The Infamous ‘Hitler’ Commenter Makes A Salient Point Once Again…


 

Interesting comment by the ex-Seroxat user ‘Kiwi’ who made the notorious comment on my blog the other day about David Baldwin. It seems that the off the cuff comment made national news in the UK, quite astounding considering a lot of the scandals on my blog don’t make national news, but a random comment on an obscure (but maybe not so obscure now) blog post makes headlines news. The comment was insignificant, as was the phrase, however the (planted) sensationalist story certainly muddied the waters around the context and the content. The issue was about conflicts of interest, which are rife within psychiatry, and the drugs industry that funnels money into it, and has been for at least 50 years of the pharmacological mental illness treatment-age. This bias, and blatant unethical and immoral selling out of patients for a buck has cost people their lives.

That is the real headline.

Check out the comment below by the person that made the original comment; which of course the Royal college seized upon to throw a red herring into the media. I don’t buy it, and most people won’t. It’s a game to them. The whole psych-drug charade is a game to them. They care nothing for the harm it causes. The mental illness industry makes billions for Pharma and the doctors on their payroll make a nice littler earner too (some of the top dog psychs such as Key Opinion Leaders can make hundreds of thousands from industry).

The people that suffer because of this are unsuspecting patients – because of lies from the Royal College of psychiatry and the playing down of side effects of psychiatric drugs. Conflicts of interest, fraud, and bias costs patients their lives. See the Zyprexa, Seroxat and Risperdal scandals for more on how all that happens.

How much have the members of the Royal College of UK psychiatry made from Pharma over the past 50 years? How much? Wouldn’t you like to know a ball park figure? I certainly would. That would make some headline wouldn’t it? Now imagine how much psychiatrists have made over the past 50 years- from Pharma- globally? I imagine that figure would make global headlines, not national ones…

 

https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2018/09/26/to-david-baldwin/#comment-54065

kiwi

“Drugs advisor [David Baldwin] quits after being branded worse than Hitler [on Social media]”.
Wow! Believe me this guy has done everyone a favour including himself.
The truth hurts doesnt it!
Im not as widely read on social media as some but i can think of only one person who blogged and labeled Baldwin ‘worse than Hitler’. That person being myself. And how flattered and thrilled i am to think i could have such influence to have triggerred his resignation. Brilliant.
Several points have now been proven one being that when it comes to name calling and labelling of others these people can give it but they cant take it. Maybe Baldwin was forced to look in the mirror and reflect on the millions of people that have been harmed by him. The millions of seroxat victims who at this point in time are oblivious to the future plight that awaits (the traumatising withdrawal horror show that is relentless long lasting and brutal putting people in a position where death becomes a welcome relief and thousands by the way take this option and its not because they have a mental illness) should they try to get off the drug.
Perhaps Baldwin and anyone else who disagrees with me who condemns my comments might like to try some seroxat for themselves. For no one knows a drug like the one who is taking it or has taken it or had to get off it. A person with an experience is never at the mercy of someone with an opinion. Heres the invitation take 40mg of paroxetine for 6 months then quit it. Dont worry about tapering [as ‘Not being given a tapering schedule is a minor issue’ response of a doctor]. Let me tell you something as for ‘withdrawal symptoms only lasting two weeks’ you may in fact have no withdrawal symptoms for several months (for they are often delayed) but then 3-4 months down the track BANG the withdrawal will hit like a train trash in the brain. You will suddenly become uncharacteristically weepy and tearful for no reason and then you will wish you had never been born.
Im 8 years seroxat free and still recovering. I am still unable to work fulltime but im hoping one day i will return to fulltime employment. The withdrawal left me nonfunctioning human for over 6 years unemployed and unemployable. Never had any psych issues in my life it was all off label pill pushing. I would be the last person in the world to commit suicide but the withdrawal left me fightng for my life daily. Its a miracle im still alive. Thankfully i am and so will continue to state the truth.
Perhaps Baldwin has now caught a glimpse of the truth and seen the horror he has caused (he should be deeply ashamed) and done the right thing. Maybe his conscience wasnt totally severed afterall!
Do i stand by my W-T-H label. Yes you bet, because its the truth.
Disagree with me?
Okay ..YOU take seroxat for ten years, get off it , then come back and comment?
Till then you have no voice just an (ignorant) opinion.
It appears the population of the UK is 63,186,000. Apparently about ten percent of people are taking these drugs. Thats a lot of people currently wearing striped pyjamas.
………
Keep up the good work Truthman.

