy – An umbrella organisation representing national herbal medicine or phytotherapy associations across Europe

Richard Brook – former Chief Exececutive of Mind.

Dr Malcolm Kendrick – Doctor and critic

The Royal London Hospital for Integrated

Medicine (RLHIM) – The largest public-sector provider of integrated medicine in Europe.

Peter Gotzsche, Nordic Cochrane Centre

Stephen Dorrell MP – Former chair of government health committee

Caroline Noakes MP – Campaigns for regulation of diet pills and critic of MHRA

Examination of horrors committed by GSK, including links to Panorama: 

At $50,000 a round – 
Chemo Kills
Dangerous licensed drugs: 

The World’s Most Expensive Drugs – $100,000 a year is nothing:

The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) is the government agency which insures that medicines and medical devices work. An undoubtly crucial organisation in the UK. However the organisation we depend on for our health has deep flaws we cannot overlook.

As an example, cancer patients in need of chemotherapy have to foot the bill of £40,000 for only one round of treatment. The reason for this is chemotherapy makes a massive amount of money for the pharmaceutical companies supplying it so these companies do not want a cheaper alternative to become available in the UK. Unfortunately the MHRA who work closely with the Pharma’s have proven links to these organisations.

Ian Hudson, MHRA CEO       Gerald Heddell, MHRA Director

Both former employees of Glaxo Smith Kilne, the world’s second largest pharmaceutical company

There have been many reports criticising the links to pharma. Suggesting that the MHRA not only have past links with pharma but also cover for them in the media. Glaxo Smith Kilne’s (GSK) Cerarix HPV Vaccines for cervical cancer: The MHRA systematically tampered with 6000 reports of adverse reactions to declare the vaccine safe.



Would you say it is a coincedence that the pharma company involved is the previous work place of two board member of the MHRA? 

Let’s take back the MHRA and ban the influence of greedy pharma companies.


An independent and honest MHRA free from commercial influence will open many doors in terms of medical treatment options.

As members of the UK we deserve the right to be informed on the safety of procedures and treatments available in the country. An independent MHRA would vanish any ulterior motives to hide or cover any medical mistakes.

The right of choice would become ours. There are numerous treatments available in European countries that have been banned from the UK purely due to pharma greed.

Now is the time to act! Inlight of Brexit the Jeremy Hunt will have to rearrange some of the UK’s medical relationships. Why not the MHRA’s?

Help us acheive our goals and together we could save countless human lives!

Ian Hudson of The MHRA (ex-GSK Employee)Bluffs And Blunders His Way Through A Grilling By Andy Vickery At A Paxil Induced Suicide Trial (2000)

I have to say I have been incensed watching a video of Dr Ian Hudson of the MHRA when he was defending (his employer at the time) GSK from allegations that Paxil/Seroxat caused a suicide in the US. Hudson did everything he could to defend Paxil/Seroxat  but in many ways he slipped up. This video was recorded in 2000. At this time I would have been on Seroxat for two years, I had no idea that this trial was even happening, there was no access to the web, or information back then- people like me were left suffering in the dark. Some people didn’t make it through, the side effects were too much, and they killed themselves. Akathsia is one of the most crippling and disturbing side effects of any psychiatric drug. On Seroxat I had weeks, often months of regular bouts of akathisa, I wouldn’t wish it on my worst enemy- it was hell, beyond hell actually, it was utterly devastating. I can understand completely how Akathisia would drive some people to kill themselves, I don’t know how I endured it, maybe my youth had something to do with it- often youth protects us from extreme events because we can endure more- and Seroxat was torture, absolute torture.

At the time that Dr Ian Hudson was defending his employers in a Seroxat suicide trial in the US, and denying that Seroxat was even associated with Akathisia, I was probably  climbing up the walls in my bedroom, rocking like a lunatic, crying and pulling on my scalp, feeling like every atom in my body was on fire, intensely suicidal, feeling like my skin was literally burning and crawling off my bones-  but all the while completely unaware that I was experiencing akathisa from Seroxat.

I didn’t even know what akathsia was.

However, I’m sure that Ian Hudson knew what Akathisa was though..

Ian hudson is now the CEO of the MHRA (the Medicines Regulator in the UK). At the time of his video deposition in this Paxil/Seroxat suicide trial- he was the ‘World-wide safety director’ of GSK (the manufacturer of Seroxat).

Imagine that ‘wordwide safety director’ of one of the most controversial drugs of the past 20 years …

I wonder what Ian Hudson’s view is now of Seroxat?

Does he still think that there is no relationship between Seroxat and Suicide?

Does he still think that there is no evidence of a cause and effect relationship of Akathsia with Seroxat?

If so, then why does GSK warn now of these effects in their PILs?

According to the GSK PIL (screen grab below)- Seroxat can cause Akathsia in around 1 in 1000 people.

Seroxat was prescribed to millions of people since it was first licensed 25 years ago- in 1991. So how many people went on to kill themselves because of Akathsia from Paxil/Seroxat? How many people lost their health? How many people killed themselves in the agonizing withdrawals? Can Hudson give us the new stats on that?

He is, after all, now the chief at the medicines regulator, and although he once defended Seroxat for GSK in court, maybe his new role as a patient protector- as opposed to a drug company lackey- he would be able to re-define his views for us and warn the public about the dangers of Seroxat?

