BBC Panorama press release

[Guest guest]

Panorama

Monday 29 January

8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

What's the difference between these two statements?

" Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

adolescent depression. "

" The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

rejected. "

The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

and promoted the drug for children anyway.

This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

suicidal after taking it.

In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

reputation.

The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

UK.

GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

reported in any of its studies involving children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

a

MB

[Guest guest]

Panorama

Monday 29 January

8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

What's the difference between these two statements?

" Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

adolescent depression. "

" The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

rejected. "

The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

and promoted the drug for children anyway.

This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

suicidal after taking it.

In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

reputation.

The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

UK.

GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

reported in any of its studies involving children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

a

MB

[Guest guest]

Panorama

Monday 29 January

8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

What's the difference between these two statements?

" Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

adolescent depression. "

" The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

rejected. "

The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

and promoted the drug for children anyway.

This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

suicidal after taking it.

In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

reputation.

The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

UK.

GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

reported in any of its studies involving children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

a

MB

[Guest guest]

Panorama

Monday 29 January

8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

What's the difference between these two statements?

" Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

adolescent depression. "

" The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

rejected. "

The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

and promoted the drug for children anyway.

This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

suicidal after taking it.

In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

reputation.

The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

UK.

GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

reported in any of its studies involving children.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

a

MB

[Guest guest]

thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist with

guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting her was

an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the enormous

part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

Steph

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Panorama

> Monday 29 January

> 8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

> www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

>

>

>

> What's the difference between these two statements?

>

>

>

> " Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

> adolescent depression. "

>

>

>

> " The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

> obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

> rejected. "

>

>

>

> The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

> reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

> is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

> and promoted the drug for children anyway.

>

>

>

> This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

> misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

> actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

> trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

> suicidal after taking it.

>

>

>

> In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

> emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

> its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

> fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

> reputation.

>

>

>

> The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

> problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

> reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

> young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

> prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

> UK.

>

>

>

> GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

> withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

> reported in any of its studies involving children.

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

> a

>

> MB

>

[Guest guest]

thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist with

guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting her was

an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the enormous

part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

Steph

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Panorama

> Monday 29 January

> 8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

> www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

>

>

>

> What's the difference between these two statements?

>

>

>

> " Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

> adolescent depression. "

>

>

>

> " The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

> obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

> rejected. "

>

>

>

> The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

> reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

> is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

> and promoted the drug for children anyway.

>

>

>

> This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

> misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

> actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

> trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

> suicidal after taking it.

>

>

>

> In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

> emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

> its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

> fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

> reputation.

>

>

>

> The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

> problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

> reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

> young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

> prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

> UK.

>

>

>

> GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

> withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

> reported in any of its studies involving children.

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

> a

>

> MB

>

[Guest guest]

thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist with

guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting her was

an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the enormous

part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

Steph

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Panorama

> Monday 29 January

> 8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

> www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

>

>

>

> What's the difference between these two statements?

>

>

>

> " Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

> adolescent depression. "

>

>

>

> " The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

> obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

> rejected. "

>

>

>

> The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

> reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

> is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

> and promoted the drug for children anyway.

>

>

>

> This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

> misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

> actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

> trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

> suicidal after taking it.

>

>

>

> In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

> emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

> its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

> fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

> reputation.

>

>

>

> The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

> problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

> reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

> young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

> prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

> UK.

>

>

>

> GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

> withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

> reported in any of its studies involving children.

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

> a

>

> MB

>

[Guest guest]

thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist with

guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting her was

an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the enormous

part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

Steph

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> Panorama

> Monday 29 January

> 8.30-9.00pm BBC ONE

> www.bbc.co.uk/panorama

>

>

>

> What's the difference between these two statements?

>

>

>

> " Demonstrates remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of

> adolescent depression. "

>

>

>

> " The results of the studies were disappointing. The possibility of

> obtaining a safety statement from this data was considered but

> rejected. "

>

>

>

> The first is what drugs company GlaxoKline (GSK) told its sales

> reps after it tested an adult antidepressant on teenagers. The second

> is what company insiders had admitted internally. But it went ahead

> and promoted the drug for children anyway.

