Resignation will rock UK Medicine regulatory system to its foundations

[Guest guest]

http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/hotnewsdetail.jsp?id=865

Resignation will rock UK Medicine regulatory system to its

foundations

13/3/04

Flynn MP Newport West campaigner against medicinal drugs'

dangers said today.

" The resignation of MIND's chief Brook from the medicines

regulatory body exposes the dangerous sham of drugs control in the

UK. Two weeks ago, in a special debate, I criticised the lax

supervision of antidepressants which allowed GlaxoKline to

suppress information on trials on Seroxat. Now Brook has

revealed that regulators waited ten years before acting on the

potentially lethal prescribing of the same drug

The news that the only lay member of the regulatory has had no

choice but to resign will rock the system to its foundations. Both

the CSM (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) and the MHRA

(Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) are packed

with members with vested financial interests in the pharmaceutical

companies.

More than 6 million people in the UK and 10 million children in the

USA use antidepressants. The public have been denied the truth on

their dangers and their lack of utility. The threats against

Brook exposes the sinister power that pharma companies have over the

regulators.

SEE " USELESS AND DEADLY " ARTICLES ON THIS 'HOT NEWS' Saturday March

13, 2004 The Guardian

At first glimpse this week's warnings from the Committee on the

Safety of Medicines (CSM) that doctors should avoid prescribing

Seroxat, Britain's best-selling anti-depressant drug, at higher

doses than 20mg a day, looked like a regulatory body performing as

it should: protecting patient interests. Alas, if only this was

true. Yesterday, the curtain on an unseemly behind-the-scenes row

was lifted by the resignation of Brook, chief executive of

the mental health charity Mind, from an expert group looking at

Seroxat on which he was representing consumer interests. His reason

for resigning was the failure of the regulator to be more open about

the threats that high doses of the drug posed.

As our health editor reports today, about 17,000 patients - out of

an estimated 500,000 on the drug - were started on doses higher than

the recommended 20mg last year. The regulatory body believes higher

doses are no more effective than the 20mg pill and carry the risk of

increased side-effects. Patients and consumer groups have complained

about a range of side effects: anxiety, nausea, heightened

aggression and possible increased suicidal tendencies. There are

even more complaints about the difficulty of coming off the drug,

once having begun treatment, because of serious withdrawal symptoms.

Worse still, it now appears that three major reviews of the drug

failed to examine data more than 14 years old, that showed it was

ineffective and unsafe at high doses. The drug's licence was granted

in 1990, at a time when the regulatory authority to which the CSM

reported, is understood not to have employed statisticians that were

needed to make risk assessments.

Earlier this month the health minister announced that the role - and

work - of the CSM was to be reviewed, but the task was given to the

regulatory body (the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory

Agency) to which it reports. This is much too cosy. Something much

more independent and robust is needed. There is nothing new about

the regulator of the drugs industry being too close to the industry

and too distant from patient interests. We need a more transparent

and less secretive system. A first step would be an independent

review.

[Guest guest]

http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/hotnewsdetail.jsp?id=865

Resignation will rock UK Medicine regulatory system to its

foundations

13/3/04

Flynn MP Newport West campaigner against medicinal drugs'

dangers said today.

" The resignation of MIND's chief Brook from the medicines

regulatory body exposes the dangerous sham of drugs control in the

UK. Two weeks ago, in a special debate, I criticised the lax

supervision of antidepressants which allowed GlaxoKline to

suppress information on trials on Seroxat. Now Brook has

revealed that regulators waited ten years before acting on the

potentially lethal prescribing of the same drug

The news that the only lay member of the regulatory has had no

choice but to resign will rock the system to its foundations. Both

the CSM (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) and the MHRA

(Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) are packed

with members with vested financial interests in the pharmaceutical

companies.

More than 6 million people in the UK and 10 million children in the

USA use antidepressants. The public have been denied the truth on

their dangers and their lack of utility. The threats against

Brook exposes the sinister power that pharma companies have over the

regulators.

SEE " USELESS AND DEADLY " ARTICLES ON THIS 'HOT NEWS' Saturday March

13, 2004 The Guardian

At first glimpse this week's warnings from the Committee on the

Safety of Medicines (CSM) that doctors should avoid prescribing

Seroxat, Britain's best-selling anti-depressant drug, at higher

doses than 20mg a day, looked like a regulatory body performing as

it should: protecting patient interests. Alas, if only this was

true. Yesterday, the curtain on an unseemly behind-the-scenes row

was lifted by the resignation of Brook, chief executive of

the mental health charity Mind, from an expert group looking at

Seroxat on which he was representing consumer interests. His reason

for resigning was the failure of the regulator to be more open about

the threats that high doses of the drug posed.

As our health editor reports today, about 17,000 patients - out of

an estimated 500,000 on the drug - were started on doses higher than

the recommended 20mg last year. The regulatory body believes higher

doses are no more effective than the 20mg pill and carry the risk of

increased side-effects. Patients and consumer groups have complained

about a range of side effects: anxiety, nausea, heightened

aggression and possible increased suicidal tendencies. There are

even more complaints about the difficulty of coming off the drug,

once having begun treatment, because of serious withdrawal symptoms.

Worse still, it now appears that three major reviews of the drug

failed to examine data more than 14 years old, that showed it was

ineffective and unsafe at high doses. The drug's licence was granted

in 1990, at a time when the regulatory authority to which the CSM

reported, is understood not to have employed statisticians that were

needed to make risk assessments.

Earlier this month the health minister announced that the role - and

work - of the CSM was to be reviewed, but the task was given to the

regulatory body (the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory

Agency) to which it reports. This is much too cosy. Something much

more independent and robust is needed. There is nothing new about

the regulator of the drugs industry being too close to the industry

and too distant from patient interests. We need a more transparent

and less secretive system. A first step would be an independent

review.

[Guest guest]

http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/hotnewsdetail.jsp?id=865

Resignation will rock UK Medicine regulatory system to its

foundations

13/3/04

Flynn MP Newport West campaigner against medicinal drugs'

dangers said today.

" The resignation of MIND's chief Brook from the medicines

regulatory body exposes the dangerous sham of drugs control in the

UK. Two weeks ago, in a special debate, I criticised the lax

supervision of antidepressants which allowed GlaxoKline to

suppress information on trials on Seroxat. Now Brook has

revealed that regulators waited ten years before acting on the

potentially lethal prescribing of the same drug

The news that the only lay member of the regulatory has had no

choice but to resign will rock the system to its foundations. Both

the CSM (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) and the MHRA

(Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) are packed

with members with vested financial interests in the pharmaceutical

companies.

More than 6 million people in the UK and 10 million children in the

USA use antidepressants. The public have been denied the truth on

their dangers and their lack of utility. The threats against

Brook exposes the sinister power that pharma companies have over the

regulators.

SEE " USELESS AND DEADLY " ARTICLES ON THIS 'HOT NEWS' Saturday March

13, 2004 The Guardian

At first glimpse this week's warnings from the Committee on the

Safety of Medicines (CSM) that doctors should avoid prescribing

Seroxat, Britain's best-selling anti-depressant drug, at higher

doses than 20mg a day, looked like a regulatory body performing as

it should: protecting patient interests. Alas, if only this was

true. Yesterday, the curtain on an unseemly behind-the-scenes row

was lifted by the resignation of Brook, chief executive of

the mental health charity Mind, from an expert group looking at

Seroxat on which he was representing consumer interests. His reason

for resigning was the failure of the regulator to be more open about

the threats that high doses of the drug posed.

As our health editor reports today, about 17,000 patients - out of

an estimated 500,000 on the drug - were started on doses higher than

the recommended 20mg last year. The regulatory body believes higher

doses are no more effective than the 20mg pill and carry the risk of

increased side-effects. Patients and consumer groups have complained

about a range of side effects: anxiety, nausea, heightened

aggression and possible increased suicidal tendencies. There are

even more complaints about the difficulty of coming off the drug,

once having begun treatment, because of serious withdrawal symptoms.

Worse still, it now appears that three major reviews of the drug

failed to examine data more than 14 years old, that showed it was

ineffective and unsafe at high doses. The drug's licence was granted

in 1990, at a time when the regulatory authority to which the CSM

reported, is understood not to have employed statisticians that were

needed to make risk assessments.

Earlier this month the health minister announced that the role - and

work - of the CSM was to be reviewed, but the task was given to the

regulatory body (the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory

Agency) to which it reports. This is much too cosy. Something much

more independent and robust is needed. There is nothing new about

the regulator of the drugs industry being too close to the industry

and too distant from patient interests. We need a more transparent

and less secretive system. A first step would be an independent

review.

[Guest guest]

http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/hotnewsdetail.jsp?id=865

Resignation will rock UK Medicine regulatory system to its

foundations

13/3/04

Flynn MP Newport West campaigner against medicinal drugs'

dangers said today.

" The resignation of MIND's chief Brook from the medicines

regulatory body exposes the dangerous sham of drugs control in the

UK. Two weeks ago, in a special debate, I criticised the lax

supervision of antidepressants which allowed GlaxoKline to

suppress information on trials on Seroxat. Now Brook has

revealed that regulators waited ten years before acting on the

potentially lethal prescribing of the same drug

The news that the only lay member of the regulatory has had no

choice but to resign will rock the system to its foundations. Both

the CSM (Committee on the Safety of Medicines) and the MHRA

(Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency) are packed

with members with vested financial interests in the pharmaceutical

companies.

More than 6 million people in the UK and 10 million children in the

USA use antidepressants. The public have been denied the truth on

their dangers and their lack of utility. The threats against

Brook exposes the sinister power that pharma companies have over the

regulators.

SEE " USELESS AND DEADLY " ARTICLES ON THIS 'HOT NEWS' Saturday March

13, 2004 The Guardian

At first glimpse this week's warnings from the Committee on the

Safety of Medicines (CSM) that doctors should avoid prescribing

Seroxat, Britain's best-selling anti-depressant drug, at higher

doses than 20mg a day, looked like a regulatory body performing as

it should: protecting patient interests. Alas, if only this was

true. Yesterday, the curtain on an unseemly behind-the-scenes row

was lifted by the resignation of Brook, chief executive of

the mental health charity Mind, from an expert group looking at

Seroxat on which he was representing consumer interests. His reason

for resigning was the failure of the regulator to be more open about

the threats that high doses of the drug posed.

As our health editor reports today, about 17,000 patients - out of

an estimated 500,000 on the drug - were started on doses higher than

the recommended 20mg last year. The regulatory body believes higher

doses are no more effective than the 20mg pill and carry the risk of

increased side-effects. Patients and consumer groups have complained

about a range of side effects: anxiety, nausea, heightened

aggression and possible increased suicidal tendencies. There are

even more complaints about the difficulty of coming off the drug,

once having begun treatment, because of serious withdrawal symptoms.

Worse still, it now appears that three major reviews of the drug

failed to examine data more than 14 years old, that showed it was

ineffective and unsafe at high doses. The drug's licence was granted

in 1990, at a time when the regulatory authority to which the CSM

reported, is understood not to have employed statisticians that were

needed to make risk assessments.

Earlier this month the health minister announced that the role - and

work - of the CSM was to be reviewed, but the task was given to the

regulatory body (the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory

Agency) to which it reports. This is much too cosy. Something much

more independent and robust is needed. There is nothing new about

the regulator of the drugs industry being too close to the industry

and too distant from patient interests. We need a more transparent

and less secretive system. A first step would be an independent

review.