Family Of DJ, Jackson Cummings,Who Jumped To His Death, Say Seroxat Caused His Suicide…

“….In the months beforehand, he’d scoured the internet for cases of other people on the anti-depressant Seroxat who were experiencing adverse symptoms…”

Jackson’s father Tony raised their Seroxat concerns at the inquest, pointing out it was banned for use by adolescents in the US.

‘I just don’t want anybody else to go through what we’ve been through’

Mr Cummings said: “I just don’t want anybody else to go through what we’ve been through. This Seroxat must be stopped.”



My heart goes out to this guy. He didn’t need to die. Seroxat should have been banned decades ago, it should never have been licensed in the first place. GSK (the Seroxat manufacturers) are an abhorrent company

Jackson was the same age as me, the only difference is I came off Seroxat after 3 years, whereas he stayed on it for 21 years. How he withstood the side effects for that long is staggering. It must have been so hard for him, I can only imagine how difficult his life must have been

For me, Seroxat was hell for those 3 years, I cannot even fathom 21 years on that poison.

I hope Jackson is at peace now.


Family of DJ who jumped from multi-storey car park say medication caused suicide

Jackson Cummings took his life in Newcastle-under-Lyme, Staffordshire, one day before his 42nd birthday, an inquest heard

Jackson Cummings, 41, jumped to his death from a multi-storey car park

Get the biggest daily news stories by email

The family of a troubled DJ who jumped to his death from the top of a multi-storey car park fear his medication may have triggered suicidal thoughts, an inquest has heard.

In the months before his death, Jackson Cummings, 41, had scoured the internet for cases of other people on the anti-depressant Seroxat who were experiencing adverse symptoms.

His inquest on Friday heard he had been taking the drug for 21 years but the “effects had started to be worse than his anxiety” and he wanted to give it up.

And on the eve of his 42nd birthday, the DJ took his own life at a car park, Stoke-on-Trent Live reports today.

Speaking at the inquest, Jackson’s heartbroken mum Viv said: “The effects had started to be worse than his anxiety. But you can’t come off it – that’s the problem.”

Jackson Cummings, 41, jumped to his death from a multi-storey car park


The hearing was told Jackson suffered from seasonal affective disorder (SAD) and had a longstanding habit of altering the amount of medication he took without consulting doctors.

The inquest was told there was a ‘possibility’ his decision to wean himself off Seroxat placed him at increased risk of suicide.

It emerged Jackson had not asked doctors if he could come off the drug.

The evidence led to North Staffordshire coroner Andrew Barkley recorded a conclusion of suicide and said it was a ‘concern’ that Jackson was ‘making his own adjustments’ to his medication.

“That is a significant risk in that it can give rise to a relapse,” he said.

Jackson, of Trentham, Stoke-on-Trent, told mental health services of his intermittent suicidal thoughts, but had no plans to act on them. He agreed to stay on his medication and was due to be assessed again in a few weeks.

The family, who shared photos taken before the DJ’s funeral, shared their heartbreak




Dutch Seroxat teen users to sue GSK for side effects

More than 20 people who used the anti-depressant Seroxat (paroxetine) in their youth will make a formal claim against the maker GlaxoSmithKline at the end of this month, the Volkskrant said at the weekend. They say that GSK failed to inform them about the serious psychological side effects of the drug, including aggressive behaviour and an increased risk of suicide.
The SeroxatClaim foundation was set up last year after a Dutchman who took the drug while a youngster successfully sued GSK for the side effects he suffered. The side effects were not put down to the drug because they were not noted in the information leaflet provided with the medicine, even though GSK was aware of them, the court said. GSK is appealing against that ruling and declined to comment on the new court case, the Volkskrant said.


In the meantime, the information leaflet has been amended and the drug is no longer prescribed to the under 18s. In 2012, The United States Department of Justice fined GlaxoSmithKline $3 billion for withholding data on paroxetine, unlawfully promoting it for under-18s and preparing an article that misleadingly reported the drug was effective in treating adolescent depression.

Wendy Burn Promotes Another Pharma-Compromised Individual On Her Twitter..

“….Two of the four CSM scientists, Michael Donaghy, a reader in clinical neurology from Oxford University, and David Nutt, professor of psychopharmacology at Bristol University, hold shares in GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturers of Seroxat. They have to leave the room when Seroxat is discussed, although they stay for debate on the SSRI drugs as a class.

Prof Nutt and the invited expert, David Baldwin, senior lecturer in psychiatry at Southampton University, jointly fronted the promotional press launch of Seroxat after it won a licence to be prescribed for social anxiety disorder and was popularly dubbed the “shyness pill”….”

