Tagged: paroxetine

Delving Into GSK’s Dexedrine..


Page_1

 

 

“…..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).

 

Dex1

Dex2

 

Dex3

Dex4

 

Dex6

 

Dex5.png

Dex7.png

Dex8


 

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?


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/deaths-force-gsk-to-add-warning-to-attention-deficit-disorder-drug-413030.html

 

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


 

http://behaviorismandmentalhealth.com/2016/10/27/adhd-a-destructive-psychiatric-hoax/

ADHD: A Destructive Psychiatric Hoax

INTRODUCTION

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.

THE “OVER-DIAGNOSIS” OF ADHD

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:

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

DSM-5:
“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.

. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 

CONCLUSION

 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.

 

 

Advertisements

…Mark’s blood contained high levels of the antidepressant drug paroxetine …


Another Paroxetine Death..

.. if SSRI’s like Paroxetine are so effective then why do people keep killing themselves on these drugs?

 


 

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/coroner-finds-mark-hagan-51-640231#ICID=sharebar_twitter

 

Coroner finds Mark Hagan, 51, drowned in River Avon in Bathampton

His body was discovered lodged in the river shallows near a pub in July

A 51-year-old Bath man whose body was found in the River Avon in Bathampton died by drowning, a coroner has found.

Mark Richard Hagan, of London Road West, was pulled from the river near the Bathampton Mill pub on the morning of July 19.

An inquest into his death heard his body was discovered in the river shallows by a dog walker at about 7.30am.

A large man with a shaven head, Mr Hagan had been reported missing by his mother earlier that day.

His body was later identified by Isobel Rathbone, the vicar of the Church of St John The Baptist in Batheaston, who had known him and his mother for about two years.

The inquest at Avon Coroner’s Court heard that Mr Hagan was a single carer who lived with his mother.

Mr Hagan’s body was discovered in the river by the Bathampton Mill pub

He was socially isolated, had learning disabilities, dyslexia and was taking medication for anxiety and depression.

He was also overweight, had high blood pressure, sleep apnoea, swollen legs and was prone to leg ulcers.

Evidence from witnesses read out in court described how Mr Hagan’s mental health had deteriorated after the deaths of his father and sister at the end of 2016 and the recent diagnosis of his mother with cancer.

According to his brother, James Hagan, Mark had lived with his sister and parents as a “close unit” for nearly 30 years and the death of their father, in particular, had had a “major impact on Mark”.

The inquest was heard at Avon Coroners Court in Flax Bourton

James said Mark had become “fixated” on the condition of his legs and had said “life wouldn’t be worth living” if he lost his leg.

He had also told his mother he wished “God would take him”, according to James.

A post mortem found pathology “consistent with drowning”. Mark’s blood contained high levels of the antidepressant drug paroxetine but the concentration was not so high as to cause “serious toxicity”.

The dose of the drug had been raised to 40mg after he began “obsessing about his legs” and became anxious about his future after his mother was diagnosed with throat cancer.

Police at Bathampton Mill
Police at Bathampton Mill (Image: Artur Lesniak)

His former GP, Dr Charles Berrisford at Number 18 Surgery, said the last time he saw Mr Hagan on July 12 his patient was anxious but showed no signs of depression and he had “no cause for concern”.

His new GP, Dr Jim Hogg at Batheaston Medical Centre, made a similar observation upon meeting Mr Hagan for the first time when he visited the surgery on July 14.

No note was left by the deceased.

Reading her finding of death by drowning, assistant coroner Myfanwy Buckeridge noted the GPs’ remarks and the observation from James Hagan that his brother “struggled to make decisions by himself”.

She also noted there was no evidence of how Mr Hagan came to be in the river.

“I cannot rule out that the death was the result of a tragic accident,” Ms Buckeridge said.

No witnesses or friends or family of the deceased attended the inquest.

If you have been affected by this article, or are concerned about someone or need help yourself, please contact the Samaritans on 116 123.

Paxil (Seroxat) Implicated In Steven DeValle Trial..


http://www.uppermichiganssource.com/content/news/Steven-DeValles-second-day-sees-the-victim-on-the-stand-436603253.html

Steven DeValle’s second day sees the victim on the stand

MARQUETTE, Mich. (WLUC) – Opening statements started day two in the Steven DeValle attempted murder trial in Marquette, also on the stand today, the victim.

DeValle is charged with four counts, including strangulation and criminal sexual conduct against his ex-girlfriend last july.

Prosecuting attorney Matt Wiese calling his first witness, the victim herself, who we are not naming or showing.