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

Wendy Burn’s Baptism Of Fire: Welcome To The Twitter-Verse…


Page_1

 


Twitter is a firestorm at the best of times. It’s a veritable inferno filled with opinions, trolls and cranks. But it’s also the primary PR tool of our times. It’s where current opinions pulsate and the zeitgeist resonates. It’s where consensus builds, and movements cause social change. It’s where the news becomes news in real time. A tweet can ruin, or make, a celebrities career, or it can start world war III; even the US president Trump loves twitter and his tweets cause global media storms daily. It’s not for the fainthearted though- that’s for sure, particularly if you want to get a message across, or if you are trying to represent an organization or ideology (or maintain the status quo). That’s why I was surprised to see Wendy Burn, the president of the Royal college of UK psychiatrists (no less), enter the fray, when she was passed the top job baton by previous president, Simon Wessely, not too long ago.

Whereas Simon was aloof, impersonal, detached, and would block any critical tweeters quicker than you could say lobotomy-Wendy (it has to be said)- has been trying her best to engage with the twitter-verse. Truthfully though, I feel that it can’t be easy for her, particularly when you have a constant avalanche of criticism coming from people who have been harmed by her profession (psychiatry), and particularly also when you have experienced bloggers, such as Bob Fiddaman and others (including myself) putting her on the spot with awkward questions about side effects, conflicts of interest, and the various other gripes us (peeved off) bloggers, tweeters and activists have been brewing on (and researching about) for years.

I never thought I would say this about a senior psychiatrist (considering it is psychiatry that harmed me in so many ways), but I genuinely feel sorry for Wendy. As I said, it can’t be easy entering such a hostile technological social media space like Twitter, particularly for a lady in her position and with her status to defend. However, it also has to be said, that psychiatry has a lot to answer for, and perhaps who better to give answers for psychiatry than the actual president of UK psychiatry?

Personally I have found engaging with Wendy fascinating. I am honestly intrigued to know her opinion on all the stuff that I have been blogging about. For instance, I’d love to know what she thinks of Seroxat/Paxil study 329? or GSK in general as a corporation. I’d like to know what she thinks of the data on psychiatric drugs, does she think it’s reliable? does she think that we can trust drug companies, considering that they have paid tens of billions in fines over the last few years. Fines resulting from misrepresenting data, corrupting doctors and psychiatrists, committing fraud and harming patients etc.

I have tried to engage Wendy with some of these topics. For instance, I asked her several times what she thought of the well documented scandal of Seroxat harming teenagers, or Zyprexa causing diabetes, or Risperdal causing breasts to grow in young men. All of these side effects have been well documented; there have been 18,000 cases settled in regards to Johnson and Johnson’s Risperdal causing breasts in boys, and Ely Lilly also settled a similar amount of legal claims in regards to Zyprexa causing diabetes. Seroxat is still under the spotlight, with a case won recently in regards to Seroxat side effects causing harm to a man (during his youth) in the Netherlands (see here). I’d love to hear Wendy’s opinions on these cases, and others, however, she has not been forthcoming as of yet.

I’d also love for her to read though my blog because I genuinely feel that she is grossly misinformed about the many topics in the arena of mental health that she works in. I feel that she is blinded by ideology and caught up in a reductionist ideological gaze (of psychiatric mindsets) which leaves little room for openness to differing experiences and opinions. For example, she didn’t know that Seroxat can cause bleeding, even though this is a common enough side effect on SSRI’s like Seroxat. In my case, my nose bled regularly, and also blood was in my stool a lot. I literally felt like my stomach lining was on fire whilst on Seroxat; it seemed to be poisoning and burning my entire digestive tract. The nose bleeds stopped when I came off it and I have no idea what kind of damage in my brain happened with Seroxat, and I’m not sure I even want to. However, what is worrying is Wendy doesn’t seem to know what side effects to expect with SSRI’s. Seroxat has a litany of side effects, that seems to grow with its PIL every couple of years (see here). As the head of the royal college of psychiatry, (and a virulent promoter, believer and prescriber of these drugs) Wendy should surely know the full side effect profiles of them?



qA43Go7F

There are many other concerns I have, and which I would like to discuss with Wendy, however so far it seems, she engages and then disengages just as quick, leaving topics unexplored, questions hanging in the air, and discussions left unsettled. At this rate, it seems that the maelstrom of tweets in the various topics unresolved will likely tangent off into something else, or just hang there. I understand that Wendy is a very busy lady, with a very busy role, but I really feel that if she is going to engage with us (the public) that she should at least address things properly.

I’d appreciate if Wendy would give her opinion on Zyprexa (an anti-psychotic) causing diabetes. In particular I’d like to ask her what she would say to those harmed by Zyprexa, or to the manufacturers Eli- Lilly, who suppressed these side effects for years?

“…..Eli Lilly and Co. announced last month that it has entered into settlement agreements with attorneys representing thousands of patients who claim they were harmed by the company’s second-generation antipsychotic medication, Zyprexa (olanzapine). All told, the settlements could amount to payouts equaling $1.2 billion…”

https://psychnews.psychiatryonline.org/doi/full/10.1176/pn.42.3.0001a


I’d also be interested to know what Wendy thinks of Seroxat/Paxil harming teens. GSK were caught lying about Seroxat side effects too, in particular in relation to suppression of data about suicidal side effects in teens, young people and children. What would Wendy say to the families of these young people prescribed Seroxat? What would she advise others worried about these side effects?

“…..An influential study which claimed that an antidepressant drug was safe for children and adolescents failed to report the true numbers of young people who thought of killing themselves while on it, re-analysis of the trial has found

Study 329, into the effects of GlaxoSmithKline’s drug paroxetine on under-18s, was published in 2001 and later found to be flawed. In 2003, the UK drug regulator instructed doctors not to prescribe paroxetine – sold as Seroxat in the UK and Paxil in the US – to adolescents….”

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

Furthermore, I’d like to ask Wendy what she thinks of Risperdal causing breasts to grow in young boys, surely this horrible side effect would be extremely distressing for already vulnerable young men under psychiatric care? What does she think of drug companies that put profits before patients? surely the ‘mentally ill’ demographic are the most easily exploitable cohort of consumers? and if so, doesn’t this make it worse that they are treated with such callous disregard by Pharma (the main sponsors of psychiatry and individual psychiatrists)?

 

“….Johnson & Johnson has been fined over $3 billion for marketing the antipsychotic drug Risperdal to children. Over 18,000 boys and young men are now suing the company over a side effect of the drug called gynecomastia, which causes adolescent boys to develop female breasts….”

https://petapixel.com/2017/05/11/boys-grew-breasts-portraits-effects-risperdal/

There are many debates currently brewing (or burning -whichever way you see it yourself) with Wendy Burn on Twitter.

I sincerely hope Wendy continues to engage on Twitter, because I feel these are very valuable debates to have, and her contribution is also very much valued and appreciated too.

But I hope also that she genuinely addresses our concerns and questions, and doesn’t just stick her head in the sand, ignore and deny, like so many psychiatrists tend to do.

 


 


 

 

 

 


 

 

 


 


 

Maybe Wendy will appreciate the music below. They are extremely emotional pieces of music, and perhaps that’s what is missing about how psychiatrists perceive the world, and the people in it. Emotions are the driving force for people, not brain chemistry. Attempting to modify emotions through prescribing chemicals does not fix emotional distress. We don’t love with our brains, we love with our hearts, our minds and our feelings. We don’t grieve from our brains, we grieve from our entire beings; we long from our mysterious souls, from undefinable depths in our psyches.

If an emotion triggers brain chemistry it’s still the emotion (which is unquantifiable) that comes first. Psychiatry needs to recognize emotions more not less. All this focus on the brain has not progressed our understanding of the human condition.

In fact, it has hindered it- a lot.

Maybe Wendy will enlighten psychiatry out of its darkness? Or maybe not?


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Real World Damage Of GSK’s Notorious Seroxat (Paxil/Aropax) Drug


Bernadette Murdochhttps://pharmadispatch.com/news/the-future-is-social

“…One teenage patient taking the new antidepressant drug Paxil sliced about a dozen six-inch-long cuts into his arm over a period of several days. Another was hospitalized after threatening to kill herself.

Neither was classified by a research team as suicidal..”

http://chronicle.com/article/Landmark-Analysis-of-an/233179/

Social media comments on sites such as twitter and Facebook, containing articles about the current Paxil (Seroxat) study 329 restoration story, are utterly rife with comments detailing stories of suicides, self harm, and horrible side effects such as aggression/out of character behavior etc from Seroxat. This is but a small example of literally thousands of comments on social media at the moment about this Seroxat story. Of course GSK will just say that these patient experiences on Seroxat are merely ‘anecdotal’…

GSK will never admit that Paxil actually causes these extraordinary paxil related events in these ordinary people’s lives

However, considering that GSK’s own Seroxat studies are crock full of fraud and bias, I think patient voices and experiences of Seroxat discussed on social media, are probably much more weighted in truth and sincerity than GSK will ever be…

 DM4

notsafe Dm7 SM1 SM2

s1 s2imot

suicide

socilap

imp4suicideP1p2P

P

pPshockPpaxilsDMThe guardianthegggserSerSerSerSerSerSerSerSerSErserSerserSErSerSErseer

Remembering Glaxo’s Infamous Study 329 : The Paradigm of Fraudulent Pharmaceutical ‘Ghost Writing’


October 8, 2012

‘Any Reasonable Person’ Would See Glaxo Study as Fraud

To the Editor:

Academic Researchers Escape Scrutiny in Glaxo Fraud Settlement” (The Chronicle, August 6) raises the correct questions about GlaxoSmithKline’s recent $3-billion settlement with the Department of Justice. But in a letter from its attorney Thomas H. Lee II (“Journal Article Didn’t Mislead, Drug Company Asserts,The Chronicle, September 23), GlaxoSmithKline seizes on a one-line “escape clause” from the July 5, 2012, plea wherein another of Glaxo­SmithKline’s attorneys states that GlaxoSmithKline “agrees that there’s a sufficient factual basis to support the guilty plea,” but the company “is not by that guilty plea agreeing to each and every factual allegation that’s set forth in the information.”

This is a standard maneuver in plea agreements, but it does little to change the role that Study 329 played in the fraudulent conduct. Any reasonable person who examined the reporting of Study 329 (“Efficacy of Paroxetine in the Treatment of Adolescent Major Depression: A Randomized Controlled Trial,” published in the names of Martin Keller et al. in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry in 2001) would conclude the article was false and misleading and part of the fraud. We also find it interesting that GlaxoSmithKline cc’d the journal’s current editor, Andrés Martin, on Mr. Lee’s letter at a time when Dr. Martin was being pressured by demands from the international scientific community to retract the article.

Mr. Lee’s response to The Chronicle’s article claims “to correct some significant factual inaccuracies.” In turn, we wish to respond to some inaccuracies in Mr. Lee’s letter.

Having been engaged by the plaintiffs’ law firm, Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, to provide an independent evaluation of the reporting of Study 329, we studied over 10,000 pages of confidential documents relating to Study 329 and published four papers in medical and bioethics journals on our findings. While Mr. Lee admits Glaxo­SmithKline hired a medical writer to provide “editorial assistance to the clinical investigators,” he claims that GlaxoSmithKline “believed then and continues to believe that the journal article reflects the honestly held views of the clinical-investigator authors.”

In fact, Sally Laden of Scientific Therapeutics Inc. testified in her deposition that she wrote the first draft of the manuscript from a summary provided by GlaxoSmithKline. We are not sure what Mr. Lee regards as “substantial comments on and input into the manuscript,” but the documents we saw show clearly that the minority of named “authors” who made any contribution to the manuscript at all provided little more than “editorial assistance” to Ms. Laden. A comparison to the published paper shows that few significant changes were ever made to Ms. Laden’s first draft.

Contrary to GlaxoSmithKline’s claims, control over the contents of the manuscript did not remain “at all times with the clinical-investigator authors.” In accordance with GlaxoSmithKline’s corporate intellectual-property policy, since the company paid for the trial, the data, and the manuscript, it was the company’s intellectual property, which GlaxoSmithKline only transferred to the “lead author” once the paper was ready to be submitted for publication. The ghostwriter, Ms. Laden, continued to manage the manuscript throughout the process, under guidance from GlaxoSmithKline. This allowed Glaxo­SmithKline to control the message, minimizing the possibility of a contrary view by an “author” who might compromise the company’s manipulation of the data. The investigators signed off on the manuscript without seeing the raw data from the trial.

Only a fraction of the thousands of documents concerning Study 329 that we reviewed have been released into the public domain, a subset of which can be found on the Web sites of Healthy Skepticism and the University of San Francisco’s Drug Industry Document Archive. If GlaxoSmithKline is serious about “vigorously disput[ing] that the journal article was false, misleading, or fraudulent,” the company should release the rest of the documents concerning Study 329 so the public can judge whether the results of Study 329 were reported honestly and accurately in the journal.

The journal article on Study 329 has become the paradigm case of medical ghostwriting, one that facilitated the misrepresentation of study results for both efficacy and safety, and as a result harmed young patients who were prescribed Paxil in reliance on this article. The fact that GlaxoSmithKline continues to dispute vigorously the report of this study demonstrates, in our view, that the company is still out of step with the companywide overhaul initiated by the new CEO, Andrew Witty, to prevent “unacceptable” mistakes that led to the record $3-billion fine.

Leemon B. McHenry
Department of Philosophy
California State University<
Northridge, Calif.

Jon N. Jureidini
Discipline of Psychiatry
University of Adelaide

GSK seeks to span digital divide with social/digital dragnet…


Hmmm..

I wonder, would this new social media driven initiative on behalf of GSK have anything to do with staggering amount of web hits, key word searches and general popularity of blogs such as the “Seroxat Secrets” blog or Bob Fiddaman’s advocacy blog “Seroxat Sufferers” …

Seroxat Secrets just went over the half a million mark (500,000)..

That means it’s been majorly indexed by google web spiders and other web bots for search engines looking for keywords such as ‘Seroxat’ and ‘GSK’…

My own blog receives much of its direct traffic in this way..
It is difficult to counter act this kind of digital web trawling, particularly since blogs such as the ones mentioned, and my own, are firmly established and well connected..

We are webbed, inter-netted, multi-digitally connected, indexed and firmly rooted..

But I have a feeling, that contrary to what the article states.. GSK is doing this more for “web consumer monitoring’ and ‘damage control’ as opposed to authentic engagement with their consumers…

I could be proved wrong..

But I doubt it.. .

For GSK’s latest social media efforts..
See the link:

http://www.mmm-online.com/gsk-seeks-to-span-digital-divide-with-socialdigital-dragnet/article/232700/

GlaxoSmithKline is souping up its social media monitoring with a digital strategy it says will create processes that are standard enough to streamline communications, but flexible enough to meet local requirements.

The company has hired digital agency Fabric Worldwide and IT and consulting firm Infosys to implement their Global Digital Platform. According to the partners, the strategy is one of agility: Infosys says the Global Digital Platform will “allow GSK to quickly build digital assets and listen to consumers across an array of digital platforms.” GSK noted that efficiency is part of the core business strategies the company identified in its 2011 annual report. Meanwhile, WPP techie shop Fabric Worldwide says the partnership will help GSK “consistently understand consumer signals from digital channels, across all brands and all markets.”

However, marketers say it is an attempt at something else: to break out of the industry’s traditional isolation.

“GSK’s decision of taking a more holistic, global, and strategic view of digital is extremely smart and, in my opinion, will yield them a terrific edge in the marketplace,” Fabio Gratton, founder and chief experience officer of Ignite Health told MM&M.

Jim Dayton, senior director of emerging media at the digital marketing agency Intouch Solutions, said he applauds GSK for having the “foresight to have integrated marketing systems that include social monitoring and engagement tools.”

The industry has struggled with balancing the desire to engage consumers without tripping over sketchily-defined regulatory boundaries, but companies can scarcely afford to shun social media altogether.

Gratton added that the move reinforces that digital isn’t about marketing, but about business as a whole, and that the GSK venture deserves credit, regardless of the results.

“Even if they fail, they will be failing forward sooner and faster than anyone else, and that itself is a competitive advantage,” he added.

The Blogosphere Expands: “What’s Up Doc?”


As I mentioned in previous posts, with the advent of Social Media, such as blogs and Facebook etc, the messages of the internet are individually based as opposed to a singular corporate agenda. In the case of the SSRI drugs, it is clearly the individual and the consumer who are dominating the discussion (although some pharmaceutical companies have tried to get in on the action but failed miserably). Amongst the many patient advocate blogs, there are also a surprising number of blogs written by Doctors, Psychiatrists and those in the mental health field in general. One such blog that struck my eye recently is the “Family Dysfunction and Mental Health’ Blog, apparently written by (Doctor) DAVID M. ALLEN M.D.

Dr Allen writes about many issues, but in his post ‘SSRI tales‘ I have found many discrepancies throughout his opinion of SSRI drugs.

The following are some excerpts from Dr Allen’s Post that I have issue with :

SSRI Tales
In 23 years of clinical experience prescribing them since they first made the scene, I have found that the type of antidepressant medications called Selective Serotonin Inhibitors (SSRI’s) are, for the majority of patients (with some important exceptions described in the next paragraph), relatively side effect free. Especially when combined with a long acting benzodiazepine tranquilizer such as Clonazepam, they are also highly effective for many patients who have major depression, panic attacks, obsessive compulsive disorder, PTSD, or the extreme emotional hyper-reactivity characteristic of borderline personality disorder.

Just so I don’t have to keep answering the same question, YES, some people do indeed have nasty side effects from them. YES, the drugs can increase suicidal ideation for some patients under some circumstances. YES, they often wreck havoc on sexual functioning. YES, they can have nasty withdrawal symptoms if stopped cold turkey, especially Paxil. YES, they do not work for everyone. But NO, there is not a shred of clinical or experimental evidence to back up Robert Whitaker’s assertion that patients who get better with the meds in the short run are made worse by them in the long run

First of all I would like to seriously question the validity of the prescribing of SSRI drugs for any emotional, psychological stressor or behavioral problem. Do doctors ever wonder that perhaps the prescribing of drugs is not the answer for panic attacks, depression, OCD or anxiety? Do they even consider that there might be alternatives? Do they ever consider that the root causes of these ‘disorders’ are many and varied; and that surely it is preposterous to expect a chemical to be a cure all for the myriad of different reasons why people become depressed of anxious? I do realize that most western doctors are indoctrinated into believing that everything can be helped by popping a pill, but in the case of mental health which is itself totally subjective and often ambiguous, surely before medication is even considered the patients diet and general health should be taken into consideration? Also, there are the environmental factors, if someone is depressed because they hate where they live, they are trapped in their job or they have just generally have had enough of life kicking the crap out of them, how is an SSRI supposed to magically make these environmental factors disappear? They can’t of course, and they don’t…

A doctor wil usually argue this premise with something like; “the SSRI’s help to get the patient on their feet, to bring them clarity so that they can cope with their predicament, deal with their issues etc etc”. And this is all very fine, and it is a good argument indeed, but in the majority of cases people are prescribed these drugs with no monitoring from their doctor and no talk-therpay offered (and if it comes, it’s months later or the person has to pay for it and the mentally ill are more than usually too poor to afford therapy).

Unfortunately the actual situation is that many people are left dangling on these drugs long term because doctors mistakenly( or conveniently) assume that the patient must be doing well because they are on the drug a long time. Do these SSRI advocating doctors ever stop to think that perhaps the patient cannot come off the drugs? And do they ever stop to think that perhaps the patient is so blitzed and numbed out of their mind that they can’t even make it down to their doctors surgery to ask to be taken off the drugs? Do doctors not realize just how completely disempowering it is for a desperate and vulnerable patient to be offered drugs for dealing with life problems, fear and disappointment. Do they not see the illogicality of this approach to emotional well being?

The issues of SSRI’s go way beyond the fact that they cause awful side effects. Whether this happens in 30% of patients, 50%, or 10% of people is not the issue for me anymore, the issue now is- why are they prescribed at all? And what is the justification of this compulsive urge to prescribe?

Personally, I think high prescribing doctors and psychiatrists use these SSRI drugs as a convenience, it means less work for them and they can fit more patients into a day; this was certainly the case for my own GP, and I figure it likely for many others too. It means the doctor doesn’t have to even deal with a patient anymore. He can just keep writing 3 month scripts, and when (or if) he does see the patient it’s such an irregular occurrence that the doctor can barely tell what the drug is causing or what the patients ‘original diagnosis’ is causing. Where does the problem begin and the SSRI effects end? Doctors certainly don’t know, but they (again conveniently) try to pin the patients increase in problems on their original condition. So if you are prescribed an SSRI for depression and you get worse, the doctor blames your depression not the SSRI, so effectively he blames you not the drugs. Or let’s say you are prescribed an SSRI for anxiety and the SSRI makes you more anxious, what does a doctor do? Well, mine upped the dose of Seroxat, which had catastrophic consequences. Of all those complicit in the grand SSRI Hoax, it is doctors (regular GP’s and MD’s) who are first in the line, choosing their targets at will and whim. What gives them this right?

Also, which has been proven- these drugs can mimic, create and propagate psychiatric illnesses and they can increase depression and anxiety. They can perpetuate and worsen the conditions they are actually prescribed for. So without at least weekly monitoring, how is a patient or indeed a doctor supposed to know what is causing what?

Quite simply, most doctors who prescribe these drugs do not know what is going on with their patient while the patient is on them, because they rarely see their patient and when they do, the doctors decision is based not on fact, insight or science, it’s based on guess work. And unfortunately, this random guess work can often cost a patient his livelihood, his relationships and sometimes his life...

The tragedy of mental illness is not the illness, the symptoms or the disorder, the real tragedy is how it is diabolically (mis) treated…