Personally I wouldn’t even trust GSK’s PILs, if they say it’s one in 1000, it’s probably one in 100 or worse… they are proven liars and deceivers, nothing can be trusted from them given their track record. They are totally sociopathic when it comes to harming consumers of their drugs and denying that harm when it is revealed. But even if we take 1 in 1000 as an average estimate, that’s a lot of Akathsia from Seroxat.

But according to Ian- Seroxat doesn’t cause Akathsia, so which is it Ian does Seroxat cause Akathisia or not? The PIL says it does, but you said it didn’t…

Maybe Ian would like to-fulfill his role- and protect others from anymore Seroxat horror?

And maybe Ian would now like to do the right thing and apologize to all the people who killed themselves or felt suicidal, or lost their livelihoods, their relationships, and years of their lives, to Seroxat side effects?…

Or maybe he just doesn’t give a damn…

Either way, the whole thing stinks to high heaven in my opinion..





   Okay.  Dr. Hudson, does Paxil have an
        23  association with akathisia?
        24  A.    I've seen some case reports of
        25  akathisia.  I'm aware that there have been
                            (713) 650-3500

                   IAN R. B. HUDSON, M.R.C.P., M.D.
         1  some cases of akathisia, so it is something
         2  that we have received case reports about.
         3  Q.    Do you believe, as Worldwide Safety
         4  Director of SmithKline Beecham, that Paxil
         5  causes some patients to become akathisic?
         6  A.    I've seen no evidence to suggest a cause
         7  and affect relationship between Paroxetine and
         8  akathisia.  I've seen some case reports, but
         9  I've seen nothing that suggests a cause and
        10  affect relationship

Dr Ian Hudson (Ex GSK Employee and Current Head Of The MHRA- UK Medicines Regulator) Defends Paxil (Seroxat) In US Court Case… Exclusive- From Bob Fiddaman’s Blog…



Monday, September 12, 2016

EXCLUSIVE: Dr Ian Hudson: In Defence of the Suicide Pill

A chance meeting, a discussion, a common interest.

That’s all it needs at times to stumble upon something you’ve been seeking for close to 10 years.

Video depositions have always fascinated me, they are better than the written depositions that we see within court documents. Most notably they show the subject answering questions, they show the subject in a much different light, they show the subject being evasive and choosing not to answer questions that may jeopardise the party he is appearing for. Moreover, they can be seen at later dates, when the subject has moved on to a different company or, in this instance, to head of the British drug regulator, the MHRA.

Ian Hudson is the former World Safety Officer for SmithKline Beecham, today they are more commonly known as GlaxoSmithKline or GSK.

On Friday, December 15, 2000, Ian Hudson, who at the time was still employed by GSK, gave a deposition in relation to a case that was to be tried in Wyoming a year or so after this deposition was taken, the result of which found that Paxil was, in fact, a proximate cause of the deaths in this case.

The case in question was brought against GSK by the relatives of a man, Donald Schell, who killed himself and three others after taking the drug Paxil,

Here is Ian Hudson’s video testimony. It’s a bit scratchy in places and the audio drops but it is the first time this has been seen in public.
Ian Hudson is the current Chief Executive of the MHRA, the British drug regulator who regulate the drugs you and I take.

You can draw your own conclusions as to whether or not you think Ian Hudson is forthright with his answers in this deposition.

A transcript of the video deposition can be found here.

Ian Hudson was being asked questions by US attorney, Andy Vickery.

(GSK are currently defending another Paxil related suicide in the US – The Stewart Dolin files can be seen here)

Revolving Door Between GSK And The MHRA

A lot of people are beginning to realize that the MHRA and GSK are perhaps way too close for comfort…Webstats

Some very interesting views lately on my blog.

The Webstats can tell you quite a bit of information, about who is viewing the blog etc.

I noticed today that GSK and the MHRA were both viewing at the same time.

A mere coincidence? or something more?


From The Fiddaman Blog:

Friday, September 05, 2014


MHRA CEO, Paxil and Suicide

Much has been said about the conflict of interest between the British drug regulator, (MHRA), and GlaxoSmithKline. It’s obvious to those who know the history of GSK and the MHRA that there is a huge conflict of interest that just cannot be ignored and while such a conflict exists patients will not be safeguarded from the likes of Paxil, a drug marketed and manufactured by GlaxoSmithKline. I’ve met with the MHRA are a number of occasions, at one stage I offered to help them with their out of date and deeply flawed yellow card reporting system, a system where adverse events are collected and…well, basically nothing is ever done. Communications between me and their then CEO, Kent Woods, broke down due to his refusal to acknowledge that Paxil, known as Seroxat in the UK, should be classed as a teratogen. A teratogen is an agent or factor that causes malformation of an embryo. Much of my communication with the MHRA is in my book, ‘The evidence however, is clear, the Seroxat scandal‘ [1] In 2013 Kent Woods retired and the MHRA appointed Dr Ian Hudson (pic above) as their new CEO. Hudson, who after leaving Glaxo in 2001, became the MHRA’s Licensing Director, responsible for overseeing the benefits and risks of drugs before they hit the market. Yup, the man in charge of the agency who have the job of keeping tabs on the drugs you and I take is a former employee of GSK – then known as SmithKline Beecham. Hudson, whilst working for GSK, was a witness for the defence [GSK] during the Tobin v SmithKline Beecham Pharmaceuticals. In 1998 Donald Schell was put on Paxil [Seroxat]. Forty-eight hours later he put three bullets from two different guns through his wife’s head, as well as through his daughter’s head then through his granddaughter’s head before shooting himself through the head. Hudson’s deposition has been online for sometime in text form, a copy of it can be viewedhere. Sadly, it’s been difficult trying to obtain the actual video footage of Hudson being depoed by US attorneys representing Tobin. We do, however, have a small segment of his video deposition. In 2002 Investigative journalist Shelley Jofre launched her first installment into the whole Paxil debacle. BBC Panorama’s ‘The Secrets of Seroxat’ was aired and it prompted over 67,000 calls and emails from concerned consumers. During the documentary Shelley touched on the case of  Donald Schell. The footage in the documentary revealed part of Dr Ian Hudson’s video deposition. Remember, at the time, Hudson was a GSK employee. Watch…. (Hudson was depoed in 2000) **If the video starts with Andy Vickery talking then click the bar to end of video then press play**

In 2008 the MHRA concluded a four year investigation of GlaxoSmithKline, the crux of which was to find out whether GlaxoSmithKline withheld paediatric safety data pertaining to suicide related to its antidepressant Seroxat. They decided not proceed to criminal prosecution. It’s unknown if they interviewed their own Dr Ian Hudson during their four year investigation. [2]
As I said, Dr Ian Hudson is now the Chief Executive of the MHRA, the agency that purportedly protects British consumers of prescription drugs.
I don’t know about you but this doesn’t really fill me with a sense that I am being protected from dangerous drugs. Does it you?
All four Paxil videos will soon be available in their entirety on Rxisk.
Bob Fiddaman
[1] ‘The evidence however, is clear, the Seroxat scandal’ [US] [UK]
[2] GSK investigation concludes [Link]

New Website Discovered : “MHRA Corrupt”

Untitled copy

I discovered an interesting new website called “MHRA Corrupt.

The MHRA are the UK medicines regulator. Their job is supposedly to protect the consumer from defective and dodgy drugs, however those of us with experiences of Seroxat (Paxil) were utterly failed by the MHRA, and unfortunately because of their failure to warn- many of us live with Seroxat drug damage (which in some cases- might never heal).

I have been bringing attention to the revolving door between GSK and the MHRA for alomost a decade on my blog here, so it’s gratifying to see that others are also noticing the inherent conflict of interests, and potential for corruption, which exists between industry and the regulators.

It’s simply scandalous how the MHRA behaves when consumers are damaged by the drugs which they are supposed to regulate, and it’s even more scandalous when you see that many of the top executives once worked for GSK (one of the most corrupt corporations on the planet).

It doesn’t take a genius to realize that the MHRA and GSK are a little too close for comfort.

Check out the website, MHRA Corrupt here : http://mhracorrupt.st/

I wish the creators of the website well…

MHRA corrupt



Both from Glaxo Smith Kline, the world’s second largest pharmaceutical company.

To kill without conscience or remorse requires a psychopathic mentality. Which MHRA board directors are psychopaths?

The MHRA, the UK Drug Safety Agency, Falsified Vaccine Safety Data – Millions of Children At Serious Risk
GSK’s Cervarix HPV vaccines for cervical cancer: The MHRA systematically tampered with 6000 reports of adverse reactions to declare the vaccine safe…………The MHRA’s Director Gerald Heddell and CEO Ian Hudson are both ex GSK, Glaxo Smith Kline.


House of Commons Health  Select Committee Report of 2005
“In view of the failings of the MHRA, we recommend a fundamental review.”

MHRA: Regulators’ trail of deception has been exposed
Andrew Miller, the chairman of a parliamentary select committee, has said that a “trail of deception” has been exposed in the system.

MHRA under fire amid calls for shake-up of regulatory system:
The scandal of device regulation in the UK

Horton said: “The MHRA’s mission is ‘to enhance and safeguard the health of the public by ensuring that medicines and medical devices work and are acceptably safe’. The MHRA is, by its own admission, unable to fulfil this mission.

MHRA, The Seroxat killer: Parmjit Dhanda, MP, Gloucester
is asking the Government why they allowed Dr Ian Hudson, the MHRA CEO,  to take part in the European Medicines Evaluation Agency (EMEA)’s review of Seroxat, an antidepressant. As well as working as worldwide safety director for GSK – the manufacturers of Seroxat (Paxil, Paroxetine)– from 1999 until 2001, Dr Hudson acted as witness for the defence in a trial in which Seroxat was accused of triggering a man’s violent and suicidal behaviour.

Paul Flynn MP, Newport:  What credibility does the MHRA have?
Recent events have proven that it is not a watchdog; it is a pussycat that purrs in front of the pharmaceutical industry and does what it is told. It has an incestuous relationship with the big pharmas and has a close association with the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry. It has a disgraceful recent record. We can look with gratitude to the work not of the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency in protecting the public, but to people such as Sarah Boseley of The Guardian for her exposé of the organisation, to the television programme “Panorama” and to Richard Brook of Mind, who courageously resigned from the MHRA in disgust at its activities.