In the prosecution’s opening statement, Prosecutor Matt Wiese told the jury to trust the evidence of those who were on the scene.

He also established for the jury DeValle was unstable and capable of attempting to kill the victim.

“He went from being enraged to being eerily calm and his mood she will tell you went in that way and when he became eerily calm is when she most feared for her life,” Prosecuting Attorney Matt Wiese said.

In the defense’s opening statement, attorney Ted fulsher told the jury DeValle and the victim were recently in a 15 month relationship, having only just days before gone on a family vacation together.

Fulsher told the jury about DeValle’s recent problems with mental issues, and of the recent switch in medication from Zoloft to Paxil.

“Paxil has numerous side-effects,” Defense Attorney Ted Fulsher said.

Those symptoms include, suicidal tendencies, erratic behavior and amnesia.

After opening statements, Wiese called the victim to the stand as his first witness.

The victim was asked when she saw a change in the defendant.

“I started noticing maybe some anger tendencies and maybe some anxiety tendencies about 1:30AM,” the victim said.

At that time, the victim says she messaged her police officer friend online to drive by and non-threateningly check in on them.

The victim claimed she then dialed in 911, to have it available if she needed to call, before the defendant knocked the phone out of her hand.

The defendant then became immediately concerned.

“He got angry and started making comments, you know, you’re calling the police on me and you know if you do that I’ll lose everything,” the victim said.

Wednesday, testimony from Forsyth Township Police and other medical personnel will be heard.


 

Steven DeValle trial enters day 4 as defendant takes the stand

MARQUETTE, Mich. (WLUC) – The Steven DeValle attempted murder trial entered its fourth day on Thursday July 27, with the defense calling a series of witnesses to the stand.

The first witness was Steven DeValle’s step mother. After that, his ex-wife in Illinois then delivered testimony via video conference. Both women claim that DeValle has never had a history of violence or abuse.

“As far as violence, that I know nothing of,” said Amy DeValle, ex-wife of the defendant.

The defense then heard from the officer who found Steven DeValle on the side of the road July 6, 2016, the morning after the incident. The deputy from Delta County said that DeValle seemed depressed and suicidal, it was then that he brought him to Escanaba’s St. Francis hospital.

The defense then submitted into evidence video of DeValle that morning when he was being arrested. In the video, DeValle appears manic, asking what he had done, claiming to have no memory of the incident.

Next, the defense called to the stand pharmacist Tyler Jenema, who said that while the medicine DeValle was taking, Paxil, could change his behavior, it was very unlikely that he would suffer from memory loss because of the medicine.

“The percentages are anywhere from half a percent or a little less, maybe up to one percent we think of patients maybe potentially experience amnesia,” said Jenema.

DeValle himself then took the stand, staying firm to his claim that he suffered from memory loss, even when his stories started to change. His original testimony to Forsyth Officer, Chief Warchock claimed that he had no recollection of the night of July 5, 2016 after 6pm but in court DeValle claimed he remembered events up to 9pm and even 10pm.

DeValle will continue to be examined and cross examined Friday, July 28 as the trial seems to be on track to that afternoon.

Father Forgives His Dead Daughter’s Boyfriend For Her Paroxetine (Seroxat/Paxil) Induced Murder ..


Quite an amazing story about a truly tragic ‘paroxetine induced murder’ that occurred in the Netherlands. I look forward to the book.

The capacity of the human heart to delve deep into the depths of compassion never ceases to inspire.

From the Guardian:

https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2017/may/26/experience-i-made-peace-with-my-daughters-killer

Experience: I made peace with my daughter’s killer

This is not about forgiveness. What happened cannot be changed; this is our way of dealing with it

Eddy Hekman
Eddy Hekman: ‘At 5am, two police officers came to the house and we learned what had happened.’ Photograph: Judith Jockel for the Guardian

My daughter Renske met her boyfriend Samarie on the train. She was heading from the Netherlands to Switzerland; he was an asylum seeker from Benin. They got chatting and exchanged phone numbers. That was how it started. They had a good relationship. He was attentive and they were very respectful towards each other. They spent holidays with me and my wife Lieuwkje.

Just before midnight on 13 April 2011, I saw on the news that a girl had been killed in Baflo, where Renske lived. About an hour later, they showed a picture of the scene, and I recognised her flat. I called the police and said, “I think my daughter is the victim of the incident in Baflo.” At 5am, two officers came to the house and we learned what had happened.

