Re: Who contacted a Pharma company?

[Guest guest]

I remember one poster calling Forest labs about PSSD and they told her

that citalopram had no sexual side effects, so i don't expect a

positive response from them. Either way i think we should try to

contact the pharmaceutical companies just so later on they can't said

they knew nothing about this.

[Guest guest]

If all pharma companies receive regular emails and phone calls from

different PSSD patients, it will probably make more of an impression.

And they could be notified of this support group and the PSSD-page on

www.wikipedia.org I think these contacts can best be factual, decent

and constructive.

They can also be asked specifically to include PSSD information in

their information leaflets (package inserts).

I believe it will be best to adress higher management and scientific

staff of the pharma companies in these contacts. Because it is not

effective if complaints about PSSD only reach a consumer helpdesk.

Since he or she has probably little influence on the policy of the

company.

Patient organisations can help in maintaining these contacts with

companies. E.g. patient organisations about depression, anxiety,

mental health care, psychiatry, etc.... Also (mental) health

personell like psychologists, therapists, pharmacists, personal

coaches, counsellors, social workers, psychiatrists, gp's and nurses

could be asked to support communication with these companies.

..............

anymonus777 wrote:

> I remember one poster calling Forest labs about PSSD and they told her

> that citalopram had no sexual side effects, so i don't expect a

> positive response from them. Either way i think we should try to

> contact the pharmaceutical companies just so later on they can't said

> they knew nothing about this.

>

[Guest guest]

They won't stop until they are told to stop. To them, my suffering is

insignificant compared to the billions that they make each year.

Shay

stevehazek wrote:

>

> Has anybody contacted a pharmaceutical company to inform or ask them

> about PSSD? For example the company from which you have used your

> medication. What was their reaction?

>

> Perhaps you could use a nickname in that contact, if you prefer. These

> companies could be contacted via email, telephone, letter, or personal

> visit. You could ask your doctor or pharmacist to edit or co-sign your

> letter or email. Or you can ask your pharmacist, (being a business

> client) to contact the pharma company about PSSD.

>

> I think we can only expect constructive contacts with the

> pharmaceutical companies if they are approached respectfully.

>

>

[Guest guest]

That's right, i think there are only two things that will make them

admit PSSD.

1.If they are forced to by law. That would be if some study or some

number of studies would show that antidepressants cause PSSD and the

regulators would force them to mention it on the package insert.

2.If they see that they are going too loose a considerable sum of

money. I see this happening in two ways.

1. Lawsuits. If they see that if they continue keeping this a secret

they will be sued to Kingdom Come. I think it's finally then that they

will back down and admit it. But only when they figure that they will

be sued so heavily that they are going to loose more money than they

gain from selling antidepressants (which is a lot!).

2. Loss of Goodwill. Companies depend at least somewhat on public

image and if the public sees how they are misleading and flat out

lying to them that is going to hurt them. I personally hope that Big

Pharma will be handled like Big Tobacco. Pressure groups will force

them to come clean and admit the truth about these drugs. Hey Camel

even used Doctor's to promote cigarette smoking :-)

http://www.benschmaus.com/img/blog/more_doctors_smoke_camels_640x437.png

One of the many things that need to change within the pharmaceutical

industry, the regulatory agencies and the scientific community is

that drugs need to be tested for long term effects as well as short

time effects. Imagine kids that start taking these drugs at a very

young age. Some start at Kindergarten (i'm not kidding about this).

Who knows about the long term effects these kids are going to suffer

from their entire lives? Or who knows how this will effect their life

expectancy. I think people at my age are the first generation of

people where a considerable proportion of society is going to be

drugged almost from cradle to grave. That scares me to tell you the truth.

[Guest guest]

Last summer I contacted Jansen Pharmacuetica inc.(maker of Risperdal)

They said they cannot give medical advise to help recover from drug

injury. Being respectful made no difference. It's just their policy to

not help you when things go wrong because of their drug. The real kick

in the balls came when the pharma rep asked me to participate in a

survey that they mailed me. Long story short, the only reaction they

have is : sorry, we can't help you after we destroyed your life, but

please fill out a survey to help us sell more drugs.

I'm sure if you took Prozac and became psychotic from it, Eli Lilly

would be happy to sell you Zyprexa, and when it makes you diabetic

they'd be happy to sell you Humulin, and when you get ED they'd be

happy to sell you Cialis, and if these drugs cause cancer they'd be

happy to sell you Alimta or Gemzar.

Big pharma is a biz that creates it's own markets. From a ruthless

capitalist standpoint, it's brilliant, for everyone else, it's torture

and murder.