“….On Thursday, I went along to a press conference at the Royal Medical Society in Wimpole Street to hear about it. Smith-Kline Beecham had been stung by a front-page piece in last week’s Sunday Times which linked Seroxat to other new “lifestyle” drugs, Viagra and Xenical (for obesity), and estimated that it could cost the NHS an extra pounds 700m a year.

Drug companies need the patronage of the NHS, and therefore public support, and the anxiety of our host, SmithKline Beecham’s corporate communications director, Dr Lynne Smith, was apparent in her opening remarks. She said the Sunday Times story “incorporated a number of errors” and implied that it had trivialised “this misunderstood illness” by calling Seroxat “a pill for shyness”. She said that social anxiety disorder was to shyness “what clinical depression is to sadness”. But as the conference went on – and it lasted for almost two hours with slides, lectures, a video, and questions – it seemed to me that the paper had got the story pretty well right. Seroxat is an SSRI, a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor, which works by increasing the level of serotonin in the brain and inducing feelings of confidence and well-being.

It isn’t a new drug. Since 1991 it has been prescribed for obsessive compulsive disorder and depression. But its new constituency – its marketing opportunity – is for the shy. All they have to do is recognise that they are socially phobic.

Professor David Nutt, the director of the psychopharmacology unit at Bristol University, came to the lectern. He wanted to begin with a story. That morning on the train to Paddington he’d fallen into conversation with a woman who turned out also to be in the medical profession.

“Oh, the shyness pill,” she’d said when Professor Nutt told her of the conference he was off to. “I wonder if it could help me.” She was scared of “presentations”, where you have to stand up before an audience, speak and point to the slides on the screen. Her mouth dried, she couldn’t think, her sentences were scrambled. She’d stopped doing them.

I expected the professor’s point to be: no, the drug wasn’t meant to help with such professional hazards, it was designed to treat this much more serious condition, social anxiety disorder (I imagined frightened old people behind the locked doors of tower blocks). But in fact the professor’s point was the opposite. The pill may well be able to help her. Social anxiety disorder was precisely what she had – unlike the professor, who now began to talk in a relaxed way about the procession of statistics on the screen.”…

Not long after much fuss on Twitter, about the word ‘Pharma-Whore’ and the resignation of David Baldwin because of his links to Pharma, Royal College head- Wendy Burn- seems to see no problem in promoting another Pharma-Compromised individual – Prof .David Nutt.

Either Wendy Burn is oblivious, or she just doesn’t care, about these conflicts of interests. She doesn’t seem to see that these conflicts affect public discourse, prescribing habits and (in the case of Baldwin and Nutt in the 90’s) often help drug companies to promote products and harm patients by suppressing side effects (Seroxat is but one example).

Wendy doesn’t seem to think that doctors taking money from Pharma is a problem at all (see here– she more less told me that in a private message) and this leads me to think that she is not fit to represent the interests of people with mental illnesses. At the end of the day it is us (those prescribed the pills, and not warned of Side effects etc) who have had to suffer because of these conflicts of interests of Pharma-compromised individuals- not Wendy- it doesn’t affect her personally- so perhaps that’s why it doesn’t bother her that much?

I see a big problem with Pharma-Compromised individuals, often they have Pharma’s interests- not patients- at heart and that should concern , if it doesn’t- then she is not fit to represent those with mental illnesses. She should be concerned with patient’s interests first, not psychiatrists on Pharma’s payroll.

Perhaps Wendy, on behalf of all those harmed by prescriptions, would like to ask David Nutt (and all of the other Pharma-compromised medical professionals) how much money would it take for them to feel they might be influenced by Pharma’s interests before patients interests?

Would it take 1,000 pounds? , 2,000 ? 10,000? 100,000?

Is there a limit to the price for their conscience, their ethics or their worldview?

According to a link below- David Nutt had/has 300 shares in GSK, at around 1,500 pounds a share – it seems that when Glaxo Benefits, so does David.

Maybe Wendy could find out if he has other shares in other Pharmaceutical companies?

I think that would be in patient’s interests to know..