It is a matter of enormous importance that, in recent history, the regulator is not protecting the 25,000 people who suffered heart attacks and the 7,000 who died from taking a painkilling drug for arthritics that was withdrawn by Merck Sharpe and Dohme in September, after being promoted by the regulator.

MHRA conceals Seroxat causes suicide
“The MHRA had information in its possession for more than a decade that high doses of the anti-depressant Seroxat can lead to aggression and thoughts of suicide. But instead of revealing the truth to the 17,000 people taking high doses and the other half-million Britons on a safer dose, the MHRA sat on its findings. Astonishingly, I was actually threatened with legal action by Professor Kent Woods, chief executive of the MHRA, if I revealed this.”

The MHRA is GlaxoSmithKline, Aventis Pasteur, Merck, Sharpe and Dohme
A Sunday Express investigation found that nearly a third of the 181 experts who sit on the Medicines Control Agency (MCA, now the MHRA) committees are linked to Glaxo Smith Kline, Aventis Pasteur or Merck, Sharpe and Dohme……The MCA has continued to endorse the triple measles, mumps and rubella (MMR) jab despite concerns linking it to autism and stomach disorders. But the extent of the MCA members’ financial ties to MMR manufacturers raises questions about potential conflicts of interest.
http://www.whale.to/m/mca3.htmlSunday Express

Licensed drugs are the number 4 killer of mankind
The MHRA’s big brother, the USA’s FDA, admits drugs, ie those the FDA and MHRA license, kill scores of thousands. That’s what happens when the regulator is controlled by the drug companies. The MHRA conceal this.

The MHRA is criticised for failing to adequately regulate implants
with grim consequences for some patients. While the board contains retired senior executives from AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme, it includes no one from a patient group, or any other body representing people whose health could be damaged by its decisions.

The web of unelected bodies functions as a kind of shadow government, drafting and enforcing policies, disbursing money, regulating – or failing to regulate – business, quietly, unobtrusively, without effective public scrutiny or restraint. When it is unbalanced, crawling with conflicts of interest, it makes a nonsense of democracy.

The MHRA protects the monopolies of the billion dollar pharmaceuticals (who charge, eg. £40,000 for a round of chemotherapy), and ruthlessly closes down inexpensive, effective treatments wherever it can.

Even the courts know the MHRA is corrupt
The MHRA has never successfully prosecuted a company since it was established nearly 10 years ago.   (It seems judges won’t accept evidence from so corrupt a source.)
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2012/jul/08/pharma-misbehaviour-gsk-fine     -see last paragraph.

The BBC’s Panorama programme is equally damning:

Ian Hudson Bumbles His Way Through A Grilling In A Tamiflu Inquiry

If you want to see how people like the MHRA’s Ian Hudson run rings around public inquiries in regards to dubious drugs (in this case Roche’s Tamiflu) check out this recent video on the Tamiflu debacle.

It”s all very monty python-esque, and in true British style, nobody is held to account for a waste of over half a billion of UK tax-payers money on a useless drug for a fake pandemic..

 At least he turned up to this inquiry I suppose, because he didn’t bother to turn up to the Seroxat inquiry many years ago and the explanation for his absence was even more dubious than a dose of Tamiflu or Seroxat…


The strange thing is that on the day the House of Commons Health Select Committee wanted to hear evidence from the MHRA specifically about Seroxat trial data and safety, Professor Alaisdair Breckenridge (MHRA Chairman), Professor Kent Woods (MHRA CEO) and June Raine (MHRA Director of Vigilence and Risk Management) all managed to attend the hearing.

MPs had expected to be able to question Ian Hudsonas well… unfortunately Dr Hudson could not attend as he had a prior engagement.

Scroll to around 17.18.30 on the video and watch Ian Hudson avoid answering questions about Tamiflu.


From Bob Fiddaman at Seroxat Sufferers Blog



Tuesday, October 21, 2014

MHRA’s Ian Hudson Grilled Over Clinical Trial Data

Yesterday [Monday 20 October] UK Parliament broadcast a committee meeting regarding Tamiflu, a prescription medicine used to treat the flu (influenza) in people 2 weeks of age and older.

In January this year, drawing attention to the lack of transparency over the results of clinical trials of the antiviral medicine, stockpiled for use in an influenza epidemic.  The Commons Select Committee concluded that the failure of manufacturers to share the full results of clinical trials with doctors, researchers and clinicians, undermined their ability to make informed decisions about treatments and the use of medicines by the NHS.

Yesterdays meeting probed the lack of transparency further.

It’s very interesting particularly as we can see Chief Executive of the MHRA, Ian Hudson, being grilled by Richard Bacon, MP. Hudson was asked just one question but seemed very reluctant to give any straight forward answers.

Basically, the UK government have claimed that it would not be feasible for the full methods and results of clinical trials to be made available to doctors and other healthcare professionals.

Ian Hudson was asked why he thought it was not feasible.

The exchange between Hudson and Richard Bacon, MP reminded me of David Brent, a fictional character played by Ricky Gervais in The Office. Brent, when questioned about his management methods was always evasive – Hudson’s response to Bacon’s question is so very similar. Whereas Brent speaks of pies and charts, Hudson speaks of Freedom of Information requests and policies…without actually answering the question.