>

>

>

> This is the story of how Britain's biggest drug company deliberately

> misled doctors into prescribing Seroxat, which it couldn't prove

> actually worked for teenagers. Not only that, one of its own clinical

> trials indicated that they were six times more likely to become

> suicidal after taking it.

>

>

>

> In this investigation, Panorama reveals the secret trail of internal

> emails which show how GSK manipulated the results of the trial for

> its own commercial gain. Panorama has gained access to them as GSK

> fights a fraud trial in the US which could seriously damage its

> reputation.

>

>

>

> The documents also reveal how the company continued to deny safety

> problems with the drug despite three investigations by Panorama

> reporter Jofre. Meanwhile, no one knows how many hundreds of

> young people self-harmed or took their own lives after their doctors

> prescribed the drug, which has now been banned for under-18s in the

> UK.

>

>

>

> GlaxoKline utterly rejects any suggestion that it has improperly

> withheld drug trial information and points out that no suicides were

> reported in any of its studies involving children.

>

> http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/proginfo/tv/wk5/mon.shtml#mon_panoram

> a

>

> MB

>

[Guest guest]

Tuesday,

I totally understand your frustrations regarding the focus on GSK.I

share them.

I agree that ALL SSRI's are rubbish, cause similar problems, and I

have yet to hear about a drug company that doesn't conduct business in

a dodgy manner.

I cannot speak for but will raise your issues with her and see

if I can get a response.

I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt in my mind, that her integrity is

UNQUESTIONABLE.

One should be very careful not to judge people without having ALL the

facts at your disposal.

Never assume... There will be valid reasons for the BBC's decisions

I'm sure. I have no knowledge of her personally being affected by

Seroxat in any way, but will ask that question specifically.

Although the SSRI problem in general is not being addressed as it

should, Panorama should be given credit for making a start??

At least the BBC is making an effort. Only this morning I watched in

horror as Fern Briton(This Morning) and guests sang the praises of

SSRI's regarding post-natal depression treatment, without mentioning

a single alternative!The message was clear...go get a prescription!

About the Seroxat Usergroup and withdrawal protocols etc. I know

Janice personally who runs that group. It gets no funding.

There is no salary, she helps people as best she can. I personally

attended a meeting with her at the Minister of Health's office where

she BEGGED for help regarding advice in this regard.I was there. I

know her frustrations.I know that what she does is a labour of love.

Quite frankly I don't know where she gets the strength to continue as

her own husband suffers from depression, has been on SSRI's for

something like 16 years and cannot get off...

We have an ordinary woman here, who is doing her best.

Trying to make a difference.

Now it's up to you as someone who obviously isn't happy with the

situation to help change things yourself.

Nothing stopping you Tuesday, from starting the perfect group that

will solve everyone's problems?

Why attack those that are trying to change things? Would it not make

sense to focus our attention on those that are aiding Big Pharma.

United we stand, divided we fall...

The world certainly needs all the help it can get!

Steph

> >

> >

> > thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist with

> > guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting her was

> > an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the enormous

> > part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

> > Steph

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Tuesday,

Jofre's response to your remarks:

*I have never taken Seroxat or any other SSRI;

* Neither I nor anyone involved in any of the Panorama programmes

is involved with the UK class action - that would be a clear conflict

of interests and quite unprofessional;

* I chose initially to focus on Seroxat because a) it's made by

Britain's biggest drug company and we broadcast to the UK, and it

had far more complaints against it of withdrawal problems compared to

all the other SSRIs;

* Viewers contacting the BBC Action Line after every programme -

many of whom had problems with other SSRIs or other drugs - have been

directed towards the appropriate support groups and organisations;

* Viewers have also always been given the opportunity to discuss

the subject more broadly in the Panorama web forum;

* my investigations into Seroxat helped lead the MHRA to finally

take a closer look at the clinical trial data for all the SSRIs -

which has led to banning of all SSRIs (except Prozac) for under-18s

and a reappraisal generally of how these drugs should be prescribed.

I have NO DOUBT WHATSOEVER , that Jofre is a journalist of

integrity, someone who sincerely is trying to help change things for

the better. Merely raising these insulting insinuations with her ,

makes me feel sick in my stomach. She doesn't deserve it!!

She is prepared to swim upstream, knowing very well that her

programmes are controversial. She is a very, very brave woman, and I

have the utmost respect for her.The very fact that she's managed to

convince the BBC to raise these issues is in itself a miracle.

A clear sign of the BBC'S high regard for her judgement and

professionalism. They know very well that they're stepping on very

influential, powerful toes in the process.

It would seem that the opposite is happening at ITV..

Panorama is an incredibly influential programme as you know.These

programmes have wide ranging effects, as other media produce numerous

programmes in response, having a knock-on effect.Publicity our crusade

DESPERATELY need. Trying to compete with Big Pharma's powerful

brainwashing PR and media-machine is one of our biggest problems. So

why attack the few that are still prepared to listen and do

something?? WE NEED THEM!!Let's not allianate one of our very few

precious, allies!

Whether they expose Lilly, or Pfizer, or GSK or whoever makes little

difference. It all adds up and somewhere in the future the public in

general will start joining the dots. Look how long it took US to do

that. Most stories posted here reveal histories with multiple

drugs...how come? Obviously there was a time when that person didn't

realize that ALL SSRI's and SSNRI's are equally dangerous...

I'm sure at the time, wasn't as aware of that fact as she is

now either. I certainly wasn't! I remember clearly having a jaw

dropping moment when I first saw a list of SSRI homicides. I was

totally surprised for instance ,at seeing Prozac featuring so

strongly on there..Lilly made it sound like mother's milk!

Whe will never know how many people out there benefitted by watching

previous Panorama programmes , preventing them from falling down that

deep, dark " meds " trap..I'm sure there are many. Just for doing that

Panorama deserves credit! For raising the totally ignorant public's

awareness, encouraging them to question. For the first time..

So they don't have answers to everyone's withdrawal problems...they

are not in the healing business. Their primary role is to highlight

problems, not to solve them.

Let's not misdirect anger and frustration at them for making us aware

that there is a problem, and people suffering as a result of their new

found knowledge..That is ridiculous.

Not too long ago the drug lords were vehemently denying addiction ,

and withdrawal problems...remember?

Even if they made a programme about SSRI's/SSNRI's in general people

would've suffered as much...what would be different?

Withdrawal guidelines would still have been vague and inconsistent,

people would be in exactly the same dilemma.

A dilemma and ENORMOUS infuriating problem created by Big Pharma!!

Direct your anger at THEM!

They should help solve this mess they created!

They should be forced to open withdrawal clinics and provide

withdrawal protocols that ACTUALLY work..it shouldn't even be the

taxpayer's problem..

Nobody knows more about their poisons than themselves.

Not that I ever see that happening,..

Succesful mass withdrawals is very bad for business..

Get you MP's involved, demand an answer from your very complacent

government. They do after all decide how the NHS budget is spent.

Help them realize the full extent of the problem out here and the

enormous hidden costs to the NHS involved.

Let's keep an eye on the bigger picture here.

Let's stand together?

Let's not allow ego's and personalty clashes to hamper us.

For goodness sake don't shoot yourself in the foot..

It's the only way, we are going to bring about the changes we so

deperately need.

Steph

> > >

> > >

> > > thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist with

> > > guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting

her was

> > > an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the

enormous

> > > part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

> > > Steph

> >

> >

> >

> >

> >

[Guest guest]

Dear Steph

Sorry I have been unable to finish and post this reply before – due

to a family member being hospitalized and child care problems.

I answered most of the points you have brought up in my reply which

crossed with this post - but there are a couple that I would like to

respond to - and I apologize to those on the board who would rather this

was left.

Firstly ………… thank you for contacting Jofre and getting

answers to most of the questions that we have been trying to get answers

for since Panoramas' first Seroxat program.

I'd also like to apologise if in any way you feel you have been placed

in a compromised situation by my voicing my opinion and those questions

- and would appreciate your forwarding my gratitude to Jofre for

her honesty and candour in answering and for replying so promptly.

I'd started to write this reply before I was called out – but

seeing tonight's Panorama program -- which was very good – I

still stand by what I said before.

In your post - you say it took you and others a while to join up the

dots ………. and you have clear heads - unimpaired rationale and

thinking on your side ……. a lot of people on the drugs - suffering

side / withdrawal effects and ADRs or just in a state of `drug

fugg' wouldn't even see the dots let alone be able to join them up;

comprehending that " newly brought awareness " - the ability to

seek advice - work through and remember it - decide on the best and

safest course of action would also be a huge problem and outside

manys' capabilities ………….. without the full facts of the

drugs - including the brand names which are diverse and seemingly

unrelated or recognisable as a drug class - even more so.