“…Professor David Nutt, a man with a MissionProfessor David Nutt, Head of Community Based Medic ine and Professor of Psychopharmacology at Bristol University, is a verywell qualified, well networked and
The Professor works on brain mechanisms of addiction, GABA, receptors andso on. He has expressed a belief that psychotherapies are over-hyped, potentially dangerous and possibly ineffective. He produces papers with subjects suchas ‘Why does the world have such a “down”on antidepressants?’
Perhaps with 300 shares in GSK he might be justified in asking suchquestions. Professor Nutt promoted Seroxat at Glaxos launch of Seroxat for “social anxiety disorder”. With Karl Rickels and Dan J. Stein, he produced a book in September 2002 on the subject of “generalised anxiety disorder”.
Anxiety is quite obviously a deep and vexed questionwith multiple identities, though there are those wh o think not.In 2006 there was aconsensus meetingon the use of ADHD drugs in adults and adolescents. Itwasorganised by the British Association for Psychopharmacology (BAP) and funded byCephalon, Janssen, Lilly, Shire UK and Shire US – all drug companies that manufacture ADHDdrugs – Adderall, Modafinil, Concerta and Strattera . The Consensus Group was headed byProfessor David J Nutt. Apparently there was strong evidence for wider use of the drugs for those who were missing out….”
  • Have you, in the past three years, accepted paid speaking engagements in industry supported symposia?
  • Lundbeck, Otsuka, Lilly, BMS, Janssen, GSK, Pfizer, AstraZeneca, D&A Pharma, Servier, Martindale


  • Have you, in the past three years, acted as a consultant to any company with an interest in psychopharmacology?
  • Lundbeck, Nalpharm, Shire, MSD, Actelion, Opiant, Orexigen, Compass, D&A Pharma, Ranvier, Mundipharma


  • Have you, in the past three years, had ownership or part ownership of a company with interests in the area of psychopharmacology? (This would include holding the shares of major companies in one’s own name, or those of dependent family members.)
  • P1Vital, Equasy Enterprises, Alcarelle


Seroxat Addict Speaks Out..

Now doctors MUST wake-up to the dangers of patients hooked on depression pills

  • For 18 months the Daily Mail has been campaigning for patients addicted to pills 
  • Now, a major report proves that millions of people are affected by the affliction 
  • Here, Jonathan Gornall details the compelling stories of two typical sufferers  

Stevie Lewis went to see her GP for help with insomnia after struggling with the pressures of starting up a business consultancy. The 41-year-old from Bristol hoped she’d be given something to help her sleep.

‘But to my surprise the doctor announced that I was on the edge of clinical depression — what my mother’s generation would have called a nervous breakdown,’ she recalls.

And instead of sleeping tablets, she was given a prescription for paroxetine, a type of antidepressant known as a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI), thought to work by increasing the level of a mood-enhancing brain chemical, serotonin.

Hooked: Stevie Lewis, from South Wales, went to see her GP for help with insomnia - but was told she was on the cusp of clinical depression...and given addictive anti-depressants

Hooked: Stevie Lewis, from South Wales, went to see her GP for help with insomnia – but was told she was on the cusp of clinical depression…and given addictive anti-depressants

‘I was completely shocked, not least when he told me I had a chemical imbalance in my brain,’ says Stevie, who now lives in Rogiet, South Wales. ‘I thought very carefully about whether I should take this drug, but in the end I did, because I believed him — he was my doctor.’

However, her shock at being prescribed an antidepressant was nothing compared with the horror that awaited her when she tried to wean herself off paroxetine.

Stevie did not know this was the start of a 20-year battle to extricate herself from the grip of a drug she never needed, during which she would struggle with appalling side-effects that doctors refused to acknowledge were caused by withdrawal, dismissing them as a return of her original symptoms.

Antidepressants, she was told emphatically, weren’t addictive and she could stop taking them whenever she felt like it. But when she tried, she found herself running a gauntlet of horrific side-effects, including extreme anxiety and an irrational terror of everyday acts, objects and places. At times, she felt she might be going mad.

But, as revealed in the Mail today, a major new study suggests that far from losing her mind, Stevie, like millions of patients, was indeed experiencing drug withdrawal.

The review, one of the largest ever carried out of studies investigating the incidence, severity and duration of reactions to antidepressant withdrawal, concludes that the phenomenon is not only real, but ‘more widespread, severe and long-lasting’ than doctors have been led to believe by years of guidance from the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE).

Stevie endured a 20-year battle to extricate herself from the grip of a drug she never needed

Stevie endured a 20-year battle to extricate herself from the grip of a drug she never needed

The new research was carried out on behalf of the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence, and is published in the journal Addictive Behaviors.

Researchers looked at 23 studies published over the past 20 years and concluded that 56 per cent of all patients on antidepressants suffer withdrawal symptoms, of which 46 per cent said their symptoms were severe.

The authors estimate that in England alone, where one in six adults takes antidepressants, 4 million people may experience symptoms when withdrawing from the drugs, and around 1.8 million may experience these as severe.

They also found that it’s ‘not uncommon for patients to experience symptoms for several weeks, months or longer’, with some having debilitating symptoms for years.

These findings, say the authors, make a nonsense of the NICE guidance, which advises prescribing doctors that while withdrawal symptoms ‘can be severe’, they are ‘usually mild and self-limiting over about one week’.

The current guidance from NICE ‘is not only out of date but doesn’t respect the evidence base’, says James Davies, co-author of the new paper and a reader in medical anthropology and mental health at the University of Roehampton.

And the personal cost to patients is incalculable. Dr Davies suggests the faulty guidance is causing ‘many doctors to misdiagnose withdrawal symptoms, often as relapse, resulting in unnecessary and harmful long-term prescribing’. That’s because when people come off antidepressants and then experience withdrawal, ‘the doctor looks at the NICE guidelines and concludes it can’t be withdrawal’.

Fact: 56 per cent of all patients on anti-depressants suffer withdrawal symptoms - of which 46 per cent said their symptoms were severe

Fact: 56 per cent of all patients on anti-depressants suffer withdrawal symptoms – of which 46 per cent said their symptoms were severe

‘Patients are regularly having their withdrawal reactions either denied, ignored or, most concerningly, misdiagnosed as a relapse in their condition, at which point the drugs are reinstated.’

As a consequence, the length of time people are kept on the drugs has doubled since the guidelines were issued in 2004.

Dr Davies suggests that the existing guidelines have contributed to the doubling over the past decade of the number of adults in England on antidepressants — an escalation he describes as nothing less than ‘a public health crisis’.

It’s important to note that many people say these medications have helped them. However, there is no scientific proof that the drugs do so by reversing a ‘chemical imbalance’. There is also evidence that, for most, they’re no more beneficial than placebos.

‘But unlike placebos, they cause side-effects and withdrawal problems,’ says Dr Davies.

The new review of evidence has been submitted to Public Health England, which is conducting a review into prescription pill dependency, set up in January after a campaign backed by the Mail.

It’s also been sent to NICE, whose current guidance is based chiefly on a paper presented at a psychiatric symposium on ‘antidepressant discontinuation syndrome’ held in Phoenix, Arizona, in the U.S. in December 1996, which was funded by drugs company Eli Lilly.

‘The understanding of anti-depressant withdrawal was significantly shaped by that symposium,’ says Dr Davies. But neither that paper nor a later one relied upon by NICE ‘cites a single source that supports the one-week claim’.

‘We’ve looked very thoroughly for the evidence to support the NICE advice, and there isn’t any,’ adds John Read, a professor of clinical psychology at the University of East London and co-author of the new paper. ‘There’s no way they can put out the same advice again once they’ve read this.’

Dr Joanna Moncrieff, a psychiatrist and leading critic of the overuse of antidepressants, welcomes the research and says it’s imperative NICE updates its guidance.

‘This paper shows that official documents and the psychiatric profession have not taken this issue seriously, not put enough effort into researching it and not wanted to face up to the problems that these drugs can cause,’ she says.

‘We’re giving people these drugs for years on end and we haven’t bothered to work out what happens to them, how that affects the body, and what happens when people stop them. That seems just outrageous, a terrible situation.’


The new research casts doubt on the official view that withdrawal symptoms from antidepressants are usually mild and short-lived, as set out in NICE guidelines and in a recent statement from the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP), which said: ‘In the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks’.

In fact, as many as half of patients will experience withdrawal symptoms, with nearly half of those suffering severe effects, the new research has found. ‘We are very much hoping that our research will influence the direction of NICE’s new guidance,’ says Dr James Davies, one of the authors.

Professor John Read, a psychologist and the report’s co-author, adds: ‘We want NICE to acknowledge that antidepressant withdrawal is more common, long-lasting and severe than current guidelines state, and to oblige doctors to warn patients.’

Change may be on its way, though. In comments on the new research Professor Wendy Burn, the RCP’s president, said ‘antidepressants are an effective, evidence-based treatment’ which were ‘a life-saver for many people’.

She adds: ‘But not enough research has been done into what happens when you stop taking them. As this review shows, for many people the withdrawal effects can be severe, particularly when antidepressants are stopped abruptly.

‘We are pleased that Public Health England is prioritising dependence on, and withdrawal from, prescribed medicines as an area of review, and welcome NHS England’s referral to NICE asking that they do the same.’

Many, she believes, would not start taking antidepressants if they knew the battle they might have to get off them. ‘There are lots of people who contact me who have struggled to get off this medication and feel so angry that this was not highlighted to them.

‘This data is now there, and both doctors and patients need to be much more cautious about starting antidepressants in the first place, because it is quite clear that getting off them is not easy for a substantial number of people.’

Among them Stevie Lewis. She decided to come off paroxetine for the first time after taking it for about five months, but within a few days began to suffer ‘tremendous nausea and dizziness’, which lasted for two weeks.

She had no idea it had anything to do with the drug — neither did her doctor, who diagnosed labyrinthitis, an inner-ear disorder affecting balance. In fact, dizziness is a well-documented side-effect of suddenly stopping antidepressants.

In March 1998, Stevie went reluctantly back on the drug after suffering three miscarriages and the death of her mother. ‘Looking back, all I really needed was grief counselling,’ says Stevie, now 63. ‘It’s absurd, given what I’d gone through, that someone could suggest I was feeling low because of a chemical imbalance in my brain.’

After a year back on paroxetine, Stevie again decided to quit — ‘but this time I just couldn’t do it’.

Every time she tried, a few days later she’d feel highly anxious and tearful, developing insomnia. Her doctor said it was anxiety disorder and told her to stay on the pills.

It was only in 2002, when she made contact with a support group online, that she realised she’d become dependent on the drug and was experiencing withdrawal from it.

‘It had been a shock to be told I was on the edge of a nervous breakdown, and then another to be told I had a chemical imbalance in my brain — now I was a prescription junkie,’ says Stevie.

Was Ruth Davidson Prescribed Seroxat?



“….I threw away the pills… I couldn’t go back to a place where I didn’t know what was real and what wasn’t…”

Ruth Davidson MP.


There has been much discussion online about UK MP – Ruth Davidson’s – revelations that she had adverse reactions to an anti-depressant which she was prescribed in her young college years. The anti-depressant that caused her so many problems hasn’t been named, but it looks like it could have been Seroxat. In an excerpt Ruth describes the common side effects of Seroxat induced nightmares, paranoia, increased suicidal thoughts, and self harm (all now known and well established Seroxat side effects which are more common than GSK, psychiatrists, or the UK regulators will ever admit).

In the excerpt, of Ruth’s story, below (from Sunday Times Magazine 16th Sept 2018), she mentions that the anti-depressant she was prescribed was embroiled in legal controversy including class action lawsuits in relation to suppression of info about adolescent  suicide.

The only drug that has had this major controversy discussed in the media is Seroxat/Paxil, so I take it that Ruth was likely prescribed Seroxat and that this is the drug that caused her so much misery.

Here’s the excerpt.



Ruth Davidson praised after talking openly about mental health issues

Scottish Conservative leader reveals she self-harmed and had suicidal thoughts as a teenager

Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, is currently pregnant with her first child.
Ruth Davidson, leader of the Scottish Conservatives, is currently pregnant with her first child. Photograph: Hannah Mckay/Reuters

The Scottish Conservative leader, Ruth Davidson, has been praised by mental health experts, campaigners and MPs for talking openly about self-harming and having suicidal thoughts as a teenager.

Davidson, who is pregnant with her first child, talked about going into “a total tailspin” after a boy she knew killed himself. At 17, she said that she started hurting herself, punching walls, cutting her stomach and arms with blades or broken glass. When she was 18, she was diagnosed with clinical depression.

The comments were made in her new book, extracts of which were published in the Sunday Times. During an interview with the paper, Davidson pulled up her sleeve to reveal her scars.

She explicitly ruled out ever being leader of the Conservatives, despite frequently being tipped for the position. Asked if she would ever run, Davidson said: “No. I value my relationship and my mental health too much for it. I will not be a candidate.”

The Scottish politician’s openness and frankness has been met with praise by psychiatrists, politicians and mental health campaigners.

Norman Lamb, the Liberal Democrat MP for North Norfolk, said she was an “admirable human being”, adding that her words would help to confront the stigma around mental health problems.

He said: “It’s also a message of optimism because she has overcome challenges … That message of optimism and hope is an important one.”

Alastair Campbell, the former spin doctor who is now an ambassador for Time To Change, Mind and Rethink, said that Davidson’s decision to speak about her mental health could only be a positive thing.

“The more people in public life who show that it is possible to have, or to have had mental health problems, and to take on big challenges, the better,” he said.

“I certainly don’t think that the issues Ruth Davidson has talked about would in any way bar her from seeking high office. But ultimately people have to be the best judges themselves of what levels of pressure and scrutiny they could bear and there is no doubt being prime minister means a lot of both.”

The Royal College of Psychiatrists were equally positive, with Dr Bernadka Dubicka, chair of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ child and adolescent faculty, saying it showed anyone can be affected by mental illness. “But with the right help, people can recover and lead successful lives,” she added.

Others pointed out that mental health problems should not put people off taking on political roles. Natasha Devon, a mental health campaigner, welcomed said Davidson’s words could be be interpreted as meaning that “if you have mental health issues you aren’t fit to lead a party.”

“That’s simply not true; mental illnesses, just like their physical counterparts can be managed and with the right support they don’t render a person less capable,” she said.

Lamb said that the balance Davidson displayed showed exactly the sort of person who should be in the political the system and running the country. “We should reflect profoundly on how the way we do politics puts off someone like that,” he said.

Lamb said in 2015 he had to make his own mind up on whether to stand as leader of the Lib Dems. “[I was] wracked by self-doubt and indecision and completely identify with what Davidson says and the view she reaches and the words she uses to express the fact she is having a child and wants to commit to that child as a parent,” he said.

The Sunday Times printed extracts from Davidson’s new book, titled Yes She Can, in which she wrote: “I started hurting myself: punching walls, cutting my stomach and arms with blades or broken glass, drinking far, far too much and becoming belligerent and angry, pushing people away. I was punishing myself and hating myself for it at the same time.”

At 18 she was diagnosed with clinical depression, but her medication gave her “desperate, dark, terrible dreams” where she “couldn’t tell what was real”. “I started having suicidal thoughts,” she said.

By her second year at university, Davidson “became so afraid of sleep that I spent a whole term living nocturnally”. She described depression as “a smothering black blanket” that took away her hope and energy.

She added she was still scared of returning to that state. “When I have periods of heightened anxiety, or I can feel the weight of the black blanket start to descend, I go back to what I know works for me: structure, exercise, forward momentum, measurable outcomes. Sometimes that’s hard in a job that’s 100 miles per hour,” she wrote.

Professor David Baldwin’s Lovefest With The Pharmaceutical Industry….


David… did you miss the part where it says on the doctors oath’ First do no harm?.

What did you think it said, ‘First do for Pharm(a)?’ …

“…Dr Baldwin declared a personal interest in Lundbeck, manufacturers of the drug Citalopram. According to the minutes, however, he did not declare his connections with five other companies, including Seroxat manufacturers SmithKline Beecham, which is now GlaxoSmithKline…..”

The Guardian 2003..

Prof David Baldwin was instrumental in the promotion of Seroxat in the late 90’s. I hold him partly responsible for the damage that Seroxat did to me, and to many tens of thousands of others. He didn’t warn us of the serious side effects like akathisia, aggression, suicidal thoughts and withdrawals. He benefited (financially) while, I- and many others- suffered, being poisoned on a drug that should never have been licensed.

In the 1990’s Seroxat was a relatively new drug on the market, promoted and pushed heavily, by GSK and its legion of psychiatrists, academics, and doctors on its payroll at the time.

David Baldwin said of Seroxat, in 1998 (the year I was prescribed it -ironically).

“...Dr David Baldwin, senior lecturer in psychiatry at the University of Southampton, said it was one of the safest drugs ever made…

I find it remarkable how David Baldwin could state at the time that Seroxat was one of the safest drugs ever made, when little was known about how Seroxat would be received (in terms of millions of people being prescribed it). How could Baldwin know that Seroxat was one of the safest drugs ever made? He simply couldn’t know that, and to make a statement like that, is really quite audacious.

What Baldwin didn’t tell the public at the time (that he was making these outrageous statements to the media about Seroxat), was that he was also an utter whore to the pharmaceutical industry (and still is). He has more conflicts of interest than I’ve had hot dinners.

Of course, in the UK, there is virtually no transparency in relation to how much financial gain doctors like Baldwin get from promoting pharmaceutical products to the public whilst receiving payments from the drug manufacturers. Even when they do have to declare conflicts, it only has to be declared in relation to the topic at the time, and only in the last 3 years. Therefore, it can seem like doctors are a lot less in conflict that they usually are.

David Baldwin has blood on his hands from his promotion of Seroxat. How much money did GSK give him over the years? why don’t you tell the public, and the media, that David? and while your at it- why don’t you disclose the total sum of financial gain you’ve made from your faustian pact with the entire pharmaceutical industry (throughout your career) defending anti-depressants against criticism in the media?

What would Dr Baldwin say to all the families, parents, and friends of those who killed themselves from being prescribed a drug that is as harmful as Seroxat?

I hope Baldwin enjoys his piles of pharmaceutical money in this mortal sphere, you can’t spend it in hell David can you?