Hudson is being really evasive here, just as he was when giving evidence for GlaxoSmithKline in a video deposition back in 2000. [1]  Hudson, was employed as GlaxoSmithKline’s World Safety Officer before eventually landing his role of CEO of the agency that protects the public from unsafe prescription medication.

Time and time again he avoids the question put to him by Bacon, time and time again Bacon reiterates his question, leaving Hudson to waffle on in the style of David Brent. You can even see a man and a woman at the back of the room laugh at Hudson’s avoidance to answer a simple question.

Kind of ironic that Hudson is being grilled by an MP whose surname is Bacon, doncha think? 🙂

Here’s the MHRA’s Ian Hudson playing David Brent yesterday [Skip to 17.44.46] [LINK]

Just like The Office there is no canned laughter.

Now compare with David Brent.

Bob Fiddaman.

MHRA’s Ian Hudson Weighs In On GSK’s Experimental Ebola Vaccine

Dr Ian Hudson, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s chief executive, said the trial proposal was approved with extraordinary speed: “Our priority is to protect public health. Given the importance of Ebola as a risk to public health in some countries in Africa, we fast-tracked the review of the clinical trial application for this vaccine so that it was assessed and authorised by the MHRA’s experts in just four working days.”
As the MHRA fast-track’s GSK’s experimental Ebola Vaccine through the first human guinea pig trials, the MHRA head (and former GSK employee of 11 years)- Ian Hudson- utters his distinct approval, despite the fact that the infamous side effects of GSK’s Seroxat have never been properly investigated by the regulators. Furthermore, Ian Hudson fails also to mention the outrage over GSK’s exploitation of the Swine Flu hysteria, and the side effects of Narcolepsy with GSK’s Pandemrix vaccine which occurred with that scandal.
Also hanging in the air are GSK’s bribery scandals around the world: from China, to Poland, and Iraq to Syria. I wonder are these volunteers aware of GSK’s appalling reputation? (from dodgy dangerous drugs to fraud, corruption and general skullduggery). It will be interesting to see what happens with GSK’s Ebola Vaccine, and what potential side effects might emerge in the future for these brave volunteers. Whatever the outcome, it seems Ian Hudson has no problem endorsing the most corrupt pharmaceutical company on the planet… I suppose it is his former employer after all
When people like Ian Hudson say that their ‘priority is to protect public health’ you really have to laugh (with gallows humor). What he really means is the MHRA’s priority is to protect pharma-wealth. Your health (and mine) is really just as disposable as a lab-test-guinea pig… 


First British volunteer injected with trial Ebola vaccine in Oxford

If vaccine tested on Ruth Atkins and other healthy volunteers is found to work, it will be fast-tracked for use in west Africa

Dr Felicity Hartnell of Oxford University injects Ruth Atkins with the Ebola vaccine

Dr Felicity Hartnell of Oxford University injects Ruth Atkins with the Ebola vaccine. Photograph: Steve Parsons/PA

A woman in Oxford has become the first British volunteer to be injected with an experimental Ebola vaccine, which, if it works, will be fast-tracked for use in west Africa.

In an unprecedented move, the untested vaccine has already gone into mass production. Some 10,000 doses are being manufactured by the British drug company GlaxoSmithKline, funded by the Wellcome Trust and the UK government, which are also supporting the Oxford trial.

If the vaccine is effective, there will be supplies available to protect thousands of health workers in west Africa, who will be the first to receive it. Nobody wants a repeat of the ZMapp experience – only a dozen doses were available worldwide of the experimental drug and, controversially, they went mostly to foreign medical and aid workers.

The first British volunteer is Ruth Atkins, 48, a communications and engagement manager in the NHS from Marcham in Oxfordshire and a former nurse. She heard on the radio as she was driving home from work that volunteers were needed for a vaccine trial run by Oxford University researchers.

“I volunteered because the situation in west Africa is so tragic and I thought being part of this vaccination process was something small I could do to hopefully make a huge impact,” she said.

One hour after the vaccination, she said: “I feel absolutely fine, it felt no different to being vaccinated before going on holiday.”

Atkins is the first of 60 healthy people who will be vaccinated to find out whether the potential vaccine has any troublesome side effects. Studies involving animals have shown no ill effects so far.

The vaccine was under development by GSK – it was in the portfolio of Okairos, a smaller company bought by GSK last year – before the Ebola outbreak occurred, but it could have taken a decade to get it through the trials and into production.

There is a growing sense of urgency, with the World Bank warning on Wednesday that billions of dollars could be drained from economies in west Africa by the end of next year if the epidemic is not contained. The bank has pledged about $200m in emergency assistance to Guinea, Liberia and Sierra Leone, the three countries worst affected. The US announced on Tuesday it would send 3,000 troops to help tackle the outbreak.

Four trials of the vaccine will take simultaneously to gather enough safety data and early information on the immune response, which is an indication of whether it will protect against the disease.

Ten volunteers have already been injected in the US, where the National Institutes of Health has been funding the development of the vaccine against the Ebola Zaire strain and another against Ebola Sudan. If all goes well, there will also be trials in the Gambia and Mali in healthy volunteers.

It is hoped results from the trials will be available before the end of this year. If the vaccine is effective, it will be given to health workers in Ebola-stricken regions. This will be the only way to find out whether the it really can protect against the disease.

Prof Adrian Hill, director of the Jenner Institute at the University of Oxford, which is running the trial, said: “Witnessing the events in Africa makes it clear that developing new drugs and vaccines against Ebola should now be an urgent priority. It is tremendous that so many people have worked hard to make this trial happen in a short time, and I am enormously grateful to those volunteers who have come forward to take part and to the funders including the Wellcome Trust, DfID, MRC and MHRA for supporting this trial so quickly.

“These are initial safety trials of the vaccine and it will be some time before we know whether the vaccine could protect people against Ebola. But we are optimistic that the candidate vaccine may prove useful against the disease in the future.”

Dr Ian Hudson, the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency’s chief executive, said the trial proposal was approved with extraordinary speed: “Our priority is to protect public health. Given the importance of Ebola as a risk to public health in some countries in Africa, we fast-tracked the review of the clinical trial application for this vaccine so that it was assessed and authorised by the MHRA’s experts in just four working days.”

Ian Hudson’s 11 Years At GSK/SB…

Ian Hudosn


Those of you who are somewhat familiar with the Seroxat Scandal will be aware that, when BBC Panorama first exposed the truth about this dangerous drug with their first documentary in October 2002, the chair of the MHRA (medicine regulator) Alasdair Breckenridge (also a former GSK/SB employee) more or less defended GSK and the MHRA. He also seemed to be completely unaffected by the suffering and suicides caused by this horrendous drug. Moreover, despite subsequent panorama documentaries, lawsuits, investigations, blogs, outrage, public outcry etc etc- since that time, people still kill themselves on Seroxat, people are still hooked on it, and people still suffer withdrawals, it’s still being prescribed, and those who suffer long term effects (memory loss, neurological damage etc) have had absolutely no recourse or justice for the harm that was caused to them by a drug which should never have been licensed.

Mr Breckenridge has since retired and Ian Hudson has moved up the MHRA ladder, replacing Kent Woods . Mr Hudson is not only a former GSK/SB employee (11 years in total, 2 weeks GlaxoSmithKline and pre-merger-  11 or so years at SmithKlineBeecham). He also had a significant involvement in  the SB products Seroxat and Avandia.

Seroxat and Avandia have been two of the most controversial drugs of the past decade. Both of them have been found liable in courts for deaths. Both of them have had accusations of fraudulent research, both have been given Black box status, both have been investigated by law enforcement, departments of justice, regulators etc. Both of them have ultimately caused immeasurable suffering to tens- if not hundreds- of thousands of people. It is estimated that Avandia alone has caused in excess of 83,000 heart attacks since it came on the market in 1999. Seroxat has caused birth defects, suicides and worse.

Ian Hudson declared that he had a significant interest in both these killer drugs, Avandia and Seroxat, while he was employed with GSK. He now heads the UK MHRA which licenses drugs and regulates their safety and efficacy. Does this make you feel safe? Does this make you feel that your interests as a patient are being looked after? Does it give you faith in the system of drug regulation?

Seroxat came on the market in 1991, but was re-marketed in 1998. Ian Hudson was working for GSK at this time with an admitted significant interest in Paroxetine (Seroxat), he joined the MHRA in 2001 as director of licensing and his role in GSK was worldwide safety director. He was employed by GSK when these drugs were conceived, launched and unleashed upon an unsuspecting and trusting public.

I don’t claim to know what the role of World Wide Safety director at GSK would specifically entail, (nor do I know what it means exactly to have a significant involvement with a pharmaceutical compound) but it seems to me that considering Seroxat and Avandia have been two of the most defective and dangerous meds in recent times, either Mr Hudson failed spectacularly at his job or there is something else entirely going on…

I repeat, he is now the Chief Executive of the MHRA, the drugs agency which regulates the safety of medicines in the UK…

He was previously, and significantly, involved in two of the most notoriously dangerous, unsafe, and controversial drugs of the past decade – Seroxat and Avandia- whilst he worked for the manufacturers, GSK, for 11 years…

Think about that….


Let’s talk (a little) about Mr Ian Hudson….

Mr Ian Hudson was inaugurated as the CEO of the MHRA in the UK (the folks who are supposed to regulate the pharmaceutical industry) in September 2013. As you can see from Mr Hudson’s expense accounts, it’s a fairly lucrative position with some great perks

   The MHRA is supposed to safe-guard the public health- in particular from the dangers of defective and faulty pharmaceutical drugs and devices and also from the deception of pharmaceutical companies. Originally conceived partly because of the horrific Thalidomide crisis 50 years ago- it seems the MHRA has done little to protect consumers from many dangerous and defective drugs since then- drugs which include GlaxoSmithKline’s notorious Seroxat anti-depressant.

   Interestingly, the MHRA head- Ian Hudson- also worked for GlaxoSmithKline at one point during his revolving door career. Even more interesting is the fact that Hudson represented GSK in a high-profile Paxil (Seroxat) liability case in the US involving a Paxil-induced murder suicide (the Donald Schell Case). GSK were eventually found guilty and they had to payout millions to the grieving son-in law- Tim Tobin. According to a 2001 Guardian article, as a witness  (and high level employee) for his employers, GSK – Mr Hudson

“…argued that the occasional suicide or killing by
somebody on Paxil is not sufficient evidence that there is a problem with the
drug, considering the millions who take it.

Tobin is outraged. Virtually all
drugs can cause a bad reaction of some sort in a few people, he says. However
small the effect is, there is no excuse for not investigating what is
happening. “I don’t think they’ve taken a proper look at the whole thing,” he
says. “We’re talking about people’s lives. Whether we are statistically
significant or not, four people dead is too many as far as I’m concerned.”

I… like Mr Tobin… am outraged– and I have been outraged at GSK from the time I came off Seroxat over 10 years ago!
 I am outraged that I was lied to about the side effects of Seroxat. I am outraged that I had to suffer a severe decline in my quality of life because GSK lied about side effects, withdrawal and suicide issues for years despite 4 BBC panorama documentaries and numerous  complaints by patients, their families and doctors about the side effects of Seroxat.
   I am outraged that the regulator is not just inept, but utterly corrupt – not to mention contemptuous of patients, advocates and consumers. I am outraged that GSK were not prosecuted despite a 4 year investigation into their misconduct regarding Seroxat killing children (and adults alike). I am outraged that I was enslaved to a drug for almost 3 years or my life. I am outraged on behalf of all those lied to about SSRI’s and other pharmaceutical drugs.
   I am outraged that people like Mr Ian Hudson have the audacity (utter gall, and brass neck) to sit at the top of a regulatory body which failed to protect vulnerable people from the dangers of a defective medication and a predatory, immoral and sociopathic drug company. A drug company which he himself once worked for and defended in court!.. in a case where they were found guilty!..
   I am outraged that Ian Hudson (a former GSK executive) didn’t even bother to turn up to a parliamentary inquiry about Seroxat a few years ago and has consistently avoided facing the consequences of the Seroxat Scandal… I am outraged at this man’s apparent utter contempt for those he is supposed to represent!
   I am not the only one writing about these scandalous issues and the Seroxat Scandal continues to be a scandal of epic proportions.  Ian Hudson presides over the organization which decides upon which medicines are safe and which are not- he defended the safety of Seroxat in a court of law in the US whilst working for the most corrupt drugs company on the planet (GSK). Seroxat has since proven to be one of the most dangerous drugs since Thalidomide- causing numerous deaths- by suicide, withdrawal, side effects and birth defects.
   Ian Hudson is apparently also a paediatrician! Surely if he is a qualified doctor specializing in children’s illnesses- he would be aware of the infamous Seroxat Study 329? A study which covered up the fact that Seroxat (Paxil/Paroxetine) drove children to commit suicide and self harm?
   Or how about the many thousands of birth defects  in  children -and miscarriages of babies which Seroxat caused for many women users -over the past 20 years? Is Ian Hudson aware of all this? Was he aware of these issues whilst working for GSK and defending Seroxat? Was he aware of this prior to his current tenure as CEO of the MHRA? Does he give a fiddlers?
   This is profoundly disturbing and the Seroxat Scandal is not something which will go away anytime soon. And in my lifetime I will continue to bang the drum about this – until justice is served! And Glaxo are brought to book!
MHRA Annual Report
Bob Fiddaman of Seroxat Sufferers blog is also- understandably- outraged, and he has been for a long time- as is the writer of Seroxat Secrets -who also touched on the Ian Hudson/GSK issues on his own blog Seroxat Secrets:

MHRA and Ian Hudson – still questions to be answered

June 15, 2009 — admin

Things have moved on at the MHRA so they tell us… it wants to be more open, it wants to engage with us…

Well, I’d like it to be more open about one of its employees, Ian Hudson.

I’ve been wanting to get to the truth since January 2005 when the House of Commons Health Select Committee questioned some senior MHRA members about Seroxat (Paxil).

Here’s some background: Ian Hudson worked at SmithKline Beecham for 11 years (Glaxo 2 weeks) as Worldwide Director of Safety. He then joined the MHRA as its Head of Drug Licensing.

During his time at SmithKline Beecham and Glaxo he had “significant involvement” with a number of drugs, especially Paroxetine (Seroxat) and two others. We know this because of this document – Ian Hudson Interests – which he filled in before joined the European Medicines Agency.

I’ve mentioned it before, but Hudson is such an authority on Seroxat that Glaxo used him as one of their defence witnesses in the famous Tobin/Schell case (he gave evidence for Glaxo alongside David Wheadon).

See below for this entry from the Seroxat Timeline.

June 14 2001:
People can’t get hooked on Seroxat as they did on the older drugs such as Librium and Valium, claims GSK.
For over a decade, the company line has been swallowed, along with the pills. But a court case in Wyoming, USA, has changed all that. The jury decided Seroxat – Paxil in the USA – was to blame for Donald Schell killing his wife, daughter, baby granddaughter and then himself.

Enter Ian Hudson, witness for the defence and at the time of his deposition earlier in 2001, worldwide safety director for GSK. That’s Ian Hudson, now director of licensing at the Medicines Control Agency in the UK (later to become the MHRA).

What did he have to say to the evidence of Mr Schell’s closest remaining family and three psychiatrists who all believed the tablets of Paxil/Seroxat Mr Schell took for just two days precipitated him into an unnatural and totally uncharacteristic murderous and suicidal frenzy? His position is that an individual case cannot tell you one way or the other – only randomised controlled trials will do.

But Dr David Healy says that randomised control trials are the wrong tool to establish whether serious side effects are occurring. The way to investigate what is happening is to carry out a challenge-rechallenge trial, where people are given the drug, taken off it and then put back on.

But GSK has not carried out that sort of study to establish whether or not Seroxat can make people agitated, suicidal, murderous or hooked. Nor has it carried out a randomised controlled trial. Here is a black hole. There is no proof that the drug does these things, says GSK, and because of that there is no reason to carry out trials that might decide it one way or the other.

Does Mr Hudson still take that view now he is at the MHRA, which watches over the safety of the British public? “If he takes the position with the MHRA that he took at the trial, then none of us is safe with any drug in the UK at the moment,” says Dr Healy. How would Mr Hudson even be able to blame alcohol for making someone drunk?

So what does Mr Hudson think? As always, the MHRA declines to answer detailed questions.

The MHRA will (?) have been supplied with all the healthy volunteer data before it granted the licence for Seroxat. It doesn’t seem to have been worried then, which makes one wonder who, exactly, was steering them as to what it meant.

More on Hudson here and here.

The strange thing is that on the day the House of Commons Health Select Committee wanted to hear evidence from the MHRA specifically about Seroxat trial data and safety, Professor Alaisdair Breckenridge (MHRA Chairman), Professor Kent Woods (MHRA CEO) and June Raine (MHRA Director of Vigilence and Risk Management) all managed to attend the hearing.

MPs had expected to be able to question Ian Hudson as well… unfortunately Dr Hudson could not attend as he had a prior engagement.

At the time, the UK press reported Ian Hudson’s non-appearance at the House of Commons like this:“Members of the House of Commons select committee on health appeared angry that they were not able to question one of the employees of the United Kingdom’s drug regulatory authority at a session last week looking into the influence of the drug industry. Although several senior figures from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency attended the session, the committee said that it would also have liked to have heard evidence from Ian Hudson. Dr Hudson is a member of the agency’s executive board and was worldwide director of safety at SmithKline Beecham from 1999 to 2001, having worked for the company since 1989. Dr Hudson joined the agency’s predecessor, the Medicines Control Agency, in January 2001 as director of the licensing division. MPs wanted to question Dr Hudson about the company’s drug paroxetine (marketed as Seroxat in Britain and as Paxil in the United States). They were particularly interested in evidence concerning the safety and efficacy of the drug in people under the age of 18. In June 2003 the agency advised doctors that patients aged under 18 should not be prescribed the drug.”

I know someone who attended the hearing that day as well, and he confirms that David Hinchcliffe, the Chairman of the meeting was angry & exasperated “There was a great feeling of cover up, or at least that’s what I felt sitting there nearby Charles Medawar. Charles Medawar’s overall demeanour was one of anger, alongside David Hinchcliffe who was also angry & exasperated…”

The transcript of the hearing is here, read around question 783 for a flavour of how the committee and Chairman felt.

In response to a Freedom of Information request, the MHRA has made public an email, download here –Witnesses for Thursday.pdf – apparently showing that Hudson’s non-appearance was agreed in a phone call between Lord Warner (government Health minister) and David Hinchcliffe (meeting Chairman) just a few days before the hearing. This email was from Neil Townley at the Dept. of Health to David Harrison – the Clerk of the committee (and copied to Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge.

However this exchange from the hearing is most interesting:

Q790 John Austin: I think it would have been useful if Dr Hudson had been here because, as far as I understand, he was at SmithKline Beecham and his department was responsible for the collection of adverse reaction information such as there was with Seroxat.
Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge: Yes, I know that, but I—
Q791 John Austin: So he would have been a very key witness.
Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge: But I have not discussed that with Dr Hudson.
Q792 John Austin: So you must admit that it is very unfortunate he is not with us today?
Professor Sir Alasdair Breckenridge: Well, I apologise for that, but I think there was some confusion about who was going to attend and I think the Clerk was told that this was where Dr Hudson was going to be.

Why did Breckenridge reply to Q792 as he did? The email that was copied to him on Monday 17 January clearly states Lord Warner and Hinchcliffe had just agreed that it would only be Breckenridge, Woods and Raine who were appearing. For Breckenridge to say “…I think there was some confusion about who was going to attend and I think the Clerk was told that this was where Dr Hudson was going to be…” beggars belief.

Well, I think there was no confusion at all. I think the Clerk was never told that Hudson would appear. I think Breckenridge was lying when he said that. I think it would have been too embarrassing to let Ian Hudson be questioned.

I think this stinks.

Why didn’t Breckenridge simply say that “Ian Hudson is not here today because you, Mr Chairman, agreed his non-appearance with Lord Warner on Monday of this week”… (the hearing was Thursday).

And why, if Hinchcliffe did agree the list of attendees, did he say nothing to explain the confusion to the hearing….

So, the question is just what did Lord Warner say to Hinchcliffe during their phone call on the morning of Monday 17 January 2005?

Come on MHRA – let’s you and me have an open and honest discussion about this then.