Big Pharma is not your friend.

>

> Has anybody contacted a pharmaceutical company to inform or ask them

> about PSSD? For example the company from which you have used your

> medication. What was their reaction?

>

> Perhaps you could use a nickname in that contact, if you prefer. These

> companies could be contacted via email, telephone, letter, or personal

> visit. You could ask your doctor or pharmacist to edit or co-sign your

> letter or email. Or you can ask your pharmacist, (being a business

> client) to contact the pharma company about PSSD.

>

> I think we can only expect constructive contacts with the

> pharmaceutical companies if they are approached respectfully.

>

[Guest guest]

im in the uk and im not sure about other country's but the problem

over here is the doctors, when a patient suffers a side effect from a

drug that they have prescribed that isn't on the list of side effects

on the drug packaging they are supposed to report it by filling in i

think a yellow card and sending this to the regulators, in the uk its

the mhra.

this in my opinion is where the problem lies, if doctors aren't doing

this then the regulators are not going to be aware of the problem.

we should all demand to know if our doctors have dont this!!!

and if not we need to ask why not!!!

then we need to report these side effects and the doctors that

haven't done this to the regulators them selves and demand there

response to this situation!!! after all they are there for our safety

(supposedly) and if there system is letting people down then its them

that is liable for this.

i think we should draw up a standard letter that people can download

from this group, leaving a blank space to put your own doctors name

in, that can be sent to the regulators in your respective country.

i think we should do this because as far as im aware they are obliged

to report anything like this and they choose to not do it!

so until this situation changes we are constantly going to be telling

doctors about this and them not taking it seriously.(so lets fucking

report them!)

IF! they had been doing this, these side effects would have been

listed on the drugs pakaging AND I, AND PROBEBLY ALL OF YOU LOT

WOULDNT HAVE THIS PROBLEM RITE NOW AS WE COULD HAVE MADE AN INFORED

CHOICE WHETHER OR NOT TO THEM, AND WE WERE DENIED THIS BECAUSE THERE

SYSTEM IS FAILING. (lets attack this!!!)

did you know that doctors are courted by drug company's and given

gifts and prises and holidays at award ceremony's for prescribing

there drugs?

doctors are shit scared of making waves for them selves, so lets make

some waves for them.

>

> That's right, i think there are only two things that will make them

> admit PSSD.

>

> 1.If they are forced to by law. That would be if some study or some

> number of studies would show that antidepressants cause PSSD and the

> regulators would force them to mention it on the package insert.

>

> 2.If they see that they are going too loose a considerable sum of

> money. I see this happening in two ways.

>

> 1. Lawsuits. If they see that if they continue keeping this a secret

> they will be sued to Kingdom Come. I think it's finally then that

they

> will back down and admit it. But only when they figure that they

will

> be sued so heavily that they are going to loose more money than they

> gain from selling antidepressants (which is a lot!).

>

> 2. Loss of Goodwill. Companies depend at least somewhat on public

> image and if the public sees how they are misleading and flat out

> lying to them that is going to hurt them. I personally hope that Big

> Pharma will be handled like Big Tobacco. Pressure groups will force

> them to come clean and admit the truth about these drugs. Hey Camel

> even used Doctor's to promote cigarette smoking :-)

>

>

http://www.benschmaus.com/img/blog/more_doctors_smoke_camels_640x437.p

ng

>

> One of the many things that need to change within the pharmaceutical

> industry, the regulatory agencies and the scientific community is

> that drugs need to be tested for long term effects as well as short

> time effects. Imagine kids that start taking these drugs at a very

> young age. Some start at Kindergarten (i'm not kidding about this).

> Who knows about the long term effects these kids are going to suffer

> from their entire lives? Or who knows how this will effect their

life

> expectancy. I think people at my age are the first generation of

> people where a considerable proportion of society is going to be

> drugged almost from cradle to grave. That scares me to tell you the

truth.

>

[Guest guest]

>

> That's right, i think there are only two things that will make them

> admit PSSD.

>

> 1.If they are forced to by law. That would be if some study or some

> number of studies would show that antidepressants cause PSSD and the

> regulators would force them to mention it on the package insert.

Even if they admit it:

It wouldn't stop them from forced drugging or coercion or

misrepresentation of the drug, which is the current norm in clinical

practice.

>

> 2.If they see that they are going too loose a considerable sum of

> money. I see this happening in two ways.

>

> 1. Lawsuits. If they see that if they continue keeping this a secret

> they will be sued to Kingdom Come. I think it's finally then that they

> will back down and admit it. But only when they figure that they will

> be sued so heavily that they are going to loose more money than they

> gain from selling antidepressants (which is a lot!).

The reality is that, that will never happen. Big Pharma has already

calculated several billion $$ in their budget to cover lawsuits.

They view lawsuits as a cost of doing business. Just like a pizza

delivery business factors in the cost of putting gas in the car.

It is routine for them to do illegal and bad things. They know they

will be sued. They plan on it. Now they just keep doing more and more

illegal activity after several lawsuits, because their budget will pay

for it, and enough people get drugged so it remains a profitable

scheme. Consider that Jansen Pharmaceutica is now being sued by 11

states for sending letters to doctors instructing them to prescribe

Risperdal for non-medical purposes. They knew it was illegal from day

one. But they count on the facts such as: only 11 states will sue, not

all 52. And with the giant price of the drug, it doesn't result in a

financial loss. Long story short, they game the system and profit from

crime. And they've been getting away with it for a long time. They're

just getting better at it as time goes on. We know the government

favors big company's. Look at the lengthy list of arcane penalty's if

you get caught smoking weed. Compare it to big pharma penalty's. No

jail time. No zero tolerance policy's. Pharma employees aren't banned

from going to college. No criminal records. No probation. All because

they get to hide behind the corporate red tape. It's industrialized

and legalized chemical assault and murder by the millions at a profit.

> 2. Loss of Goodwill. Companies depend at least somewhat on public

> image and if the public sees how they are misleading and flat out

> lying to them that is going to hurt them. I personally hope that Big

> Pharma will be handled like Big Tobacco. Pressure groups will force

> them to come clean and admit the truth about these drugs. Hey Camel

> even used Doctor's to promote cigarette smoking :-)

>

> http://www.benschmaus.com/img/blog/more_doctors_smoke_camels_640x437.png

>

> One of the many things that need to change within the pharmaceutical

> industry, the regulatory agencies and the scientific community is

> that drugs need to be tested for long term effects as well as short

> time effects.

The current veiw in government and big pharma is that every day a drug

doesn't get marketed, it's a million $$ loss. So new drugs are given

" priority " status to get approved asap by the FDA. By the way, big

pharma is the FDA by de-facto manner.

Imagine kids that start taking these drugs at a very

> young age. Some start at Kindergarten (i'm not kidding about this).

> Who knows about the long term effects these kids are going to suffer

> from their entire lives?

Look at the Florida foster care system. They give atypical AP's to

infants and toddlers. Some even leave their first appointment with 15

or 20 prescriptions to keep them chemically restrained, making the

foster mommy's job effortless. The foster parents can't resist the

financial incentive to make 300% more income (profit) by having kids

labeled as " special needs " or " with disabilities requiring drugs "

They are killed and disfigured routinely. The state sponsors it.

These kids will never grow or develop normally or get married or have

children. They will probably never have normal happy lives.

They aren't even prepared for life and work before they reach 18 y.o.

and are thrown out to the street or other institutions.

This may partly explain the rising suicide rate.

Or who knows how this will effect their life

> expectancy. I think people at my age are the first generation of

> people where a considerable proportion of society is going to be

> drugged almost from cradle to grave. That scares me to tell you the

truth.

>

I think I read somewhere that these drugs take 10 years off your life

expectancy. Drugged from cradle to grave is the end game of psychiatry

, with the exception of death. It is scary. The whole world needs to

wake up and be scared and take it seriously. My friend took her 8 y.o.

daughter to Advocates Inc. She filled out a survey. She answered all

the questions so everything looked normal, and without even looking at

the paper, the nurse diagnosed the child as bipolar. This is an

attempt to create a lifetime customer. I'm sure that this is the

reason why psychiatry invented bipolar disorder. They can convince

anyone that they have it. We all have ups and downs. It's almost a

perfect scam.

Watch the video on the left. Candace Downing was a happy, healthy,

beautiful young girl.

http://profile.myspace.com/index.cfm?fuseaction=user.viewprofile & friendid=134719\

383 & MyToken=b7da376c-373a-445a-a4e6-d664dc6bbaed

[Guest guest]

Smoking weed is not safe for certain groups of users. But weed is

often used in stead of psycho medication. So the pharma companies

benefit greatly from laws that prohibit weed.

survivor030406 wrote: " We know the government

> favors big company's. Look at the lengthy list of arcane penalty's if

> you get caught smoking weed. Compare it to big pharma penalty's. No

> jail time. No zero tolerance policy's. Pharma employees aren't banned

> from going to college. No criminal records. No probation. All because

> they get to hide behind the corporate red tape. "