Because, for people like you, hell wouldn’t be hot enough.

Seroxat is not one of the safest drugs ever made David, it’s one of the most dangerous. You profited while people died on it. You promoted it, whilst also getting paid by the drug company. I almost lost my life on Seoxat, and it’s because of the greed and arrogance of psychiatrists like you that many people have been harmed by psychiatric medications. It doesn’t seem to matter to you that GSK are one of the most corrupt pharmaceutical companies on the planet, with a record of dodgy drugs, fraud, lies, and harm to patients.

You would take money from them despite knowing this.


For more on Dr Baldwin’s absolute prostitution of himself to the pharmaceutical industry see here-

For extensive links to Seroxat study 329, and its harms to kids, see here-

For other links to Seroxat horrors see here-

For links to a complaint made about Baldwin see here –

Professor David Baldwin MA DM FRCPsych FHEA

David Baldwin is Professor of Psychiatry and Head of the Mental Health Group in the Clinical and Experimental Sciences Academic Unit of the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Southampton in the UK. He trained in medicine at Charing Cross Hospital Medical School, in psychiatry at St Mary’s Hospital Medical School and the Maudsley Hospital, and in medical humanities at Birkbeck College. He is an Honorary Professor in the University of Cape Town in South Africa and Visiting Professor at Suzhou University Guangji Hospital in China.He is current Chair of the Psychopharmacology Committee of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Past President of Depression Alliance, a Medical Patron of Anxiety UK, Editor-in-Chief of Human Psychopharmacology, and author of over 260 full articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals.

Professor Baldwin aims to improve clinical outcomes in mood and anxiety disorders: by investigating the role of neurobiological and psychological factors in causing and maintaining illness; through improving trial design when evaluating efficacy and tolerability of treatment interventions; by assessing the effectiveness and acceptability of treatment interventions in wider clinical practice; through identifying more accurately those patient groups at particular risk of poor outcomes; and by offering a tertiary referral specialist clinical service to patients with chronic and treatment-resistant conditions.

Declaration of interests

Personal pecuniary interests: In the last three years (September 2014–August 2017), I have received honoraria for giving educational lectures in meetings organised by AstraZeneca, Janssen, H. Lundbeck A/S, Pierre Fabre and Pfizer. I have received financial support from the Ministry of Defence relating to my membership of its Research Ethics Committee. I have also received financial support from the Wiley publishing company relating to my editorship of the Human Psychopharmacology journal.

Personal family interest: My wife has received a personal honorarium for participating in an advisory board organised by H. Lundbeck A/S.

Non-personal pecuniary interest: In the last three years, my employer has received reimbursement for my time spent in attendance at advisory board meetings organised by Liva Nova and Mundipharma.

Personal non-percuniary interest: I am a Medical Patron of Anxiety UK and the University-nominated Governor on the Board of Southern Health NHS Foundation Trust (April 2017 onwards).


Dr Baldwin helped the manufacturers to launch Seroxat for social anxiety disorder, when he reportedly said, “Seroxat is one of the safest drugs ever made.” He co-authored two papers on this drug (1999 and 2000) one of which disclosed sponsorship by the manufacturers; the other didn’t but probably should have done. (Baldwin D, et al, (on behalf of the paroxetine study group) Paroxetine in social phobia/social anxiety disorder, Br J Psychiatry 1999 Aug, 175: 120-126. and Baldwin DS, Clinical experience with paroxetine in social anxiety disorder Int Clin Psychopharmacol 2000 July, 15 Suppl 1; S19-24)

Dr Baldwin was principal author of a Wyeth sponsored study, published in 2002. He was also identified as a member of the advisory board of Wyeth (Baldwin DS et al., Can we distinguish anxiety from depression? Psychopharmacol Bull, 2002 Summer, 36 Suppl 2, 158-165.)

Dr Baldwin has been identified also as a member of the Bristol Myers Squibb study group on CN-104-070 (nefazodone) (Baldwin DS et al, A randomised double blind controlled comparison of nefazodone and paroxetine in the treatment of depression: safety, tolerability and efficacy in continuation phase treatment, J Psychopharmacol, 2001 Sept, 15(3), 161-165.)