Panorama is indeed an incredibly influential programme - I wouldn't

expect them to have all the answers or administer advice on withdrawal

etc and I know that people benefited from the Seroxat programs; But

even if Panorama were not aware of the full facts of the drug class

problem when production started on the first program - they were made

aware of it and it would not have detracted from the issue being

reported or Seroxat if they had taken a few seconds out to put up a list

of the other drugs in the class and read the names out - even if only

during the closing credits or when they issued the warning not to stop

taking the medication abruptly - which I think they omitted to do this

evening ………… it would have been a responsible action and would

have spared many further problems and prevented them from falling

further into that " deep, dark " meds " trap " or being moved or

plunged into a different one.

Because although prescription numbers have declined for Seroxat since

litigation broke cover - prescriptions for other SSRI / SNRIs in the

class have increased beyond that decline as the following excerpt from

the Expert Working Group for SSRIs report shows quite clearly

" ResultsTotal SSRI and related antidepressant prescribing between 1999

and 2003

There has been an overall increase in the number of prescriptions

for SSRIs, venlafaxine and mirtazapine cashed in community

pharmacies in England in the last five years, rising from 8.2

million prescriptions in 1999 to over 19 million prescriptions in

2003 (see figure 1). This increase is apparent for all the drugs

studied except fluvoxamine, which has remained fairly constant, and

paroxetine, which has decreased since 2001. "

and I'm surprised that those so instrumental in and taking credit for

the achievement of getting the MHRA to look into the issue - have taken

little if any notice of either the report or the effect the fuelled

Seroxat / Paxil furore has had.

You also suggested getting our MP's involved - we have - ECT questioning

has been instigated in parliament - also the misdiagnosis and treatment

of ME / CFS as depression; The costs of ADRs and iatrogenic illness to

the NHS, as well as to the patients has been raised; along with the

pharmaceutical industry's dubious ethics in the changing of drug names

and picking side effects as new indications for and to facilitate

extension / renewal of licensing. My MP's eye's watered and he visibly

squirmed when I pointed out that Yentreve promoted for female urinary

incontinence was actually Duloxetine hydrochloride an antidepressant

also prescribed to male patients, and that several whom we know

personally had been subjected to prostate investigations and invasive

surgery – then found to be unnecessary -- yet another considerable

drain on NHS resources -- and he was visibly taken aback when I pointed

out it was also Cymbalta the drug responsible for s' death:

The lack of cardiology checks for Venlafaxine patients past and present

and the routine unnecessary prescribing of Statins to those who have

suffered heart attacks despite no history of cholesterol problems has

been / is being raised with NHS Trusts in different regions.

We could have done more in this area - but as I said – it's been

incredibly difficult - hard even to get a hearing when any mention of

the pharmaceutical industry - prescription drugs - side effects or ADRs

is met with raised eyebrows - deep sighs and retorts such as " ah!

well! questions on Seroxat have been asked " – " is it

Seroxat? " – " we can't keep plugging the same old drug -

Seroxat type thing " - " Oh that! it's been so

sensationalized " - " the issue of SSRIs is being dealt

with " ……………. but the whole SSRI issue isn't being dealt with

………….. is it ??

I understand your anger at GSK – and no it doesn't really matter

which pharmaceutical company is publicly exposed - as long as those

doing it give thought - consideration and above all else fair warning to

those on or likely to be put on the other drugs in the class - their

parents – partners and families……….

Regards Tuesday

> > > >

> > > >

> > > > thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist

with

> > > > guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting

> her was

> > > > an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the

> enormous

> > > > part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

> > > > Steph

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

> > >

[Guest guest]

Hi Aubrey

Thank you for your comments which in the most I agree with.

The MHRA should take full responsibility for their Pharma funded smug

part in what is now a world wide catastrophe of such proportions ---lets

not forget their and Dr Stuart Montgomery's part in engineering the

unleashing of Pfizers' Sertraline on the world - which ALL other

licensing authorities had deprived of licence because of it's dubious

and damning trial results, then ignoring concerns raised following the

1991 North Wales Studies on the drug--- and for allowing the flawed

voluntary Yellow Card ADR reporting system to even exist.

As should the complacent Psychs and GPs who only stepped up the Yellow

Card reporting of ADRs to Seroxat once the word litigation was linked to

it - whilst still ignoring ADRs caused by the other drugs in the class;

Giving rise to highly inaccurate and distorted ADR figures pro rata to

prescriptions and an erroneous impression that 'Seroxat is the Worst

Drug' which was adopted as a battle cry by those involved and active in

promoting the UK litigation.

As I've repeatedly said - I / we have nothing against the litigation or

the Lawyers involved. We actively support them by ensuring they receive

copies of any pertinent and relevant articles - documents - reports etc

we acquire - forwarding items directly to them simultaneously to posting

them here on the boards - an action received and acknowledged with

returned gratitude; We can see and appreciate the wisdom in sticking

the knife into GSK and twisting very hard to prove a point.

But there are good Lawyers and good Lawyers.....there are lawyers I

would definitely like on my side when nailing a multi billion £ multi

national company to the wall and Lawyers I would definitely want by my

side when litigating as claimant for damages in a case of medical

negligence or caused physical / mental injury .... they don't

necessarily come in the same package.

But both should openly and honestly inform the clients of all the facts

-- positive and negative -- of how litigation and any subsequent payout

will affect them and especially in the case of those reliant on state

benefits .... their livelihood - along with the prospects of benefiting

or not benefiting from payouts .... which in this case ….. they have

not.

It will be the weakest and possibly some of the most deserving

--- because they are too incapacitated and have no-one to help either

search out and rationalise those facts - put together adequate claim

statements or push their claims - who will / are being dropped from the

litigation or will find their benefits payments stopped / disrupted --

causing further distress and hardship -- until previous benefits paid on

the grounds of ill health due to the drug ADRs are assessed and the

payments clawed back by the government benefit agencies - health

insurance and mortgage protection companies from their payouts - however

small ---

who will pay a high price for the Lawyers making that point.

Regards Tuesday

>

> Dear Cassandra et al

>

> A couple of comments as a supportive lurker on

> this list (a doctor with some interest in how

> patients might help us doctors to deal with the

> integrity problems we have):

>

> Might I float the idea that there is some sense in

> the BBC's GSK only approach (driving a needle in

> very deeply as opposed to giving the system an

> easily forgotten slap). And the GSK/UK aspect is a

> major part of that. The principles at stake might

> emerge more forcefully this way, and be of general

> application. I think it is in the interests of all

> to help debate the real issues (such as the MHRA

> involvement with Seroxat). In any event that is

> the needle you now have, and I don't think

> bickering about it is useful.

>

> With regard to the use of lawyers discussed in

> another thread - I think it completely appropriate

> that patients and good lawyers might work as part

> of an overall strategy to bring some sense into

> the system -- and not just in litigation. Witness

> what is going on in Alaska/Zyprexa as a case

> example of the way this could work. The principle

> is I think not something to reject out of hand.

>

> Aubrey

> Blog: http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/

> ==================

> Dr Aubrey Blumsohn

> MBBCh, PhD, MSc, BSc(hons), MRCPath

> Blog: http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/

> Email: aubreyprivate@...

> ==================

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Rosemary

Sorry I missed this yesterday – had a long day and was very tired

when I got back.

I don't mind in the least – but am a bit wary ………. you can

use anything I`ve written here as long as it is kept in context

– and would also appreciate if you quote directly that both I and my

words are represented accurately and that my anti drug and treatment

stance is made clear.

Sorry - that may sound churlish but I am painfully aware that curtailing

or truncating parts paragraphs / sentences can put an entirely different

spin on the writers' perspective and that we don't entirely

share the same point of view – which is fine : ) it would be a

sorry state and of no service if it stopped us interacting or working

together and I very much appreciate your taking the time to seek my

approval - so please go ahead.

Many regards

Tuesday

> >

> > Tuesday,

> >

> > I totally understand your frustrations regarding the focus on GSK.I

> > share them.

> > I agree that ALL SSRI's are rubbish, cause similar problems, and I

> > have yet to hear about a drug company that doesn't conduct business

in

> > a dodgy manner.

> >

> > I cannot speak for but will raise your issues with her and

see

> > if I can get a response.

> > I have ABSOLUTELY no doubt in my mind, that her integrity is

> > UNQUESTIONABLE.

> > One should be very careful not to judge people without having ALL

the

> > facts at your disposal.

> > Never assume... There will be valid reasons for the BBC's decisions

> > I'm sure. I have no knowledge of her personally being affected by

> > Seroxat in any way, but will ask that question specifically.

> >

> > Although the SSRI problem in general is not being addressed as it

> > should, Panorama should be given credit for making a start??

> > At least the BBC is making an effort. Only this morning I watched in

> > horror as Fern Briton(This Morning) and guests sang the praises of

> > SSRI's regarding post-natal depression treatment, without mentioning

> > a single alternative!The message was clear...go get a prescription!

> >

> > About the Seroxat Usergroup and withdrawal protocols etc. I know

> > Janice personally who runs that group. It gets no funding.

> > There is no salary, she helps people as best she can. I personally

> > attended a meeting with her at the Minister of Health's office where

> > she BEGGED for help regarding advice in this regard.I was there. I

> > know her frustrations.I know that what she does is a labour of love.

> > Quite frankly I don't know where she gets the strength to continue

as

> > her own husband suffers from depression, has been on SSRI's for

> > something like 16 years and cannot get off...

> >

> > We have an ordinary woman here, who is doing her best.

> > Trying to make a difference.

> > Now it's up to you as someone who obviously isn't happy with the

> > situation to help change things yourself.

> > Nothing stopping you Tuesday, from starting the perfect group that

> > will solve everyone's problems?

> >

> > Why attack those that are trying to change things? Would it not make

> > sense to focus our attention on those that are aiding Big Pharma.

> > United we stand, divided we fall...

> >

> > The world certainly needs all the help it can get!

> > Steph

> >

>

>

[Guest guest]

Dear Tuesday,

I'm convinced that in the very near future someone will expose the

SSRI/SSRNI class drugs problem fully. It won't surprise me if Panorama

does.

The time is ripe.

Nobody will be happier about that than myself. I wouldn't have been a

member of this group, if I wasn't determined to do everything I can to

help doing so.I've always made a point of mentioning the SSRI problem

as a whole during interviews, and will most certainly continue doing

so at every opportunity that comes my way. Can't however guarantee

that journalists will use it.. There is always a limited space, or a

limited time problem.

People progress by zooming out further and further until they see,and

realize the total scale of the problem.It's a long , painful process

this thing called cognitive dissonance... Members of the general

public are at varying stages. Everyone here, are way out in space

looking back..which is why we're more angry than most:-)

In conclusion I just have to mention that the SUG has been taken over

by Janice , on the condition that it would have no ties

whatsover to the lawyers.Personally it doesn't bother me whether or

not the lawyers initially used the group to get punters. Desperate

people got help.They had a choice . I guess they could've just

advertised. I'm pleased that they decided to go with the SUG idea as

it's helped many, myself included, during my darkest hours.

One last thought on the BBC. Making an episode like the one shown last

night, literally takes months of planning.They already contacted me in

August 2006 ..I don't think you should read too much into the fact

that screening of a previous programme coincided with the announcement

of regaining legal aid funding.

About This Morning. I'd be so happy to see them choose 2 guests, one

with a negative, the other a positive experience of SSRI's. Then a

professional who is pro medicating, and possibly someone like

nutritionist Holford, who knows that food is better medicine

than drugs, a Cognitive Behavioral Therapist,EFT practitioner, and

Hypnotherapist, to present the other options to the public. Now that

would be balanced reporting! Let's all write to them, and see if we

can make it happen?

No need to worry Tuesday. No hard feelings.I tried not to take

anything personally, merely defended people I believe in.

Couldn't look at myself in the mirror if I didn't.

Take care.

Steph

> > > > >

> > > > >

> > > > > thanks for this. Jofre is an amazing journalist

> with

> > > > > guts and integrity. I took part in this programme and meeting

> > her was

> > > > > an absolute privilege. I'm incredibly grateful to her for the

> > enormous

> > > > > part she's played in exposing GSK's web of deceit.

> > > > > Steph

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >

> > > >