Samarie had picked up a fire extinguisher in the hall and beaten Renske to death. When an officer tried to arrest him, he grabbed his pistol and shot him dead. Samarie was then shot by police five times and taken to hospital. I couldn’t believe it; in the two years that we’d known Samarie, I had never seen him lose his temper. It was so far removed from the man we knew that we couldn’t make sense of it. It was immediately clear to my wife and I that he needed help, and we wanted to try to be there for him; to understand what had happened.

Initially, I thought it was connected to Samarie’s asylum claim. The day before the killing, his final appeal had been rejected and he was told he was being deported. Five weeks later I went to his flat and found a strip of pills. I knew Samarie was taking antidepressants, but I didn’t know what sort. The label said paroxetine, which is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), and as a psychologist I knew there are risks associated with it. From talking to Samarie’s psychiatrist, I discovered that he was reducing his dose. I read that in a small number of cases there have been severe side-effects to SSRIs, including outbursts of extreme violence, usually when the dose is being changed.

After a month or two, we contacted his lawyer, but we couldn’t see Samarie because he was still in the prison hospital. We wrote him a letter and he replied saying how sorry he was. In September we visited him for the first time. We wanted to see for ourselves that he was genuinely remorseful. Samarie came into the room in tears, and he and my wife Lieuwkje hugged each other. I shook his hand. We didn’t talk a lot. He was still limping from his injuries.

From then on, we visited once a month. At first, we talked about what had happened with Renske. He said he’d been in a state of anxiety all day and had tried to get help. They had an argument and she tried to stop him walking out; that was when he hit her. When I asked if he had an explanation, he said: “No, you know how much I love her.” The visits allowed us to bear the grief together; it was our way of coping.

The idea of writing a book together came to me in 2014 after Samarie’s trial. He was sentenced to 28 years in prison for double murder. I thought, the circumstances of my daughter’s death are so extraordinary that I need to find a way to put it in words. Renske was a caring, modest young woman. She and Samarie had dreamed of living together one day. As well as losing her, we had lost them as a couple.

Samarie’s sentence was reduced on appeal to five and a half years. Instead of premeditated murder, he was found to have diminished responsibility for the killing of Renske and partial responsibility for the death of the police officer; the appeal court ruled that he had been in a psychotic state. He has now completed his sentence, and been transferred to psychiatric care.

We continue to visit and support Samarie. It’s not about whether we forgive him. What happened can never be erased, for him or for us. I can understand people thinking it’s unbelievable that we can even look each other in the eye, but this is our way of dealing with it. I’ve never thought it was the wrong decision.

As told to Gordon Darroch. Do you have an experience to share? Email experience@theguardian.com

 

 

 

 

 

 

Paroxetine Guinea Pig : The Curious Case Of Italia Sudano…


There was an interesting article, about Paroxetine and older adults, which appeared in the Guardian in 2003.

A woman called Italia Sudano (an Italian born/British resident) was apparently used as a Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat) guinea pig, by her GP (doctor) without her consent. Her doctor was (allegedly) paid by GSK too, and this was also all done without Sudano’s knowledge. The doctor in question, Dr Robert Adams, was struck off by the GMC (General Medical Counsel) after he was found guilty, of not just unethically pimping out his patients to GSK, but also for using several other patients as guinea pigs for various other drug companies and drugs too (not to mention making thousands of pounds in the process).

This case, is disturbing, and also remarkable, but what is stranger still is- how we heard nothing more about it, apart from the report in the Guardian at the time.

The reason why I bring this case up is, currently GSK are being sued in a court in the US by Wendy Dolin, for the death of her husband, Stewart Dolin, in a ‘Paxil Induced Suicide‘ case. The Dolin case centers on GSK’s dodgy Paroxetine trials, and in my opinion, Paroxetine should never have been licensed in the first place. GSK admit that Paroxetine is dangerous for under 18’s, however, many of us who have taken the drug, are highly aware that all ages can suffer from Paroxetine’s dangerous side effects. Side effects such as akathisia, de-personalization, volatility, suicidality etc are common among all age groups (GSK just don’t give us the full facts).

It would be interesting to find out- What data did GSK obtain from cases such as Sudano’s? Were the results of these (highly unethical) live human guinea pig trials ever seen by anyone outside of GSK? Will GSK present the findings in court, in cases such as Stewart Dolin’s? Were GSK receving data from any other GP’s in relation to Paroxetine testing on patients (with or without their consent) at the time, before it, or any time since? If so, what exactly was GSK trying to study by gleaning data from the case of a 72 year old Woman put on Paroxetine, without her consent, or knowledge , from her dodgy doctor? Did Italia Sudano take a legal case against her doctor? If so- did GSK provide information as to the significance of their Paroxetine testing on her?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/09/health.nhs

Patients used as drug ‘guinea pigs’

Firms pay out millions to doctors to test medicines

When Italia Sudano went for a check-up with her GP, Dr Robert Adams, she was in good health. Her husband had died a few months earlier and her blood pressure was a little high.

