May 02, 2008Recording: British Paxil Users Meet With Brit FDAJust hitting the Net right now is a recording of a group of British Paxil users, known as the Seroxat User Group (Seroxat is Paxil's name in the UK), holding a meeting with the head of the MHRA and some other government officials in the UK. The MHRA is their FDA. The levels on the recording aren't the best, but someone in the UK is cleaning up the audio and I'll post that later. I've only been able to listen to some of the beginning of the recording, but from what I gather the government officials get questioned on why they chose not to prosecute GlaxoSmithKline (which hid all sorts of bad data on the drug from regulators and the public) and about the connection between the drug and suicidality. Listen for yourself. I'll try and post something later today if possible. No matter what, I congratulate the Seroxat users for challenging the decision makers on drug regulation in this fashion. Here's the audio: Let me know what you think. Posted by Philip Dawdy at May 2, 2008 10:10 AM
del.icio.us
Digg it
reddit
Comments
This is essential listening fro anyone who has been prescribed Seroxat(Paxil) or any other SSRI drug... It shows the complete lack of understanding the regulator has of those whom suffer from mental(emotional) illness and those whom suffer because of these poisonous SSRI's.. And we entrust in these idiots to prescribe what's in our best interests? .. The mind boggles.. Posted by: truthman30 at May 2, 2008 10:42 AMi think Fid said only one person there said they were a seroxat user/former user. great to hear the meeting, thanks for posting this. Posted by: Stephany at May 2, 2008 11:12 AM"lessons to be learned" "you have to be aware it was being prescribed"--regarding children GSK "not complied with the spirit of the law" "the legislation is running behind trying to catch up with the reality" "take the one internal document that is identified in the report...internal GSK management document...efficacy has not been demonstrated... "can't even begin to try and explain that"... "we're always talking in this agency about risk benefit" "the general public were not made aware" "you're quite right Janice" This is a MUST LISTEN TO AUDIO. Posted by: Stephany at May 2, 2008 11:33 AMDerek Scott is the ex-Seroxat user and patient advocate you were referring to Steph .. Janice Simmons is the co-ordinator of the SUG (seroxat users group uk) and also the wife of a long term seroxat user, her husband being on it for an incredible 17 years.. http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/ There was also a solicitor called Patricia acting on behalf of Janice and the SUG present.. Among the other 4 people present were MHRA members including Kent Woods , CEO of the MHRA.. It is Kent Woods and the SUG lawyer (patricia) whom make up most of the discussion in the audio.. Personally, I found Mr Woods and the MHRA responses far from adequate and extremely evasive... The fact that Kent Woods states in this recording that he "does not believe Seroxat itself causes suicide" is enough to clarify the position of the regulator... What is obvious here though is that they do not deny SSRI's can be a factor nor do they verify that they cannot be a factor.. There is a well known severe withdrawal reaction which can result in (amongst other things) completed suicide.. The Seroxat story is far from over.. Thanks truthman, I've written about this and linked your blog into my post. Posted by: Stephany at May 2, 2008 12:33 PMYou're welcome Steph, and thank you for the link to the blog and the comments.. :) Posted by: truthman30 at May 2, 2008 02:27 PMThis is important stuff. Thanks. Posted by: Sally at May 2, 2008 02:39 PMThe MHRA lawyer is a smooth operator - nice, conciliatory tone. However, he doesn't answer the questions put, he explains the difficulties, and offers justifications for the imperfection of the system. For example, when he argues Derek's point, concerning the Hull study and SSRIs being no better than placebo. He says "well, the Hull study bears out the marketing authorization, because the marketing authorization is indicated for Major Depressive Disorder." This is significant, because he conveniently overlooks the practical reality, which is that there is no ready alternative to drugs on the NHS, and if my experience is anything to go by, GPs don't check to see if one is suffering from severe, moderate or mild depression, or if one is maybe just a bit unhappy. The upshot is that people DO get given these snake oil remedies when they shouldn't, and when they have problems, the shutters come down. Smooth your way out of that one, Slick. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 2, 2008 04:21 PMI'm only 36 minutes in, and I'm so fucked off that I can't listen to another word. The Company in question runs its own trials, crunches its own numbers, writes its own academic papers, has a regulator that regards those papers as valid evidence as to the efficacy and safety of a drug. Guys, that's a fucking business plan. And it's open to abuse. Nothing, as far as I can ascertain, is being done to deal with any of that. It's a fucking shambles, and no smooth-talking lawyer can gloss over that. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 2, 2008 04:29 PMHey Matt.. Good to see your contributions to the debate here. SSRI's do induce suicidal thoughts, Many hundreds of thousands of patients have expressed this FACT. I myself experienced this side effect. I myself am lucky to have survived Seroxat. Mr Woods dismisses everything which is not a scientific study as "anecdotal". How dare he dismiss the patients voice. As a regulator it is their duty to listen and to heed the concerns of the public. Yet Mr woods talks to Janice of the SUG like she is an idiot who couldn't possibly understand the complexities of medicine, industry and regulation. It is this superior , conceited and arrogant attitude which undermines the purpose of his own organization. Safe guarding public health is the MHRA motto. What a crock of crap.. Janice has been dealing with Seroxat related issues through her website for 6 years. She has been campaigning for years on the issues. Her husband has been on Seroxat for 17 years. She knows the reality of the Seroxat issues. Yet, Woods pandered and appeased to her like an adult would a child. All the MHRA answers were evasive and meandering, nothing was achieved in this meeting. It was a token gesture from the MHRA and a futile PR move on their part. It will not affect anything in regards to Seroxat prescriptions or justice for Seroxat victims and survivors.
Challenging, having to listen to Woods. "It doesn't in ANY WAY compromise the judgements that are made." What a scream! Posted by: Marian at May 2, 2008 05:26 PMPhilip, I look forward to the cleaned up tape,in the meanime........ I believe that MHRA already had some of the negative data inc. study 329, and in fact study 329 - although you'd have to verify that with he - is one of the reasons Richard Brook (at the time CEO of MIND UK) resigned from the position as a laymember of the CSM's working group into the safety and efficacy of all SSRIs, and as you may recall was subsequently reported as threatened by MHRA with legal action if he went public--That would have been covered by the UK's 1968 medicines act, and possibly the official secrets act: Happily for patient safety, Brook ignored the threat and went public anyway. MHRA had a duty of care to inform the public at least by that time. Were Akisthisia, and the miscoding label of drug induced emotional lability mentioned at the meeting? However, there was nothing to stop MHRA enforcement from handing the matter of fraud to the SFO, and backing any action that agency might bring, certainly at least with outside expert opinion on what constitutes fraudulent research in presentation of clinical research represented as factual and accurate, particularly so when said research also leads to pecuniary gain by the sponsoring corporation. Regards, Stuart. Posted by: Stuart Jones at May 2, 2008 05:28 PMThank you for your comments Stuart.. There is no mention of Akathisa on the recording, which is ridiculous ,considering it is this common side effect from SSRI's whicH also induces much of the violent and suicidal behavior associated with Seroxat. The miscoding of suicidal ideation/aggression etc as "emotional lability" by was not mentioned during this recording either which is also a great shame as this was one of the major frauds which was perpetrated. There are many other issues which were amiss from this discussion, issues such as Seroxat induced birth defects and longterm physical and mental damage from Seroxat use. I am sure Woods et all at the MHRA were delighted that the meeting was so gentle. It seems to me that government agencies like the MHRA are well versed in the skills of "pussyfooting around". Had more difficult questions been asked they would not have been as easily evaded. Posted by: truthman30 at May 2, 2008 06:15 PMSome insights from this audio... Janice of the SUG asks why the MHRA wasted 4 years investigating GSK when they knew that GSK would wriggle out of it in the end.. The MHRA lawyer says the law existed to prosecute GSK but it is very complicated and hadn't been tested before .. That doesn't actually answer the question, it actually raises more questions... Such as.. Why didn't they TEST THE LAW with this case??? SUG lawyer says the crux of the issue is GSK would have known Seroxat was being prescribed to children , and even if GSK had complied with the letter of the law, they did not comply with the spirit of the law (ethical and moral) Kent Woods (GSK CEO) seems to agree and reiterate these assertions.. The way I see it is, If the drug was cauing kids to harm themselves , kill themselves and extreme adverse reactions, this should have been a RED FLAG for its use in adults.. UNREAL.. Janice of the SUG questions woods as to why Seroxat is deemed unsafe in children, unsafe in under 25's, unsafe in under 29's and unsafe in the elderly.... Woods then blubbers on about the MHRA and their risk benefit angle.. Again the issue is avoided!!! How is this drug only safe for older adults??? SUG lawyer asks why the thousands of email reports to the Seroxat users group of Seroxat withdrawal and side effects are downplayed and seen as unworthy (anecdotal) by the MHRA.. Again, the Question is not even answered.. Again.. Woods avoids the question... Derek Scott(ex-seroxat user) asks Woods about the Hull study which indicated that SSRI's were no better than placebo... Woods then says that the drugs should only be prescribed for Major depression... Janice and Derek then ask Woods, why (which we are all aware of) are they being prescribed for shyness, mild depression and other conditions? .. Woods says "that's certainly true" ... Woods then says the company by law is not allowed to market their product outside of their approved indications.. SO WHAT ABOUT STUDY 329!!! More blabber about patients wanting a quick fix.. Woods says there is "no one size fits all".. Which is ironic because thats EXACTLY HOW SEROXAT(PAXIL) WAS MARKETED WITH APPROVAL FROM THE MHRA... More blather from Woods about NICE and all the great work they all do together for the public ...(what a joke) Janice says the SUG would like to coroners to be aware the SSRI drugs can be linked to suicide .. More blather from Kent woods... (avoiding the question once again)
SUG lawyer asks about more councelling being made available.... Woods says the evidence base is less for councelling and trials for councelling are less robust.. (so we should trust the drug company trials should we? and just pop a pill and everything will be ok? Is Kent Woods Deranaged?)