In 1997, Dr Baldwin co-authored a paper on SSRIs with an employee of Pfizer (Lane R, Baldwin D., Selective serotonin reuptake Inhibitor-Induced serotonin syndrome, J Clin Psychopharmacol, 1997 June, 17(3), 208-221

David S Baldwin MBBS DM FRCPsych is Professor of Psychiatry and Head of Mental Health Group, University of Southampton, Faculty of Medicine, UK and Honorary Professor of Psychiatry, University of Cape Town, South Africa. Competing interests: DSB has acted as a consultant to and holds or has held research grants (on behalf of his employer) from a number of companies with an interest in anxiety and depressive disorders (Asahi, AstraZeneca, Cephalon, Eli Lilly, Grunenthal, GSK, Lundbeck, Organon, Pharmacia, Pierre Fabre, Pfizer, Roche, Servier, Sumitomo, and Wyeth)





The antidepressant Seroxat has been linked to an increase in suicide attempts among adults. Researchers suggest that patients and doctors should be warned of the propensity to suicidal thoughts while on the drug.

Experts have already warned that Seroxat is not suitable for children and adolescents due to an increased risk of self harm.

In the new study of 916 adults on the drug, seven attempted to take their own life. Dr Ivar Aursnes and colleagues at the University of Oslo compared these findings with 550 patients taking a placebo, of whom one tried to commit suicide. Their conclusions are published in the journal BMC Medicine.

They say: “We conclude that the recommendation of restrictions in the use of paroxetine (Seroxat) in children and adolescents … should include usage in adults.”

Is Giving Anti-Depressants To Teens A bad Idea ?

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


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

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

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

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

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

It’s just marketing.

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

Why do they mislead the public?

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

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

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

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


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

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

Anti-depressants don’t save lives.

Doctors like David Healy save lives.

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



Psychiatrist Carmine Pariante Won’t Prescribe Seroxat..


I have to say fair play to Carmine Pariante for debating Joanna Moncrief in this live Q and A on YouTube. I don’t agree with many of his views on SSRI’s, however I thought it was interesting that (in a response to a question for Bob Fiddaman) he seemed to think that Seroxat (paroxetine) ‘has one one of the worst side effect profiles and withdrawal symptom profiles” and ‘as a clinician’ he doesn’t use it’…

Good to hear that he wouldn’t touch Seroxat with a barge pole, however what about all the tens of thousands of people who had to suffer Seroxat’s horrors? what about the Seroxat suicides? what about GSK’s behavior in relation to it?

Were we all just psychiatry’s human guinea pigs Carmine?





Dutch Seroxat User- Gerard Eggebeen- Wins Case Against GSK For Seroxat Side Effects..

Note: If you are reading this Gerard, please e-mail me on

I would love to chat with you.


Opmerking: als je dit leest, stuur me dan een e-mail op

Ik zou graag met je chatten.





“..Afterwards you start thinking and looking back at your life, suddenly the penny fell: It is not my nature to be aggressive or anxious.” – Gerard Eggebeen


Gerard Eggebeen (32) used Seroxat for years. First prescribed it in his teens for depression, and then suffering serious side effects for years, he recently successfully sued GlaxoSmithKline and won.

The verdict of the judge only caused a brief moment of happiness. “Imagine the world as colorless, everything is gray and matt and nothing makes sense, that’s how I feel every day.” Gerard has little hope that he will ever get rid of his depression again. His struggle against the pharmaceutical giant keeps him going.


Since Gerard knows what damage seroxat has caused him, he sees it as his mission to get justice for himself and others.

“I will not rest before this mess is for everyone under eighteen of the market and people who have suffered from it experience a sense of justice,” he says. “The idea that someone is sitting somewhere in a skyscraper at GSK, who now knows what they have done to people…”

See these articles in Dutch (use google translate to get an ok gist of it in English) for more:




People Write Into People’s Pharmacy About Paxil/Seroxat Suicide..

“….One person wrote about her son: “He was a 35-year-old young man with everything to live for, good job, happily married, no financial problems. He was experiencing some anxiety and chest pains and saw a doctor, who prescribed Paxil. Three days later, my son committed suicide. Something needs to be done to stop this from happening to others….’’


the ecosystem approach to obgyn

My Life in my 60's

Finding joy in my 60's

The Vile Mint

Poetry, Short Stories and Violent Ideas



Rebel City Writers

A radical perspective on local, national and international issues from the pens of a few disgruntled agitators!

Critical Dispatches

Reports from my somewhat unusual life

~ L to the Aura ~

sustainability. compassion. inspiration.

Heroes Not Zombies

becoming not being.......

DES Daughter Network

Because Social Media increases Awareness and brings the DES Community Together

recovery network: Toronto

people can and do recover from what is sometimes called "mental illness"

Deidra Alexander's Blog

I have people to kill, lives to ruin, plagues to bring, and worlds to destroy. I am not the Angel of Death. I'm a fiction writer.

%d bloggers like this: