Go Figure: Study 329

October, 17, 2016 | 21 Comments


  1. “Whaaat do we call this?”

    I have thought about this for a long, long time.

    The nearly killed me, covering their tracks, most unprofessionally..

    You can’t call it murder……you could call it Medical Negligence, you could call it Medical Homicide by Default, you could call it Passing the Buck and you could call it Undercover Reporting.

    GBH and DH……..

    Whatever, you call it, GlaxoSmithKline did nothing to stop our UK Doctors Dishing It Out and that may be Murder..Ask Sir Andrew Witty what he thinks..

    “the republication of Study 329 is an event, possibly a pivotal – even if not necessarily right there and then.


  2. Whoa, lots of big questions here! A few points that strike me:

    In the case of coal mining & similar hazardous industries, everyone enjoys the benefit but only a (marginalized and devalued) minority take the really big risks. Even if workers feel they have no choice, they know they’re being treated as disposable commodities … risking their lives for the benefit of others who take no risk. The question of Murder is NEVER too far from the surface.

    With medications, it’s a somewhat different story. They are always said to be prescribed “for our own good.” The benefits to millions are said to be worth the catastrophes that befall a few thousand — but also, those who benefit and those who take the risk are allegedly the same people. We’re given a similar narrative about air and auto travel. We usually accept this if we feel the following things are true:

    1) The technology saves far, far more lives than it costs — either by curing deadly/crippling diseases or by ending a lot of poverty and backbreaking labor.

    2) The captains of industry and/or govt are doing everything they can, within reason, to minimize the risks. Sheer negligence in the service of profit is not being tolerated.

    3) We are being informed honestly of the risks so we can exercise at least some limited forms of choice. For instance we can choose to live with a disability rather than take the risks of surgery, or we can forego driving when the roads are slick with snow or we’ve been drinking.

    4) Everyone is more-or-less equally exposed to the risk. The poor aren’t asked to endure a more regimented and risky form of healthcare than the wealthy.

    When it comes to SSRI’s and other psychotropic drugs, are any of these conditions being met? I’d say NO on all four counts. What do others think?

  3. It is certainly true to say that the republication of Study 329 should be seen as a ‘pivotal moment’ but, for this to be so, surely we need to see a dramatic change in attitudes towards the inaccuracies of the first Study 329, as well as to the revelations in the ‘Restored’ version, by those in power? I feel that they are extremely slow in their condemnation of the original and also in their praise of the restored version.
    Talking to any member of the general public about ‘hidden information’ etc., one is often met with dismay – however, I’m not sure it goes beyond that. For the ‘pivotal moment’ to become a reality, we should hope for a dramatic change in patients’ questioning of suggested prescriptions as well as far more suspicion amongst doctors concerning the reliability of pharmaceutical information, coupled with a firm stance from parliament showing that such dubious standards of patient care will be no longer be tolerated in this country. Then, and only then, I feel, can we hope to see a massive difference in the ‘mental state’ of our nation resulting in NHS care for ALL at the point of need – but tailored to the individual need rather than a massive ‘force feeding’ of many whose main need may well be a supportive hand to help them on through an emotional period in their life.

  4. Victoria Derbyshire (Used to be on Loose woman) is covering withdrawal this Wednesday on her show “Victoria Derbyshire” BBC 2 0900-11.00.

    From Surviving antidepressants:

    Gold star

    1,060 posts
    Posted 16 October 2016 – 05:33 AM
    Petition update:

    A very exciting development!

    from James Moore
    Caldicot, United Kingdom
    15 Oct 2016 — I have some exciting (and slightly terrifying!) news. The Victoria Derbyshire show is shortly going to run an item looking at the experiences that people have taking antidepressants, including the difficulties some users have when attempting to stop. As part of this, all being well, I will have a short live interview about this petition.

    This is such a great opportunity to gain some much needed awareness of the struggles that so many have using these drugs. If you can find the time please watch and, even better, contact the show to share your experiences. We need to demonstrate how many are suffering in silence, unable to get the help they need, this will make a huge difference and a real impact. Let’s light up their Twitter feed like a Christmas tree!

    The broadcast details are:
    – The Victoria Derbyshire show
    – BBC 2 and BBC news channel
    – Wednesday 19 October
    – 0900 to 1100 BST

    Contact details:
    – Twitter: @VictoriaLIVE
    – Facebook: http://www.facebook….toriaDerbyshire
    – Email: victoria@bbc.co.uk
    – SMS: 61124
    – WhatsApp: 07753 428 430

    Thanks so much for all the support.

  5. Here’s another one from Surviving Antidepressants for anyone who wants to get involved:

    Getting started

    1 posts
    Posted 04 October 2016 – 07:07 AM
    I’m a British BBC TV reporter and I want to make a film about the problems of withdrawing from antidepressants. I’m keen to hear from people who’ve struggled with SSRIs, particularly if you like in the UK. Also what you think about the lack of support groups, or if you HAVE a support group, how do you help?
    Please email me your stories, confidentially at first, of course, although ultimately I’m looking for people who will be willing to stand up and speak about what’s happened to them. I think few people know or report this sort of problem and I know many of you are really really struggling for help. My BBC2 programme wants to expose all this, so please get in touch.

    Thank you very much. This forum has been recommended to me by several long-term members, so forgive my intrusion.

    • Considering that, like a programme on any topic, Victoria Derbyshire’s programme had to ensure there was no bias shown to either side of the argument, I feel that, overall, the outcome was definitely an acceptance that adverse reactions EXIST and can be EXTREME and that problems on withdrawal are REAL and sometimes impossible to overcome, resulting in an impossible withdrawal task. That, to me, is a huge step in the right direction. I think that introducing the report in sections was an excellent opportunity to ‘catch’ different sections of society e.g. – parents back from school run, shift workers returning from work, people in witing rooms, pensioners settling in to their morning’s viewing( !)etc.
      The daily cost to the NHS of antidepressant prescriptions should be enough to shake awake the most lethargic viewer surely. It is catastrophic! People can argue till the cows come home about ‘benefits versus harm of ADs’ – seeing that daily total in £s on the screen should unite all to the idea that a thorough investigation into the whole business is long overdue.
      Let’s hope that there will be coverage too of the ‘presentation’ to Jeremy Hunt on the news later today. When will the Panorama programme air I wonder? Hopefully soon whilst this morning’s revelations are fresh in the mind.

    • Spot on Walter – very well said – ’tis s***e indeed ! And VERY irresponsible, ignorant s***e at that.
      Is Sarah Jarvis not aware of RxISK and all it’s very informative content? Obviously not – how is it that I, a mere mortal, know LOADS more about akathisia than the vast majority of GPs and, worst still, the vast majority of psychiatrists who, as consultants and therefore supposed ‘specialists’ in their field, surely should have a compulsory duty to keep up to date with all the significant research and therefore able to recognise a clear case of akathisia when it’s staring them in the face – but they can not and will not – ignorant in the extreme and totally shocking (to a mere mortal like me)

      • I think the biggest problem we have here is to do with ‘perception of harm’. One person’s words can be perceived differently by every single listener. It is impossible to compare people’s suffering without actually witnessing the person’s state. Many doctors barely lift their eyes towards the patient – they are glued to the screen in front of them and fingers are poised for a prescription. Taking these facts into consideration, it is no wonder that Dr. Sarah Jarvis was so reluctant in her acceptance of withdrawal problems. I do think that Victoria Derbyshire should have asked her how she would deal with the ‘vulnerable patient’ suffering, years down the line, ‘from their own vulnerabilities and not from the tablets’. We know the answer – more medication then further medications to settle the reactions to their initial prescription. It would have been interesting to see how she’d have got out of that one!
        I sympathise quite sincerely with all of you who feel disappointed with the programme – in the main, that will be because you have, or still are, going through the mill of withdrawal. You all listened and recognised every single symptom that was described. I have witnessed many of the symptoms therefore I can visualise from the descriptions. The general public will hear the words but, unless they have suffered in this way or have witnessed the suffering, they CANNOT possibly visualise what you have all gone through. Words alone cannot take us near to the suffering that you have all endured. Your torment doesn’t come near to anything else that I have ever witnessed in my life. One young woman described the seizures that she suffered – I witnessed similar occurrences which I had described as ‘an epileptic fit without the frothing’ therefore, once she spoke those words yesterday, I could picture exactly how she’d suffered. Had I not witnessed it, my picture of her suffering would have been a very weak impression of the reality of her situation.
        It is because of these difficulties of visualising others’ suffering that I was so delighted (in a horrified way!) to see the annual AD total for England and the daily cost to the NHS shown so clearly on screen. Those two facts, in my opinion, will have registered with people watching the programme yesterday or later online. It is a sad fact of life that most will probably find it easier to be horrified by those facts than by the descriptions – vivid as they were to us – given by sufferers.
        Maybe it would be easier to convince the general public of the horrors of psychotropic drugs by using facts such as these and David’s ‘1 in every 4 has some difficulties…..etc.’. To me, the most important point is to RAISE AWARENESS of the horrors – in whichever way catches the imagination. Once hooked and listening, there would then be a better chance of their appreciating the true depths of your suffering – and how you were ‘wronged’ by so many who should have known better, also how you need the acceptance that it was the tablets, not you, that were faulty – and, in turn, companies coming out and declaring such so that you could at least have the peace of mind that you had, at last, really been believed by all layers of society.

      • It would appear not Jane.

        Sarah Jarvis stated:-
        “With some severe depressions you may need to try two, or possibly three (SSRIs) before you find the one that does work”.
        Isn’t this a particularly powerful way to produce AKATHISIA in those who are vulnerable to this dreadful and often unrecognised neurotoxicity?

        The associated changes in behaviour, personality, the induced suicidality and risk of violence to self or others is then misinterpreted as a “First Episode Psychosis’, leading to the process of psychiatric
        mis-management and sequalae so eloquently described by Katinka Newman.

        Sarah Jarvis went on to observe: –
        “What we have to bear in mind is that some people who have taken these have been very very vulnerable. They’ve been very anxious and it can be very difficult to tell what is anxiety and what is the tablets”.

        There are clearly very difficult issues for primary care physicians here.
        Surely however, not recognising and correctly diagnosing “barn door obvious” akathisia is inexcusable?
        More subtle, perhaps gradually emerging akathisia presentations may indeed be challenging diagnostically.
        Akathisia should be the first consideration in differential diagnosis in those given SSRI’s who re-present with sudden catastrophic deterioration.
        Those who never had a depressive condition, for example “stress” – “exam nerves” must usually be easier to accurately diagnose than those who presented in severe depression?
        Akathisia must first be explained, and information given carefully and accurately by the prescriber each and every time an SSRI or SNRI prescription is written.

        SSRI induced sexual dysfunction.
        Bravely introduced by a respondent. Again an ADR poorly understood by prescribers.
        It seemed a bizarre coincidence to listen to The World Tonight on BBC Radio Four later that day. (approx. 10-25 pm).
        Emeritus Professor of Forensic Psychiatry, Don Grubin was interviewed regarding his suggested use of SSRI’s as an alternative to “chemical castration” in self volunteering sexual offenders.
        This appeared to be a powerful endorsement as to the potentially devastating lowering of libido (et al) induced by SSRIs.

        Sincere thanks to those who presented accurately with wisdom, sincerity and powerful experience.

        • ABSOLUTELY “Akathisia should be the first consideration in differential diagnosis in those given SSRI’s who re-present with sudden catastrophic deterioration”

          SO, why isn’t it? And how does this get rectified? How are our medical ‘professionals’ to be trained, re-educated about the crucial need to include Akathisia in their ‘check list’ and for it to become the ‘number one tick box’ in the diagnosing process?

          And how are the new generation of current and future medical students to be educated properly about this?

          The BMA (and similar professional organisations) MUST be held to account – they are key to making this happen but it seems they just won’t listen (believe me, I’ve tried!)

          ‘Answers on a post card, please’

        • Timothy Moss hits the nail (or, wish it was) the GP on the head. Sarah Jarvis is never going to ‘get it’ is she?
          ‘Getting the right pill for the right patient’ sounds so comforting and almost exciting. A magic potion awaits you if the sorcerer just composes the perfect spell. If not, it’s back into the cauldron with you, little frog, until she finds something else to dose you with. And if, after all her hocus pocus and weaving of spells, you are much worse and end your life, well, there you go then, one less frog to worry about. Onto the next.

          All anxious and depressed little frogs, we must find a safe, warm welcoming ponds for you, covered with hospitable lily pads where you can rest, talk out your worries, and stop the world for a while. How can we do this, because do this we must. We can’t wait for the sorcerers to wake up and see reality. They are lost in their spells and their hubris.

  6. The Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Act 2007 is a landmark in law.



    Prosecutions will be of the corporate body and not individuals, but the liability of directors, board members or other individuals under health and safety law or general criminal law, will be unaffected. And the corporate body itself and individuals can still be prosecuted for separate health and safety offences.

    Companies and organisations should keep their health and safety management systems under review, in particular, the way in which their activities are managed and organised by senior management.


    Identification doctrine

    This approach holds that the offence of corporate manslaughter is made out when an individual commits all the elements of the offence of manslaughter and that person is sufficiently senior

    to be seen as the controlling mind of the corporation.

  7. Grrrrrrrzzzzzz…………………………?


    Doctor “surprised if it related to tablets”

    Still not listening; the ‘doctors’

    I have never been struck with depression, I do not do suicide, I swallowed Seroxat

    Brilliant patient responses and brilliant David Healy responses

    All we need now is a Prog Ram completely dedicated to Seroxat/Paxil containing all the Corruption, the original 329 authors, the China Syndrome, the $$$3 Billion fine,, the recent win by Breggin – as he swallowed a T shirt….the International Court Cases with Tobin, Stewart Dolin, David Carmichael, etc. etc. etc.

    There are UK Litigants, waiting in the wings

    David Healy is an Expert Witness in Courts of Law, with the legally defining data and evidence

    For this, we are extremely grateful

    Well done Katinka, James and David……….you three looked and sounded all very lovely. 🙂

    No SSRI’s were named


    Session: 2002-03


    • Could you also add Citalopram, Prozac, Venlafaxine, Sertraline,escitalopram,fluvoxamine and any others not mentioned to the list too. Thanks.

  8. On the matter of consent: if you, as a patient, recieves bogus and frauded information on your pill, then ‘consent’ has not been given. Simple as that.

    The mountain of difficulties I have climbed in order to get a more truthful view of what Seroxat really is, just shows that no one can call it consent in the first place.

    My doctor is still living in “1999”, clinging to that Seroxat is safe, and, “that all pharmaceuticals have side-effects”.

    And as long as I listen to my doctor, nothing has changed since 1999.

    If I listen to David Healy, my life gets an obvious explanation. But not even DH can change the minds of the swedish psychiatrists. Why would they change their minds and agree they have abused, without consent, the minds of hundreds of thousands?

  9. “We still going to call it consensual?”


    Early day motion 1203


    Session: 2002-03

    Date tabled: 13.05.2003

    Primary sponsor: Gidley, Sandra

    That this House calls for the anti-depressant drug Seroxat to be withdrawn from use for new prescribing pending an urgent, fully independent review of its and other SSRI anti-depressants’ safety, because of the extensive evidence of severe withdrawal reactions and an increased risk of suicide associated with it; and calls on the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulation Agency in conducting the review to include people with experience of using Seroxat and to make full use of the consumer-based evidence and research available, such as that conducted by Panorama and Mind.


  10. Disquiet..

    “transparency theatre”



    Robert Frost



    Andrew Garratt @andrewcwgarratt

    It’s a good campaign but I see on #AllTrials features of party political ones (and I’ve run a few!): spin, hype, misdirection.

    https://twitter.com/statsguyuk/status/789118490733060096 …

    Adam Jacobs @statsguyuk

    Since my comment on the latest #alltrials video still hasn’t made it past the moderation queue, here it is again


    ben goldacre ‏@bengoldacre 1h

    ben goldacre Retweeted forskning.no

    I’m having an argument with a Norwegian Minister about whether he should let publicly funded researchers withhold trial results #alltrials


    – I get a bad feeling of his proposals, said Mr Bjørn Haugstad.


Leave a Reply