Janice tells Woods that Patients need help, advice and support in withdrawing from the SSR's .. SUG lawyer says there are many people who do not benefit from SSRI drugs at all... More blather and blubbing Woods says it is difficult to disentangle the effects of self harm/suicide from the treatment and the illness.. Janice of teh SUG issues a challenge to Kent Woods.. SUG Lawyer asks about evidence of suicide in healthy volunteers (david healy studies) Woods says the evidence the MHRA have doesn't indicate SSRI's cause Suicide.. Woods then correlates Suicide rates going down as SSRI's were being prescribed .. SUG lawyer then brings up Sharise Gatchell and Woods avoids the issue again ... Finishing this now at 62 mins .. Tired and annoyed .. Might continue this tomorrow..
I've listened to the recording twice now. Nothing on the audio gives me encouragement. It appears the questions asked (in the main from the SUG solicitor) were answered with ease, which suggests the MHRA knew what they were going to be asked... I may be wrong. The suicides in adults was brushed off with a whim. The tired excuse that 'it could possibly be the illness that caused the suicide' - I think Woods is overlooking something - the trials were carried out on healthy volunteers - they had no fucking illness! Read the Glenmullen report. 7 people were in attendance... at least 7 people intoduced themselves and spoke. 6 of them have NEVER physically experienced withdrawal on Seroxat. Would Woods want to sit down with me and other British bloggers? I doubt it. There would be no room for humour or laughter - this is NOT a fucking laughing matter. James Cook, the criminal law solicitor drafted in by the MHRA to help with the GSK investigation was present - he skated over the Ian Hudson issue with ease - does anyone honestly think he would have been allowed to do that if some of the angry Brit bloggers were present... or if the room was full of people who had suffered at the hands of this drug? I suggested weeks ago that this could be merely a token gesture by Woods to meet with advocates - after listening to the recording it certainly seems that way. Woods stated '...we have never said this drug was safe in adults' - so what are you trying to say? On one hand you won't ban it - on the other you claim you have never said it is safe? Talk about having your cake and eating it! And what of the arrests that weren't made? What criminal lawyer decides not to arrest a suspect/s because their lawyer has said they won't talk? It's absurd. Now we (the public) will never know who the suspects were. What a paper thin, lame ass excuse for not interviewing a suspect. Jesus! Clinton was interviewed in front of the US nation for having a dabble with his intern... yet people who were part of a plan to manipulate data that endangered the lives of children are allowed anonimity! The world has gone crazy... completely crazy. There will be no change at the MHRA. The man in charge (Woods) has blinkered views. Woods was warned in 2002 about the manipulating data in the children's trials - ironically by the Seroxat User Group - he did nothing. He does not beleive there is evidence to support suicidality or ideation in adults. The Seroxat User Group told him there was. He will ignore it again. The yellow card system (patient reporting)is a complete and utter joke. If a depressed person reports an adverse reaction to the SSRi he/she is on, why are they not asked by the MHRA what scale their depression is? If they only have mild to moderate depression why don't the MHRA tell them that the prescribed drug they are on is about as useful as a placebo? Anyway... what patient asks their doctor if the depression they have is mild, moderate or severe? It's a fucking joke and nobody is taking responsibilty - it's left to the patient to bang his/her head against brick walls until the men in white suits come and take them away to the funny farm. I need a break from all this crap, need to recharge the batteries. One thing I DO know.. it ain't over yet! Fid *On a footnote I would like to add that I never released the audio or sent the author of Furious Seasons the link to it. No doubt the fingers will be pointed in my direction. * Posted by: Fiddy at May 3, 2008 12:07 AMTruthman wrote: Thanks. It seems to me that we have a very profitable industry that has significant politcal influence, largely because of the size of its wallet. This industry has an operation that relies to a large extent on secrecy, and as we start to probe, we understand why it is so secretive. I don't know if the "business plan" that I highlighted above (which I ought to point out includes a regulator that refuses to explain what its drug assessment procedure amounts to, nor respond to the HSC allegation that it just rubber stamps companies' applications), has just developed organically, or whether it's a conscious effort and an open secret, within the industry. Either way, nobody appears interested in disturbing the arrangement. That raises a flag, for me. It may well be that the MHRA is handicapped by a system of laws that is complex and constantly playing catch-up. However, as far as I'm aware, the MHRA is not precluded from introducing regulatory rules and guidance, in order to ensure its objectives, supplement the legislative and contribute to ensuring best practice, but even though I tried to get a discussion going with it on this point, it showed no interest in drafting a publicly available industry Handbook. Let me summarize that: there are real problems right across the industry, and those who ought to be doing something about those real problems are spending their time justifying their inaction. Put another way: the status quo is being defended manfully, albeit in a transparently inadequate way. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 3, 2008 12:16 AMDear Philip, Excerpts from "The Influence of Pharmaceutical Industry" review http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf
Inappropriate prescription of medicines by GPs is of particular concern. Some have prescribed SSRIs, for instance, on a grand scale.This is in part due to inadequacies in the education of medical practitioners which has meant that too few non-specialists are able to make objective assessments of the merits of drugs and too many seem not to recognise how little is known about the properties of a drug at the time of licensing, particularly about its adverse consequences. However ,many prescribers have behaved responsibly and with restraint, which makes those who have not, all the more culpable.The constraints in place for hospital doctors do not apply to GPs. Drug companies are criticised for giving hospitality and recruiting ‘key opinion leaders ’, but the prescribers must be equally to blame for accepting the hospitality and some ‘key opinion leaders ’ for lending their names to work they did not produce,often for very considerable sums. Greater transparency is also fundamental to the medicines regulatory system.There has to be better public access to materials considered by the MHRA prior to licensing. The aim of new drugs should be real therapeutic benefit for patients. Clinical trials should focus on using health outcomes that are relevant to patients.To achieve this we recommend better communication between the MHRA and companies early in the early stages of the development of a drug. Improvements in the post-licensing surveillance of medicines are also badly needed. This will require systematic appraisals of medicines. We recommend that more research be undertaken into the adverse effects of drugs, both during drug development and medicines licensing. The Government should,as a matter of urgency,fund research into the costs of drug-induced illness. "5.Problems with Seroxat and other SSRIs The still have the nerve to claim that suicidality has to do with depression and not with the drug. Very bad bill (S. 1375) that pushes screening and SSRIs for pregnant and new mothers with "postpartum depression" on its way to the Senate. One birth defect caused from PAXIL is babies born with holes in their hearts. Google www.uniteforlife.org to find out how to sign a petition and help. Several sponsoring organizations are funded by Phrma. Posted by: Sorrowful at May 3, 2008 07:26 AMLooking forward to hearing or is that reading a transcript of the cleaned up version. Good to see the original audio widely posted on the interweb so nobody can dispute accuracy of transcript. Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 3, 2008 09:02 AMThanks to all who have commented so far.. And thats one thing they never take away..
They still have the nerve to claim that suicidality has to do with depression and not with the drug. Posted by Ana at May 3, 2008 06:53 AM I agree Ana .. The nerve of them indeed..
While I have a bit of time this evening, I will try to listen and decipher the rest of this recording... I stopped last night because I was tired and annoyed, I am not as angry today, but I can't say I won't be by the time I hear the rest of this recording. From what I can gather, it seems the MHRA has had pre-access to the questions which were asked at this meeting. And even at that, the MHRA and Kent Woods responses to crtical issues about Seroxat safety are lame and inadequate. Most of the isses were sidetracked, evaded and avoided... I am flabbergasted how the MHRA can still justify the prescribing of this poisonous drug.. (Beginning the audio again now at 62 mins...my comments in brackets) When asked about the suicide of teenager Sharise Gatchell , a teenager who was prescribed Seroxat with no history of suicidal thoughts , Kent Woods evades this issue once again.. He waffles on about "cases of that type are always at first sight very persuasive" .. (in other words he is dismissing the word of Sharise Gatchells family who are certain that Seroxat caused her death) He then goes on to talk about the cluster of suicides in Wales ... "it is a treacherous event" .. (no it is not , it is a tragic event, made even more tragic by SSRI's inducing it) (Again he avoids the issue!!!) (If Seroxat does not cause suicide, then why are people with no previous history of suicidal thoughts killing themselves from taking Seroxat!!!) (Answer the questions Kent!! SUG lawyer wants to know if the people of the cluster of suicides in Wales were prescribed Anti-depressants? Woods then goes on to waffle about MHRA coroner reports , but again avoids the question...
He then goes on to say the trend of suicides is heading downwards... (He has totally contradicted himself here .. Janice of the SUG asks has the MHRA met with the coroners who believe SSRI's are linked to suicidal deaths... (Again he avoids answering the question...) Janice of the SUG says she thinks there is a lack of communication between all of the agencies involved in the process... Woods then blathers on about NICE again... (zzzzzzzz) and of course his favourite deflective phrase "risk benefit" ... "there is no simple answer" , "SSRI's are overprescribed" says Woods...
And Kent Woods says that the reason why SSRI's were so successful commercially is because they were perceived to be less toxic in regards to overdose... (This is ridiculous , if a patient wants to commit suicide they will find a way, prescribing an SSRI which can induce suicidal thoughts is absurd...) (I think the toxiticy arguement is Bullshit ..) Kent Woods says "all drugs have side effects".. (Again another deflection, originally used by the drug companies to defend the huge reports of problems with the SSRI class) SUG lawyer asks Kent Woods "do you think that nothing needs to done?" (in regards to the continuing Seroxat issues) He avoids the question again, by waffling on about the media scaremongering people about drugs and depression..."the stigmatization of antidepressant treatment" He says "there will be more harm done by non treatment than treatment" SUG lawyer then asks about the other side effects of Seroxat , sush as disturbed thoughts and impairments from Seroxat, disturbed dreams "everything short of suicide" etc? ... Woods again avoids the question about these disturbing seroxat side effects and goes on to waffle about suicide rates again... SUG lawyer asks about the range of side effects and refers to Derek Scott (ex-seroxat user) Derek asks about Ian Hudsons role in the GSK/MHRA investigation... (Ian Hudson is a former employee of GSK now employed by the MHRA reported to have had a "significant involvement with Seroxat" while at GSK : EMEA conflict of interest declaration) The MHRA solicitor quite skillfully confuses his answer with legal jargon thus again avoiding a proper response... He also says that "there were several individuals who were far more closely involved than Ian Hudson was" Janice then asks about Ian Hudsons involvement in the Donald Shell case( Donald Shell killed himself and his family after a few days on Paxil-Seroxat, GSK was found liable and paid out millions to the remaining family members)... Again, Woods avoids the question, and waffles on about there being no conflicts of interest in the MHRA etc etc... Derek then asks why Ian Hudson did not appear at the "health select committe" .. ie. The influence of the pharmaceutical industry parliamentary report... Woods "the people who were sent were the most appropriate"... more blather... Derek says Hudson" would have been a key witness".. Woods says "It wasn't clear from what the select committee were going to cover" etc Janice brings up the issue of the regulator being funded by the pharmaceutical industry... More waffle and inadequate response from Woods... Janice asks why Health ministers give standard answers identical to the MHRA ... Woods says" such is the complexity of government these days a health minister has a huge briefing" "a general problem of government" (Talk about passing the Buck) Then waffles on again... (zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz) Derek asks Woods "who were the individual suspects who the MHRA decided not to interview" MHRA lawyer says "it would not have been appropriate to release that information".. More talk ensues as to why no case was brought against GSK... Legal waffle, regulations this, government division this, blubber blather that etc etc... SUG Lawyer mentions "Fraud" , MHRA lawyer waffles on again... (zzzzzzzzzz.. time for a cup of tea) Someones mobile phone then goes off... More legal waffle... SUG lawyer says "we don't actually see that we are getting very far" and that she would like to "see something positive come out" She makses tow suggestions, about follwing up coroners reports and self help groups (ie withdrawal from SSRI's) Woods says they will certainly take up the issue about the coroners.. But cannot mandate the issue of withdrawal groups... (so I guess that means no official government withdrawal clinics will ever happen) Woods then says that the MHRA are involved closely with patient groups.. (Ironic because MIND have been Screaming about Seroxat for years , and the MHRA does not respond, apart from threatening one MIND representitive with a lawsuit at the height of the Seroxat scandal, one Mr Richard Brook) Janice says she wonders would the MHRA be any diffrent if it was funded by the government and not the industry? Woods waffles on about something or other( kinda lost interest here...) In essence hs says "it works" and "doesn't in any way compromise the decisions" .. "as long as they're not the masters" says the SUG lawyer... "absolutely not" says Woods (pffffffffffffffffff) More blather ... "we are a stubbornly independent body" says Woods.. Janice says "we have been talking to you since 2002 and we were rigth th whole way through, we told you the drugs were dangerous in under 18's , we weren;t listend to, lives were lost because peopel didnt listen, teh information was there for everybody to see, we hope you wil ltake a bit of notice , and look in to the situation, we know that the drugs cause suicide in adults" ... Woods responds with "we keep them under review" Janice said she had about five meetings with Alastair Benbow (GSK Seroxat Spin Doctor extraordinaire), and asked "what happens to these people after years of these drugs? And that "nobody knows"? Woods blathers and evades the question... "clinical practice tends to be to extend rather than shorten if they are working" More blather from woods... Derek asks when were the MHRA aware GSK could not be prosecuted under the loophole in the law?... MHRA Lawyer blathers some legal waffle ( no idea what he was talking about) ... Janice then asks could she send on the anecdotal emails recieved through her Seroxat users group web site?.. There is some response about having a look at them... More waffle about MHRA and public perception .. Janice asks about suicide rates on Seroxat.. (zzzzzzzz... sure they are only a few dead patients , probably from seroxat.. no rush figures will be back online soon, blah blah....) End of recording... Me tired, me think MHRA is pants...
"Woods responds with "we keep them under review" " Posted by Ana (ex parte Woods): And would Woods like to know why? It is thus: coroners don't like to bring a verdict of suicide, unless there is conclusive evidence of same, for several reasons. In no particular order: first, a suicide verdict impacts on insurance claims. Second, there is a social stigma attached to it. Third, the simple truth of the matter: in the absence of a suicide note, or eyewitness account, there will always be doubt as to how a person died - it's the difference between stumbling at the edge of the platform, being pushed, or going to retrieve a fallen item from the rails; and actually jumping in front of the train (I use this example, because it was the one that I witnessed). Previous medical evidence is considered. The woman in the case I was involved with had a history of depression, and a series of life's little body blows, shortly before her death. In the absence of a pre-existing medical history, but in the presence of a taking of (prescribed) drugs that have a dodgy reputation, and a sudden, unexplained, taking of one's own life, then what the fuck is a coroner supposed to fucking think? Fuck off Woods, you evasive fuck. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 4, 2008 04:40 AMThank you for further transcription of the SUG/MHRA meeting. Did the MHRA delegation take the opportunity to ask about the mental illness of John Simmons & Derek Scott or were they reliant on the position as woods said " wouldn't take Seroxat(paxil) unless he actually needed it " Very telling of their attitude towards the delegates ! Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 4, 2008 05:32 AMDear Matt Coroners Courts are very reluctant to bring a suicide verdict ( & rightly so ) because it invalidates any potential claim by the estate on the deceased life insurance. As for claiming Seroxat caused THE INDIVIDUAL to suicide, well i.m.h.o. you are on shaky ground there, reason - much more than likely the deceased was on treatment for a diagnosed mental illness. Oh I can hear you SHOUTING how convient for the psychiatrists/drug companies, but I say how convient for you activists. A dead body, however sad is a dead body & never the truth will emerge. You can speculate however much you like, but there it will remain SPECULATION. Therein lies the rub, when SUG met with MHRA they fielded (amongst others) Derek Scott & he is on record in a public place refering to his " clinical depression & severe panick attacks " & that his illness was making his girlfriends mental illness worse. Unless & until SUG can produce individuals who took Seroxat for indications OTHER than mental illness, then it will remain the case that Kent Woods will take advantage of them ! I'm sure this is not easy reading to some here but there is a question mark on the tactics used by SUG. Sadly for them they believed their own propaganda and in this they are no better than pharma/psych who inturn believe theirs. The only winners here are the media relations companies, copy takers in the press & gutter lawyers all of whom exploited the hapless SUG members. Sadly certain individuals with physiological vulnerabilities will suicide BECAUSE of Seroxat but the MHRA will get away without doing anything because of the way that SEROXAT USERS went about making their case. As for all of the people who took other brands of SSRI- well they will be let down by the MHRA as it was busy playing games with a bunch of MUGs Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 4, 2008 11:27 AMFuck off Woods, you evasive fuck. Matt Straight to the point Matt, just the way I like it.. :) Yes, Indeed it seems Mr Woods would not take Seroxat or medication unless he absolutely needed to..
Good to see Fid has got round to posting about this now.. http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2008/05/seroxat-sufferers-take-on-that-meeting.html
Hey Sara.. I am not so sure I agree with you.. Firstly, the pharmaceutical companies and the MHRA themselves admit there is a risk of worsening depression, anxiety and suicidal thoughts, they usually refer to this as being in the period when the drug is being first prescribed... Secondly, there are individual cases where family members have reported a marked change in their loved ones behavior after Seroxat use. If the word of family members is not enough then what is? Thirdly we have the thousands of anecdotal reports, there are many among these patients who were not prescribed Seroxat for depression and still they reported suicidal thoughts which they had never experienced before.. We also have the healthy volunteer studies which proved that Seroxat can make "non-mentally ill" people feel suicidal.. It would be easy to blame the illness if the reports were not so common and similar, but difficult when you have a body of evidence which points towards Seroxat being the culprit.. Woods and the MHRA (and pharma) have long used the argument that the illness is to blame and not the drug.. One thing which is certain.. It may be that some people who take SSRI's will kill themselves because of a "combination" of their depression(vulnerable state) and the intolerability of the side effects.. "In its findings, the jury concluded that Paxil could cause someone to commit The jury attributed 80 percent of the fault in the case to the drug maker http://www.drugawareness.org/Archives/3rdQtr_2001/060601Paxil.html
I have to agree with the other Sara on one point -- the SUG does not appear to have done a very good job with the opportunity they had to make their case. They don't sound very well prepared and they are far too deferential. Kent Woods, on the other hand, is just so patronizing, arrogant and dismissive. The SUG though gives him the opportunity to be so. Ugh -- that's all I can say. Well I for one believe the evidence is clearly out there that Paxil causes suicide but yes, it needs to be presented in a very data based way. One of the best ways IMO is to get scores of people who have survived suicide attempts on Paxil to describe their experiences in detail and to describe returning to "normal" after coming off Paxil. It's surely not a great leap from that to believing those who didn't survive were having the same experience is it? Posted by: Sara at May 4, 2008 01:12 PMWith all due respect one must consider why Derek Scott took the drug in the first place. Then one must go on to consider what modality of treatment he currently embibes. In addition one must accept that he identifies as a "patient" a service user, a seroxat addict (no longer) but a willing consumer of SSRI's other than rthe GSK product. How on earth can you ask the MHRA to take the SUG delegation seriously. As for Mr Simmons, not much is known except he has continued to take seroxat for something like 17 years. Yet one has only to look at national statistics and in particular at the decline of paroxetine. Since year 2002 & BBC Panorama it is in freefall & RIGHTLY so. But what of our protagonists ? No the delegation says more about the manipulation of the delegates & nothing of merit about the dreadful ssri/seroxat issue. Poor Mrs Gatchell will be viewed by the MHRA as cheap sensationalism & her families suffering won't be considered because MHRA would have viewed her inclusion as a cheap shot. This issue deserves better than cheap shots. Judging by the performance of the SUG lawyer, GSK must be laughing their socks off. Trial by media is one thing but when the real thing is up before the beak, expect nothing more than a limp wristed settlement. History shows these guys fold before a show & now we see why. The memory of Sharise & all the other children deserve better than this. Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 4, 2008 01:57 PM"Hey Sara.. I am not so sure I agree with you..
As Mr Scott claims to be mentally ill, he speaks out of both sides of his mouth, a bit like Prof. David Healy. Yes, David Healy speaks out against the worst facets of SSRI's but he is a Psychiatrist & he still prescribes them. Healy is also pro electroconvulsive therapy, would Mr Scott, whilst damming seroxat prefer to pop down to Wales & have a few shots of ECT ? I think not, but what were the MHRA thinking ? So I'm not saying shoot the message - just shoot the messangers. Sara xxx Hey Sara (not sure which Sara I am addressing, So I'll address it to you both) I agree with the essence of your last comments, I think the meeting was a bit of a damp squib(for want of a better expression). But I do respect Derek Scott and Janice Simmons. Both have been through their own individual and personal hell with Seroxat and both have campaigned tirelessly to bring awareness to the issues. I have an huge admiration and respect for both of them. I am not aware of Derek ever saying he was mentally ill, to be a sufferer of depression and anxiety does not necessarily or automatically equate with "mental illness". The term itself I find rather noxious actually. It has so many sensationalized , negative and misunderstood connotations. I think "emotional illness" is far closer to a definition of what most people who are prescribed psych drugs are suffering from. Truthman, I absolutely support and respect the work the SUG has done and Derek Scott and Janice Simmons. I have nothing but the utmost sympathy and respect for anyone trying to raise awareness on the Paxil/Seroxat issue or who has suffered and survived the horrors of the drug. My story is very similar to Stephany Gatchell's and we have corresponded. My remarks only refer to this one meeting and I'm only sorry they couldn't have given Kent Woods the roasting he deserves. Posted by: Sara at May 4, 2008 08:47 PMI'm writing a book about Paxil Withdrawal stories. I believe we can all see from this audio that there is not going to be any progress made by trying to "reason" with MHRA so the only hope we have is to educate the GP's, psychiatrists, etc and get them to stop prescribing this drug needlessly. If you have a story regarding Paxil Withdrawal or suicide regarding Paxil withdrawal, please send it to my e-mail hart.shelly@yahoo.com. Dear Truthman30. I draw your attention to http://www.ahrp.org/COI/PaxilDeclineUK.pdf. As an activist I hope you will find little to grumble with my source of document the AHRP. Scroll down to the graph on page 2 and it is abundantly clear that the consumption of the drug in 2003 has fallen to levels near enough as low as it was in 1998. People obviously can & do get off seroxat IF THEY TRY & that is my point. Sitting at the meeting the MHRA must reasonably wonder why the SUG group claim people can't get off the drug when all can see to truth. In their shoes it would be reasonable to conclude that the persons remaining on drugs NEED TREATMENT. Quite whether they need seroxat or other SSRI's remain to be explored. However some of the activists illnesses progressed to the extent that the treatment they currently enjoy includes cocktails of drugs including anti-psychotics. If you were Kent Woods would you take seriously someone who in his own on-line seroxat group admitted to suffering from clinical depression & was a willing consumer of anti-psychotics. - There is a danger when mentally ill people believe their own propaganda - MEGALOMANIA - Clearly the MHRA have exploited this and are getting away with murder. Sara (the one who signs off as Sara xx) xxx BTW as for the performance of the SUG lawyer - well I would be very worried if I had spent the last 5 years hoping for a big payout from GSK. Vaginaplasty is very expensive, fortunately I don't need it. oops ! xxx Posted by: sara at May 5, 2008 02:46 AMSara wrote: I don't believe that I made any such claim. I was simply pointing out the disingenuity of Woods' position. Coroners are not reluctant to bring a verdict of suicide on the basis that Seroxat, and other SSRIs, are wonderful drugs with a proven track record of "helping millions of people around the world," but because there are often many other factors involved, which may have contributed that a coroner is not positioned to disentangle and make a judgment on. However, there is a correlation between SSRI use and suicidality. That is acknowledged by everybody - the only question remaining appears to be which age groups it impacts routinely and is thus causal (only U-30s, thus far). Now, if SSRIs give rise to increased incidence of suicidal ideation, and so on, then I would argue that sooner or later, this will lead to an increase in suicides. That strikes me as logical. That nobody wishes to explain to me how, though logical, that argument is flawed, tells me all that I need to know. To rebut your allegation: I have never speculated on this issue, the vast majority of the crap that I come out with is direct from the MHRA, or is extrapolated from the MHRA's great words of wisdom. If, however, what the MHRA has to say can be rebutted from my own experience, then I will be happy to do that. The MHRA's argument is waifer thing - I know that you won't want to hear that, but I regret that it is the truth - if you can have it explain its assessment process to me, as it why it accepts companies' statistical analysis apparently without question, accept peer-reviewed papers as valid evidence of safety and efficacy (when there is evidence that these are regarded as a marketing tool, by industry), and address the question of "what is the benefit of Seroxat?" then I will take your point. Not until. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 5, 2008 07:34 AMSara xx wrote: There is a danger when mentally ill people believe their own propaganda - MEGALOMANIA..." And there is a danger in engaging in ad homs, rather than addressing the argument - the danger, I think, amounts to giving the impression that you don't have any answers, yourself. There are significant issues, outside the matter of safety, which the MHRA is not willing to discuss. That is not a matter of "MEGALOMANIA," as you put it, but rather one of recorded fact. Incidentally, all drugs are "wonder drugs," until the side effects become evident, whereupon "no drug is risk-free". Have you noticed that? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 5, 2008 08:43 AMDear Matt I'm not here to make a case for Seroxat as I am not here to make a case for any other SSRI. What I am trying to point out that in fielding Derek Scott & Janice Simmons on behalf of John Simmons we had people before the MHRA who are willing consumers of psychiatric medication. If the people before the MHRA were "off drug" or indeed "drug naive" then they could make a cogent arguement. One has to look at the records of prozacawareness on the yahoo server. Clearly Scott etc were all members there long before they opened up the SUG & OSSG. The moderator there (prozacawareness) went on to form the Withdrawal&Recovery Group. Loads of good folks all managed to get off seroxat & went on to lead fuller lives. Meanwhile the hard core @ SUG & OSSG made a spectacle of themselves as some sort of myrters. Do you really think the MHRA are not aware of this, can't you see that the MHRA in meeting with them the other day were doing little more than play-acting. A LET'S PRETEND REGULATOR.
Healy no longer supports his own so called "withdrawal protocol" neither has he amended it or created a new one. So yes Seroxat is a tragedy but the real TRAGEDY is that the SUG campaign allowed the MHRA to take it's eye off the ball. All because of the smokescreen created by the litigation lawyers designed to feather THEIR nests. I know this is uncomfortable reading but have you looked at the national statistics for all the other brands of SSRI - The regulator is not doing it's job because it ALLOWS ITSELF to get bogged down in SeroxSHIT. I wouldn't be in the least bit surprised if some of the former SUG & OSSG members had a valid claim in law against the group organisers & the murky cynical backers. They kept their members ill - it's called MUSHROMING (keep 'em in the dark & feed 'em shit) - yes seroxSHIT. Help was available, Fiddaman was well warned about the risks of going cold turkey, which is something far harder than a planned & assisted taper. Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 5, 2008 09:37 AM"And there is a danger in engaging in ad homs, "
I am stating recorded fact - Here I will quote Derek Scott directly note he is list owner/ moderator of the group. You sdould note that the young girl left him because of the severity of his illness. " From: "Mr Derek Scott" Matt, you asked me to state fact & I have.
Sara, I'm getting a bit lost, here: I don't see what point you're making. The MHRA isn't crap because it got distracted by a couple of campaigners; it's crap because its systems are inadequate, or the systems that it has are excellent, but it doesn't follow them and is instead led by the requirements of the industry that it is supposed to regulate. Janice's idea is a sound one - particularly given that there is no existing official provision (nor likely to be, given that the severity of Seroxat withdrawal is not acknowledged). However, you are correct to observe that the idea will only flourish if Janice, et al, are able to develop an approach that permits people to feel better, more quickly. One thing that would help here, I suspect, is not being told that their withdrawal symptoms are a recurrence of their "condition". As to Derek, I know nothing of his history, and don't feel qualified to comment, even given the message that you cite. I don't like putting labels on people, particularly ones with negative connotations, because they tend to try to live down to them (I'll count Woods an exception, because he has already made it plain that he has no intention of regarding me as an intelligent person, to be treated as an equal). As such, ridiculing the MHRA is both a pleasure and a duty, as I see it. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 5, 2008 10:24 AMDerek Scott or anyone else should not have to defend their use of or withdrawal events coming off of Seroxat/Paxil, when it was deemed a safe drug by the MRHA and GSK to use. The "benefit outweighs the risk" was a load of bullshit based on selected data and skewed scientific data to benefit the sale of the drug not the consumer. If the drug was so-called safe and efficacious one would still be on it and praising it, not 1000's of people with horror stories that basically back up the selected data pro-marketing plan perfectly. (that people are suffering as a result of lies and these are preventable tragedies/sufferings). In fact, it is that "risk outweighed benefit"; and human lives were placed below corporate greed and arrogant officials that refuse to admit they've caused grave injury in thousands of people. Dear Matt I have not put a label on Derek Scott however I quote him directly from his own interweb group. Not only does he seem happy for all & sundry to know this diagnosis he goes on to say that the vulnerable rather young girl left him ( understandably) because of the severity of his illness. Derek seems to be talking himself down - perhaps he was hoping for pity or even even more disability benefits from the state. Janice's idea is only sound if she is in a position to deliver - she is not (otherwise explain why is John Simmons still on drugs for 17 years) - either Janice is grandstanding or John needs treatment with psychiatric drugs. You cannot say people are stuck on seroxat otherwise the stastics would continue to climb or at best remain flat. I am not debating whether the MHRA is or is not crap, what is crap is SUG/OSSG. You do know that they falsely claimed to represent 10,000 people, they have had "legal aid" for a couple of years yet they have only served papers on GSK for a few hundered clients. Where did the other 9700 people go -
it is that "risk outweighed benefit"; and human lives were placed below corporate greed and arrogant officials that refuse to admit they've caused grave injury in thousands of people Dear Stephany All antidepressants have risk - How can a litigant claim that they have suffered a grave injury when by their own admission they continue to take SSRI's & in some cases cocktail of drugs including anti-psychotics. Seroxat is a walk in the park compared to the atypicals he swallows without complaint. Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 5, 2008 12:32 PMSara wrote: I have no idea, and nor do you. Let's suppose that SUG has a significant degree of self-interest at heart, which only coincidentally considers the interests of Seroxat patients. So, what? I mean, really: so, what? And let's suppose that Derek's diagnosis, and so on, has any bearing on his right to discuss the matter with the MHRA. Actually, let's not suppose that - let's identify what relevance, if any, Derek's diagnosis has on his right to discuss the matter with the MHRA. What is the relevance of his diagnosis, in this context? The MHRA may, as you suggest, find it easier to dismiss his arguments, but I think that that would say rather more about the MHRA than it would about Derek, because the points that Derek raises have been raised by me and others, too, and I have not been diagnosed with anything (apart from asthma, which I don't think anybody would try to argue has relevance), and yet we have all been stonewalled. The points Derek raises are, I believe, relevant, and should be addressed on that basis - that the MHRA is incapable, or unwilling, to address them raises a flag, with me. Anyway, I don't have to say that people are "stuck on Seroxat," because there are acknowledged withdrawal issues. Some people find the withdrawal issues so severe that they are unable to come off the drug, leading them to claim that the drug gives rise to dependency. You'll forgive me if I don't give a flying fiddler's about statistics. My own position is that I am prepared to accept what these people say as legitimate, bearing in mind that every statistic that is held up for public approval is anecdotal patient reporting - it becomes an official statistic when it is approved for dissemination. Trials data is anecdotal patient reporting, too, but this has received the stamp of legitimacy, too. I wonder why? Because it may be controlled, but spontaneous reporting can't? Who knows? Anyway, the point is, were it me, I would choose not to invalidate what these people have to say. And because of that, I would learn something. SUG may not have carried the world before it, over the course of the past six years. But neither has anybody else. What it has done is tried to be heard, when most sit on the sidelines, assessing which way the wind is going to blow. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 5, 2008 02:28 PMsaraxxx, What is wrong here is the way Paxil/Seroxat has been marketed based on false data. Have you not read the entire story? It's not the danger of Seroxat that is bad as it is why was it allowed and still being allowed to be sold under the circumstances that got it to the market place? Do you agree with children taking this drug? what would you say to the mothers who took it whilst pregnant and their babies were born with holes in their heart? The people behind the research KNEW THIS WAS DANGEROUS MEDICATION AND LIED AND PLACED THESE KIDS AND BABIES AS WELL AS ADULTS AT RISK. This is WHY this case stands out above the typical all medications are possibly dangerous to health category. Posted by: Stephany at May 5, 2008 02:30 PMDear Stephany Why on earth when SUG got in the door & sat down with the MHRA did they only talk about Seroaxt? Answer - because they have a Hugh James layrer present & they stand to make material gain. All the other drugs in the class cause the same & in some cases worse problems. Children should not take antidepressants. Yes I am familiar with the whole story but obviously you are not! As I said before seroxatSHIT, keep the members in the dark & feed off them.
see http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/ Sara xx BTW Seroxat has not been marketed in ways any different than any of the other SSRI's. Everybody who has taken any brand of SSRI/SNRI has been conned, but only the SUG members have been exploited by SUG/OSSG & their backers. Everyone else has been let down by the regulator who has been playing funny games with SUG & wasting it's time when it should have been protecting patients Posted by: sara at May 5, 2008 03:25 PMSara wrote: Huh? Philip - if this is a dick-measuring contest, could you flag it in the OP, please? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 5, 2008 03:34 PM"SUG may not have carried the world before it, over the course of the past six years. But neither has anybody else. What it has done is tried to be heard, when most sit on the sidelines, assessing which way the wind is going to blow. " SUG/OSSG has gone out of it's way to thwart any other group or individual that Remember Matt - everything in the media was PLACED by Goodrelations ltd(part of Chime communications)http://www.goodrelations.co.uk/relations.html. The danger comes when you begin to believe in your own press releases so "...Where did the other 9700 people go" I'll tell you what Matt, they never existed. People who make reckless claims like that are seriously deluded. see http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/EMEA%20minutes%20April%202004.pdf - ( Janice said the group represents over 10,000 people all of whom have suffered adverse effects/withdrawal symptoms of Seroxat.) THIS IS A LIE Sara xx Sara wrote: Well, I don't know whether or not the claim (of 10,000) is legitimate, reckless, or deluded. To be honest, I don't see that it matters, very much. I'm not even sure why it is that you believe that SUG has undermined the interests of patients. But most of all, what with all this talk of vested interests, I'm wondering what it is that you seek to gain by attacking groups such as SUG, when you might invest your time better in interrogating the MHRA, or your local MP (obviously, when I write "better," one should bear in mind that everything is relative!). Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 5, 2008 04:22 PM"Well, I don't know whether or not the claim (of 10,000) is legitimate, reckless, or deluded. To be honest" Dear Matt Don't you think you should check these things. Remember the sensational stories in the media were PLACED by Goodrelations Ltd, there can be no denial- this is a scam & the real loosers won't be GSK, won't be the MHRA, but will be the ordinary 5/8 members of SUG. " I'm wondering what it is that you seek to gain by attacking groups such as SUG, when you might invest your time better in interrogating the MHRA, or your local MP "
Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 6, 2008 01:09 AMPlease may I correct a response posted by Sara on 5th May. Sara It seems to me that you have a major beef with anyone who is involved with the SUG or Seroxat litigation...
Sara wrote: No: you raised the matter, not me. It's a matter of supreme indifference to me. Stick to the point? Erm, what point were you making, and then we'll see about sticking to it? All I've seen so far is you bitching about SUG, although I'm not quite clear why? If that is your point, then please clarify - is the point of your diatribe merely to discredit SUG? If it is, then you've lost me as an audience, because I don't see what there is to gain, from that. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 6, 2008 11:13 AMre correction May 6, 2008 01:36 AM Dear Sarah-Jane Richards Thank you for this information & confirmation that as a Hugh James lawyer you are reading this rather constructive interweb blog. I stated a few threads back that at the meeting with EMEA on Monday 19th April 2004, that your place woman Janice Simmons lied by falsely claiming to represent 10,000 persons. quote "Janice said the group represents over 10,000 people all of whom have suffered adverse effects/withdrawal symptoms of Seroxat " etc source - http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/EMEA%20minutes%20April%202004.pdf Have you any plans to correct this information Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 6, 2008 11:35 AM"It seems to me that you have a major beef with anyone who is involved with the SUG or Seroxat litigation" Dear truthman30 Your sweeping statement is very far from the truth. You are obviously NOT in full possession of the facts but stick around & enjoy. Sara XX Posted by: sara at May 6, 2008 11:49 AM"No: you raised the matter, not me. It's a matter of supreme indifference to me." Dear Matt Your supreme indifference is noted.
Sara triple X, I wonder what your point is as well? you're beginning to sound like a corporate bully who wants consumer voices silenced. Posted by: Stephany at May 6, 2008 11:59 AM"you're beginning to sound like a corporate bully who wants consumer voices silenced"
I'm sorry you should think that & again like truthman30 you are very wide off the mark. For it is/was not me that wanted legitimate consumer voices silenced - the bullies are at SUG/OSSG & their murky cynical backer/founders. Properly constituted help groups were in existence & there is clear evidence that many ordinary 5/8 SUG/OSSG members were actively dissuaded from using them. True sufferers of Seroxat & other SSRI's have been harmed & I wouldn't be surprised if claims could not be taken out against the above.
Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 6, 2008 12:26 PMTo be honest Sara, I have no affiliation with the SUG, apart from knowing some members and i take great offense that you would try Sara triple X,
http://www.nhsexposed.com/ Then you must recognise my determination,tenacity & Integrity. Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 6, 2008 02:20 PMSara wrote: Whoopy-doo. You've managed to attract a certain amount of attention, by attacking SUG, on this thread. And yet, you still refuse to clarify your point. Your objective, then, such as it is, presumably centres on the act of attacking SUG, without any clear purpose in mind, which would explain your unwillingness to set down in writing what you intend to achieve. You won't achieve much like that, I suspect. But good luck, anyway. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 6, 2008 02:25 PM" Whoopy-doo. You've managed to attract a certain amount of attention, by attacking SUG, on this thread " etc Dear Matt I believe that I earlier recognised your supreme indifference. Sara xxx Posted by: sara at May 6, 2008 02:33 PMMaybe you're all wrong... I'd go for Jeremy Bryce, in the kitchen, with the lead pipe. Good ol' Morse, so much cleverer than the rest of us, eh? Posted by: James at May 6, 2008 02:38 PMre correction May 6, 2008 01:36 AM Dear Sarah-Jane Richards Thank you for this information & confirmation that as a Hugh James lawyer you are reading this blog. I wonder if you have anything to say about my earlier aspurtions about your companies use of the media management company GOODRELATIONS Ltd.?
Will the cost of the services provided by Goodrelations be charged as group expenses and deducted from the top line of any pot you may or may not get from GSK? Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 6, 2008 03:40 PMSara wrote: You responded. That is sufficient to cause a reply, particularly as we don't appear to have a point of agreement, yet. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 6, 2008 04:05 PMSara xxx (or whoever you are) What is your problem?.. As far as I am aware Janice said the SUG had a membership of 10,000 , that has nothing to do with Hugh James, The SUG is a patient support group run by Janice Simmons. The litigation is a different matter. http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/ Some people think that you are someone called Morse or Bryce? Seroxat is known to be the most difficult of the SSRI's to come off (WHO report), it also had more negative press, that is not the fault of people who were prescribed it or people looking for justice, that is the fault of the drug makers.. I am sure everyone here is aware that ALL SSRI's have problems, and maybe if the campaigners on the Seroxat issues make some precedents and changes for the public good then the problems with the rest of the Class of drugs will be dealt with also? Don't try to knock people who have already had the shit knocked out of them.. sara triple X, Of course, I'd know you. Now what are you doing here? I'd love to know. Posted by: Stephany at May 6, 2008 07:39 PMStephany at May 6, 2008 07:39 PM
The dirty tricks of the NHS, the Dept of Health & it's agencies must be exposed at every opportunity. Sara xxx Posted by: sara at May 7, 2008 01:50 AM"The SUG is a patient support group run by Janice Simmons. The litigation is a different matter." Dear Truthman30 Try reading Seroxat User Group Newsletter Issue 1 http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/Documents/newsletterissue1.pdf I hope that you can see that the newsletter is printed on letther headed paper of mssrs Hugh James Solicitors. You should also note that Hugh James set up a ballot for steering comittee. I hope you see that far from setting up the group Janice Simmons has had to apply to become a committee member of Mark Harvey's group. The Seroxat User Group is nothing more or less than an advert for Mr Harvey's business.
Since Dr Sarah-Jane Richards is plainly reading this interweb blog, perhaps she would care to comment.
BTW Truthman30 try living up to your name, or shall we call you "halftruthman15"? Perhaps 'Sara', to add credibility to your argument you can offer us misguided souls your real name and gender?
Careful where you are posting from. Your IP is being logged.
Since Dr Sarah-Jane Richards, LLB of Hugh James Solicitors is plainly reading this interweb blog, & it is well on in the working day @ UK time zone - then can we accept that she has nothing to add to the earlier request for correction of a minor point? i.e. can we all accept ! well except for those amongst us here who accept anything just as long as it's their propaganda. Sara xxx Posted by: sara at May 7, 2008 08:40 AMA poem by the ever eloquent Bob Fiddaman " A GOVERNMENT HEALTH WARNING " Suzie Slut was standing alone © BOB FIDDAMAN http://www.postpoems.com/cgi-bin/displaypoem.cgi?pid=11907 need I say more? Sara xx
Sara-Morse-Bryce or whatver your name is... It is obvious you have a problem with anyone involved with the SUG and Seroxat litigation... I don't care if the SUG was set up by Hugh James, I don't care if Janice Simmons runs it, I don't care if Hugh James run it, I really couldn't give a toss. I also don't care if people like you were not accepted as part of the SUG. Honestly... I couln't care less.. None of it has anything to do with me or any relevence to issues which I care about.. What I do think is ridiculous though is you singling out members of the SUG and ridiculing them, such as posting about Dereks Scotts battle with depression or Fid's poems.. (If you are a survivor of SSRI's yourself, and you choose to attack others who went through it for petty reasons and silly intentions then you really should be ashamed of yourself) Doing stuff like that gives you no credibility, people don't respond well to bitchyness and nastyness, its s big TURN OFF for most people.. As a side note.. "I don't care if the SUG was set up by Hugh James, I don't care if Janice Simmons runs it, I don't care if Hugh James run it, I really couldn't give a toss."
& do you care about the people takenin & harmed by this scam? I imagine not, your type seldom do !
Sara xx, But better than southern north american cuisine, Halftruthman15! Now that's hilarious.. I have no idea what scam you are talking about Sara-Morse-Bryce-Bruce-Goose(or who ever you are) and to be honest I have better things to be doing than engaging in nonsensical dialogue with people who have chips on their shoulders about Seroxat campaigners.. Posted by: truthman30 at May 7, 2008 02:26 PMDear Dr Sarah-Jane Richards -
Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 7, 2008 03:14 PMMental health charity MIND refused to back Derek Scott re Seroxat Petition !!!! Sara xx see - From: l.morgan@mind.org.uk MIND said- "Until recently the PIL has been
Yet the net effect of a change of PIL is that patients now warned about the withdrawal paradox CAN NO LONGER CLAIM AGAINST GSK !!! I wonder who these guys really work for. Patient choice, yes less and less people can take legal action over Seroxat. Just what GSK want well done SLUGS
Sara wrote: This is very important, thank you for bringing this to my attention, Sara - I will confront Truthman with it, fortwith. Out with it Truthman, and be smart about it! What is this "type" that Sara speaks of, because quite plainly she has great knowledge or perspicacity beyond the comprehension of mere mortals? Jesus! Why on earth have we pursued this discussion as far as we have? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 7, 2008 03:47 PMYeah Matt Well, the poetry is interesting. Posted by: Stephany at May 7, 2008 05:06 PMTruthman wrote: Well, assuming it's Morse, or whomever... I think it's difficult to have a conversation with somebody who won't state what their objective is, such that one may address it. Sara seems to have decided that his/her beef is with the conduct, in its entirety, apparently, of SUG. Extrapolating from that, I understand that if SUG ceased to exist, then Sara believes (s)he would be happy, but I don't believe that that belief has any real substance. Besides which, I don't see that SUG is going to agree to cease to exist on Sara's say-so, even if (s)he believes that she's dishing lots of unpleasant dirt on it, which would make any "normal" person want to have nothing to do with it. No, something else is troubling Sara, and it's not SUG. Other than superficially, that is (ie, SUG is the thing that Sara is currently attaching his/her ire to, I think). However, until such time as Sara feels inclined to make this thing, whatever it is, known to us (and she has been asked, several times), then I fail to see how we can address ourselves to it. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 8, 2008 03:00 AM"Sara seems to have decided that his/her beef is with the conduct, in its entirety, apparently, of SUG." Dear Matt Put yourself into the shoes of a government official, say a regulator, a person with some powers to make right very obvious pharmaco wrongs. Before you is a group of individuals who claim to be injured by Seroxat. You know, from your professional work that Seroxat is a psychiatric drug. You learn from your continuous obversation/monitoring of interweb forums that the person before you is severly mentally ill. Do you - (a) believe all this person says about the GSK drug. Oh Matt, before you go dismissing option (b) I would point out that all severly mentally ill persons have in addition to their hospital file number, also have a MHL No i.e. a mental health link number. This latter one is shared on an inter-agency basis.
Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 8, 2008 05:56 AMDear Matt See post on OSSG dated Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:34 pm that would be illness PLURAL "caters for the needs of mental health users like ourselves" clearly viewing himself in the role of a patient needing treatment. Sara xx From: "Derek D Scott"
Derek. Xx
http://www.bangor.ac.uk/mindfulness/ might be of interest to our Welsh members? http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/1572307064/202-4401450-7961438
Sara wrote: OK, done that. It's called "perspective positioning". In my role as pharmacovigilance bureaucrat, I am deeply concerned to find that the company complained of spends quite a lot of its time withholding data, and bullying whisteblowers, amongst other things. I am also disappointed to find that my colleagues do not appear to be following proper due diligence procedures, when assessing new drugs for marketing authorizations. Anything else? I am not concerned about any illnesses that Derek may, or may not have been diagnosed as having. I am not concerned with any labels that have been put on him, nor numbers that identify him. He has made some interesting points that have not been addressed. His standing as a mental health patient should not impact on the perceived quality of those observations, nor on the diligence of the MHRA in investigating them. In any event, his standing as a mental health patient is a diversion - there are many others, including clinicians, who have also had their arguments dismissed. As such, I don't believe that Derek's status has any bearing on, well, anything, really. Least of all your point, which is still unclear to me. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 8, 2008 12:23 PMDerek Scott attacks anyone & everyone who can't see things his may. That Matt is called fixation & in common in the mentally ill. So what ever happened to the promised protest on parliament square? Did his social phobia get the better of him
‘Zeik Heil' Sara xx auf wiedersehen pet
Mill o’ Mains Dundee Angus DD4 9SL Re: Seroxat Meeting Dated 18th Jan. 24th January 2005 Dear Mr Luke MP, Firstly thank you for the welcome we received last Tuesday 18th January 2005 and the refreshments afterward. It was nice to finally meet you having corresponded with you for several years on the topic of Seroxat safety (or lack thereof). That aside several members of our group (myself included) felt that we were completely ignored on a number of issues. One of the issues we were particularly vehement about was the proposal of a government funded compensation scheme for patients damaged by UK drug regulatory agency licensed medicines. It was a UK Government drug regulatory agency who sanctioned the licensing of the dangerous addictive antidepressant Seroxat (if not the entire SSRI class) an agency who knew from the outset (or should have known) that quite a high proportion of patients (25%! At least 1 in 4) would suffer serious adverse drug and withdrawal reactions to Seroxat. Therefore the government necessity recompensing those patients who have suffered such severe adverse drug and withdrawal reactions, patients have died and that dangerous medicine is still available on prescription to at risk patients, it would appear based on the meeting last week that the UK Government could not care less! That was certainly the impression we were left with from Chairman Paul Flynn MP for Newport West. Mr Flynn was overtly dismissive of our proposal, that and the prospect of Seroxat being withdrawn to all new patients. The Committee on Safety of Medicines (CSM) ‘so called’ Expert Working Group Report on the Safety of SSRI antidepressants is a complete farce, to have relied merely on pharmaceutical company ‘manufactured’ summaries rather than on the actual clinical trial data itself is quite simply utter incompetence and in so doing making a mockery of the many thousands of patients and healthcare professionals who have tried with great difficulty to highlight the dangers associated with Seroxat, dangers that have resulted in countless ‘avoidable’ deaths. On that note the British Medical Journal on January 1st 2005 reported that it had in its possession clinical trial data withheld from regulators worldwide, data indicative that Prozac caused suicidal thoughts and actions, which until today Eli Lilly (Prozac’s manufacturer) point-blank denied. The British Medical Journal today Monday 24th January 2005 were vindicated, it has emerged that Eli Lilly did indeed withhold clinical trial data from drug regulators worldwide and in so doing placing the lives of millions of patients in jeopardy (see attached Canada newswire article), yet the MHRA deemed all SSRI medicines safe and effective in adults? Complete and utter nonsense! Clearly had the Committee on Safety of Medicines thoroughly examined the available clinical trial data rather than accepting pharmaceutical company ‘manufactured’ summaries those drugs would have been found guilty of causing the very adverse drug and withdrawal reactions not only that patients have complained of, but that 1000’s of CSM Yellow Warning Cards completed by vigilant healthcare professionals have forewarned of during 6 botched SSRI safety reviews. The fact that the CSM Expert Working Group failed to ‘ever’ examine the actual clinical trial data of those dangerous defective drugs means questions must now be asked of the competence of that agency and its future. The CSM requires to be replaced by an agency separate from the licensing process altogether. The same experts cannot possibly be permitted to both give advice on the licensing of a medicine and then later advise on suitability should a problem arise during post licensing. Additionally the MHRA is corrupt with many of its committee members previous employees of the pharmaceutical industry and who have in the past held shares in that industry, an intolerable conflict of interest, the MHRA must be scrapped alongside the CSM. If there was any doubt that the MHRA and CSM must be scrapped it evaporated today in the form of yet another scandal where Prozac manufacturer Eli Lilly admitted that they knowingly withheld Prozac (Fluoxetine) clinical trial data from drug regulators worldwide during the 1980s to the detriment of human lives. Identical misconduct to that where GlaxoSmithKline withheld paediatric Seroxat clinical trial data which suggested that it was not only worse than useless compared to placebo, but the cause of suicidal thoughts, actions and withdrawal symptoms in at risk children. Symptoms identical to those adult patients have long complained of but who have time and again been ignored.
The scandals (Vioxx & Celebrex) that have rocked the pharmaceutical industry over the past year unquestionably resulted either because clinical trial data was withheld from the drug regulators at the time of first license, the regulators are corrupt, or worse both.
If the demands of UK Seroxat sufferers are not met the OSSG will have no other alternative but to take matters into our own hands and protest on Parliament Square. We will be listened to! Yours Sincerely Derek Scott. Posted by: sara at May 8, 2008 01:50 PMSara wrote: That Matt is called fixation & in common in the mentally ill..." No, it's called desperation, and is common in those who are used to being ignored. Personally, if somebody wishes to be listened to, I follow the path of least resistance, and listen. I've learnt many interesting things, that way. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 8, 2008 02:43 PMHey Sara-Morse Hows About Ye?..
"I follow the path of least resistance, and listen. I've learnt many interesting things, that way." Dear Matt Pity that Derek, Fiddaman etc hadn't tried listening to the person who now runs the withdrawal&recovery group. If they had of done they would have got off the drugs in a manner that wouldnt have made their conditions worse.! But then they had to max-out the idea that Seroxat was impossible to get off. Trouble is Matt with Derek's so-called air of "desperation" making his attitude unbarable in interpersonal situations, then those that he ranted at SIMPLY TURNED OFF. Sara xx Dear sara triple X, i respect the fact that you have an agenda, or viewpoint and apparently have the tenacity to push it forward, but could you clarify for me precisely what the point is you are making? I'm a bit confused at the email postings you've done and the targeting of Seroxat sufferers. Though the group you say had a formula for removing the medication, any savvy consumer knows there is no concrete formula for how drugs react within individuals, and by far we have no guidelines for withdrawals. Please do let me know your take on this, and I would give a small tip that producing emails, poetry et al of others in this thread detracts from your voice and point. Readers might be more keen to your view if mud slinging was left out of it. Regards, Seems rather odd that someone slagging off other peoples illnesses or actions hides behind a ficticious name.
Registrant for Seroxat User Group = Sarah, i.e. Sarah Venn who is a UK lawyer. Not Janice Simmons
Registrant: Registrant type: Registrant's address: Registrar: Relevant dates: Registration status: Name servers: Disclaimer -- Copyright Nominet UK 1996 - 2008. Posted by: sara at May 9, 2008 01:27 AM"i respect the fact that you have an agenda, or viewpoint and apparently have the tenacity to push it forward, but could you clarify for me precisely what the point is you are making"
These people are confidence tricksters & that virtually everything they say should not be believed. Unfortunately some rather vulnerable people were taken in by them and have been grossly harmed.
Sorry Stephany I never implied that SUG/OSSG had a "formula", the protacol that SUG claimed was theirs was cogged off a David Healy document (which he no longer supports) However there is a net group which has vast success in getting people off the drugs and it's list owner was also a member of OSSG UNTIL DEREK KICKED HER OUT. Withdrawal&Recovery Group is located @ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Withdrawal_and_Recovery/ Unfortunately SUG/OSSG have a reputation for shouting down anyone who does not promote their party line. Sara xx Remember I said Janice LIED when she claimed SUG had 10'000 members & that Dr Sarah Richards of Hugh James has not moved to correct this statement.
Sara wrote: And they turned off not because he was ranting at them, but because they had no solution to offer, and didn't want to appear stupid by admitting that. Also, because what he was saying was so appalling that they didn't want to believe it possible: it was easier to believe that the issue was Derek's, not the drug, the Company, or the system. The funny thing is, Derek's never ranted at me. Why would that be? Because I agree with him wholeheartedly on every issue that we discuss? Hardly. No, I'll tell you why: it's because I don't invalidate everything that he has to say, just because it doesn't fit in with my reality. You see, when one contradicts people, all that happens is that they go on the defensive, and then the ad homs start flying. It's much simpler to deconstruct the subject matter, and understand where one's differences genuinely lie. Take the furore over Seroxat. Rather than deal with the failings of the system (dodgy drugs, no provision of proper services for those suffering side effects, little or no acknowledgement of same, and complete dismissal of any and all complaints), the MHRA, D'oh, and the rest would have spent its time much more wisely trying to work with those who were criticizing it. It'd have looked much more competent, had it done so. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 9, 2008 01:57 AMI was wondering if Fiddaman was going to comment upon Janices claim that SUG represented 10'000 people or is like the Hugh James lawyer just going to let the record here stand & accept that Janice is a liar? Sara xx Posted by: sara at May 9, 2008 08:54 AMSara wrote: Why were you wondering that? That is to say, would it benefit you if Hugh James had lost all interest in the discussion, and having made its point, gone back to its usual routine? Put another way, does it really matter whether or not you are able to establish these things as facts, which the world should be influenced by. Will th |