Yet nothing could have prepared Sudano, 72, for the nightmare that was to follow and the discovery of a trail of greed and fraud that went right to the heart of the medical profession.

She was astonished to discover that her trusted GP had been using her as a guinea pig by giving her tablets which had not been medically approved. Worse still, he was being paid to do so by a pharmaceutical company.

An investigation by The Observer has revealed that many doctors are risking their patients’ health by subjecting them to medical trials without their knowledge.

Over the next few weeks Adams asked Sudano to return for more blood tests. By the end of the second month her arms were black and blue. Her son, Joe, said they looked as though they had been slammed in a door. She said: ‘At one point I asked if he was selling my blood.’

Little did Sudano know how close to the truth her comment was. On her last visit, Adams took a bottle of pills from the top drawer of his desk and suggested Sudano take one a day. While she thought it strange she wasn’t being given a prescription, she trusted her doctor.

But within hours of swallowing the pill, she could hardly walk because she was so dazed. Her face had swollen up badly and she was in considerable pain.

She stopped taking the tablets and complained to Hertfordshire Health Authority. This sparked an investigation that led to one of the largest cases of medical research fraud ever uncovered in Britain.

It emerged that over the previous five years Adams had earned more than £100,000 from drug companies, including the European giants AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer. They were all paying him to test their new drugs on his patients. Like Sudano, many of his patients had never given their consent and had no knowledge they were being used as human guinea pigs in a medical trial. Patients with no symptoms were given drugs and others who needed proper medication were given placebos. Adams was receiving almost £1,000 for each patient.

Last month Adams was found guilty by the General Medical Council (GMC) of serious professional misconduct and suspended for 12 months. The GMC’s lawyer described it as ‘assault’ and Sudano is now looking to sue Adams.

GlaxoSmithKline was using Adams to study its anti-depressant Paroxetine, but had to cancel the trial at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The drugs industry talks of bad apples and the odd errant doctor milking the system but insists that trials using GPs are essential for medical advances and that payment to doctors for the extra work involved is ethically correct.

But an investigation by The Observer suggests the problem of GPs using patients as guinea pigs without their consent is more widespread. Some 3,000 doctors each year are paid by drug firms to sign up their patients to tests and on average 15 patients are needed for each trial. With doctors picking up £1,000 per patient, drug companies are spending £45m on getting doctors onside. There is no suggestion the companies are implicated in moves to carry out the tests by doctors on patients secretly.

Medical fraud experts estimate that one per cent of all drug trials involve fraud, including failure to get proper consent from patients. This means hundreds of patients a year are being given unapproved and potentially dangerous drugs without their knowledge.

The Observer has discovered that in the last five years the GMC has taken action in a dozen cases involving GPs undertaking fraudulent research. Examples include:

· Dr Vasu Agrawal from Chigwell, Essex, removed samples of womb from menopausal women as part of a trial into a new hormone replacement drug called Divina Nova. Agrawal failed to tell the women they were testing a drug that could have serious side-effects. Agrawal, who forged signatures on consent forms, received almost £6,000 from Orion Pharma International.

· Dr Paul Chima from Edinburgh is estimated to have received more than £200,000 from a range of pharmaceutical companies for testing their new drugs for angina, asthma, high blood pressure and depression. He failed to warn patients of possible side-effects and offered one a £2,000 bribe not to give evidence against him.

· Dr James Boschler from south London was given £22,500 from Bayer and Solvay Healthcare. He claimed to have signed up 36 patients, but 25 of the consent forms were discovered to be forgeries.

The country’s foremost investigator of medical research fraud is Peter Jay, the former Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector who arrested serial killer Dennis Nilsen. Since 1996 Jay has run MedicoLegal Investigations, an independent body, and has taken 12 doctors to the GMC.

Jay is investigating six further cases, including one involving a GP in Manchester. Dr Mark Northfield is alleged not to have obtained consent from patients for entering them into trials to test drugs manufactured by Bayer and Roche to treat high blood pressure and heart problems. Northfield is contesting the allegations before the GMC professional conduct committee.

Jay said: ‘While the industry has become more alert to the problems over the last decade there is still clearly a worrying and persistent problem in research fraud involving doctors. This is not just an issue of patient safety, but a problem that might lead to bad drugs being approved or good drugs failing to be approved.’

The Observer’s revelations of the continuing problem of research fraud have sparked calls for industry guidelines to be toughened up. David Hinchcliffe, the Labour chair of the House of Commons Health Select Committee, described the situation as bordering on ‘scandalous’ and said his committee would look into the issue.

He said: ‘The relationship between the drug firms and the medical profession is one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It is extremely worrying that patients’ trust is being abused by doctors who are more interested in making money from the pharmaceutical industry.’

Dr Evan Harris, health spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, suggested that doctors involved in trials should be subject to on-the-spot inspections and that a patient’s consent to take part in a drug trial should be given outside the GP’s surgery, for example to a research officer acting for the firm.

Additional research by Charlotte Coulon

antony.barnett@observer.co.uk

GSK’s False Seroxat Suicide Statistics: Was Paroxetine A Misservice To Public Health Or Merely An Error?..


In this video, former GSK executive (and psychiatrist), Jeffrey Dunbar, gives his deposition, in a Paxil (Seroxat) induced suicide trial from 2006.

This is really astounding footage to watch.


Former GlaxoSmithKline executive Dr. Geoffrey Dunbar deposition in Paxil suicide case. In his testimony, Dr. Dunbar says that he helped author the drafts of the Paxil suicide report that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked for in 1991. The calculations in this report showed and suggested that instead of Paxil increasing the suicide risk by nearly 9 times, the drug decreased suicidal behavior.

He admits in his deposition that his reports include improperly counted suicidal behavior events and that publications in which he participated writing had incorrectly conveyed Paxil reduced suicidal behavior.

This deposition was played for the jury in the trial of Dolin v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. (D/B/A GlaxoSmithKline-GSK). The case stems from the alleged paroxetine-induced death of Stewart Dolin, a partner at the law firm Reed Smith. Paroxetine is the brand name version of this medication is called Paxil which was researched, developed, manufactured and marketed by GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”).

The lawsuit claims that GSK failed to adequately warn Mr. Dolin’s doctor about Paxil/paroxetine’s association with an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults of all ages. According to the lawsuit, when Mr. Dolin was prescribed paroxetine in 2010, the drug’s label did not accurately warn physicians of the drug’s association with an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults, despite GSK’s 2006 analysis showing a statistically significant 6.7 times greater risk in adults of all ages, as well as comparable statistically significant suicidal behavior evidence as far back as 1989 in Paxil’s clinical trials performed for its initial marketing approval.

More people could sign on to ‘Paxil’ drug case: lawyer


http://www.am730.ca/syn/112/280217/more-people-could-sign-onto-paxil-drug-case-lawyer

More people could sign on to ‘Paxil’ drug case: lawyer

More people could sign on to 'Paxil' drug case: lawyer

A Vancouver lawyer involved with the suit against pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline isn’t ruling out more people signing onto the case.

David Moriarty, from the firm Rosenberg Law, says a proposed settlement of $6.2-million was reached in the class action that already involves around 50 mothers and their children.

Moriarty says this settlement, which has yet to be approved in the B.C. Supreme Court, was filed in 2008.

“It’s 2017, this was an incredibly hard fought battle, numerous trips not just to the Supreme Court, but also the Court of Appeal, and we feel that a settlement is in the best interest of our class members.”

Moriarty says part of the settlement included GlaxoSmithKline not admitting any liability for the number of cardiovascular defects in babies born to mothers who took Paxil during the first three months of pregnancy.

Hello To The World Health Organization (WHO)…


I get views regularly from organizations as diverse as the WHO (World Health Organization) and the MHRA, to the US government and the European Medicines Authority. It’s interesting that the WHO were viewing today, because it was back in 2002, that the WHO reported that Paroxetine (Seroxat/Paxil) topped the list of withdrawal symptoms for SSRI drugs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1382551.stm

 

“Dr Healy told BBC News Online, of the 100m people world-wide who were on Seroxat, one in 1,000 could have a suicidal reaction.”

Withdrawal problems

A World Health Organization report which ranked antidepressants in order of withdrawal problems found Seroxat was the hardest to come off.

 

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..

https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/PIL.3185.latest.pdf

ian-hudsonseroxat-2

http://www.healyprozac.com/Trials/Tobin/Depositions/hudson-depo.txt

 

   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
 
 
 
                     SPHERION DEPOSITION SERVICES
                            (713) 650-3500

 
                   IAN R. B. HUDSON, M.R.C.P., M.D.
                                                     42
 
         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…


 

http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2016/09/exclusive-dr-ian-hudson-in-defence-of.html

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)


%d bloggers like this: