Editorial Note: This post from Leemon McHenry celebrates Marion Lilley and the International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine. It has a direct link to the issues in the last two posts on suicide in children and how and why we hide problems – The Spectre of Dissent.
Most people trust that medical and scientific journals are reliable sources of knowledge. In the age of fake news and junk science nothing could be further from the truth. Most medical and scientific journals are owned by large publishing corporations and there is growing evidence that those corporations serve the private interests of their client corporations rather than the medical and scientific community. In other words, the corruption of science and the corruption of the journals are parts of the same phenomena. Science counts for very little when there is big money at stake.
Good News, Bad News
The journals, with a few exceptions, are part of the problem rather than the solution. Instead of demanding rigorous peer review of a submissions and an independent analysis of the data, editors submit to pressures to publish favorable articles of industry-sponsored trials and rarely publish critical deconstructions of ghostwritten clinical trials. This is due to the simple fact that medical journals and their owners have become dependent upon pharmaceutical revenue and have failed to adhere to the standards of science. Good news, i.e., the drug is safe and effective in journal submissions and press releases, means more pharmaceutical advertising and more orders of reprints which are disseminated by the sales force. The pharmaceutical industry and the medical journals make millions of dollars, especially from the publication of an allegedly positive trial of a blockbuster drug. Bad news, i.e., that the drug is unsafe and ineffective does not result in increased revenue for the manufacturer, the journal or the publisher. Published reports of unfavorable outcomes or serious adverse events have been directly linked to sharp fluctuations in stock prices.
A Case in Point
A recent incident with the journal, Accountability in Research, and their owner, Taylor & Francis demonstrates the point. My paper, “The Monsanto Papers: Poisoning the Scientific Well,” reports on an egregious case of scientific misconduct in which Monsanto employees and its so-called independent experts appear to have placed ghostwritten decoy research concerning the safety of the herbicide, glyphosate, in the toxicology journals after the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) published its findings that glyphosate is a Group 2A agent―probably carcinogenic in humans. After rigorous peer review at Accountability in Research, I received a notice, in writing, that my paper was accepted for publication. Shortly after receiving the written notice of its acceptance, however, I was informed by the Accountability in Research’s editor that Taylor & Francis had held up publication for “best practices review.” After considerable delay and no communication from the publisher, I withdrew my paper and submitted it to the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine where it was accepted once again.
Then, when re-working the references to conform to the new journal’s stylistic guidelines, I made a disturbing discovery― that three of the Monsanto-sponsored ghostwritten articles on which I was reporting were published in the journal, Critical Reviews in Toxicology, a journal that is also owned by Taylor & Francis. Ghostwriting is a serious problem because it is dishonest attribution of the origin of the manuscript, it disguises marketing and public relations objectives of for-profit companies as science, conceals conflicts of interest of named “authors” on manuscripts, but most importantly, misrepresents the results of scientific testing. Since Critical Reviews in Toxicology had already been accused of being a “broker of junk science” by the Center for Public Integrity, this raises the question of good news, bad news, for Taylor & Francis; industry pieces misrepresenting authorship and conflicts of interest had been published while a critical evaluation that exposes scientific misconduct encounters the delay tactic of “best practices review.” Taylor and Francis has defeated the purpose of Accountability in Research, a research ethics journal, by blocking publication of my paper in this journal post peer review, but they have failed to block publication of my paper beyond Accountability in Research since it has now appeared in the International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, a journal that does not receive industry funding and does not bend to the interests of those who wish to conceal scientific and ethical misconduct.
International Journal of Risk & Safety in Medicine, “concerned with rendering the practice of medicine as safe as it can be,” was founded by Graham Dukes and is published by IOS Press in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Standing in defiance of the status quo in the medical literature, the editors, C. J. Van Boxtel and Marion Lilley, have published critical deconstructions of corrupted clinical trials, such as GlaxoSmith Kline’s infamous study 329 and lesser known trials such as Forest Laboratories’ study CIT-MD-18, both highly influential on prescribers of SSRI antidepressants in children and adolescents. These and RxISK posts on PSSD and related problems have been made available by IJRSM – see HERE.
A more recent issue also includes Healy, LeNoury and Jureidini’s “Paediatric antidepressants: Benefits and risks” on over medication of antidepressants to children featured in the BBC documentary series “The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs”.
Correcting the Scientific Record
Critical thinking is required to sort out the genuine from the sham. From the start, any article that is reporting on the scientific testing of an industry product or is sponsored by industry should be suspect, but even here the task at hand is difficult given that the pharmaceutical, agrochemical and tobacco industries have been so successful in producing junk science disguised as genuine science. There are no easy answers, but I have come to believe that a medical journal that publishes company-sponsored good news along side of drug advertisements is a trade magazine rather than a scientific journal.
Leemon B. McHenry and Jon N. Jureidini are currently writing The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine.
In any war, it’s known that control of information services, in other words, use of propaganda for one side, enormously influences the outcome. The way this is used by the pharmaceutical industry and others, as you show here, is frankly terrifying. Given that we can’t get accurate information about deaths due to specific drug damage sent back to Government by coroners, and we can’t get BBC or ITV in UK to give us a decent chance of putting out the facts as so many of us know them, I feel we are indeed in a war and are being totally stitched up. Last Sunday at 6 am, BBC Radio 4 discussed George Sorros and other similar wealthy people and their influence on the way society is evolving. The commentator describes them as the ‘new’ monarchy, whose power, because of vast wealth, seems unassailable. They are not kings ruling by Divine Right, as monarchies used to be, but by the power of their money.
The Pharma companies have also assumed the mantle of kingship. They dictate, via these journals as shown in your post, how we live and how we die. More and more people are becoming shadows of their former selves because their doctors, crouching lamely behind these ghostwritten journals’ comforting results, are offering dangerous remedies to their patients without compunction, which iatrogenically sprout more ailments, like a Hydra’s heads.
This is surely a war for our survival. But the big money is on the other side. I’m afraid it seems that until the balance shifts, ie so many die or are damaged that the majority of people start to twig what is really happening, and firmly decline to accept these medications from their doctors, we will head for destruction of our ability to think, function, work, create, and above all, live healthy and happy lives.
Both Dr Chris van Tulleckan and his twin brother Zander seem to be trying, with a light touch, and saying as much as they can squeeze through their media opportunities, at prime viewing time, to remind the public that there ARE ways to survive illness by avoiding medications. Last week Zander showed how diet had helped him to reduce from a pre-diabetes fellow, weighing 15 stone, to a fit healthy one, and he took for his TV programme a group of people diagnosed with diabetes and showed how putting them on the same diet reversed their condition. They lost weight, they no longer needed meds for their condition, and if they stick to that diet and lifestyle, they are set fair for a good future. It is SO simple, but it takes effort by each of them, but their visible delight at their results after, I think, 3 months, was obvious.
Maybe then, to win this war of Pharma propaganda, if we really care about ourselves, we’ve got to take responsibility for our own body and mind and prioritise its health and wellbeing, adapt our lifestyles accordingly, and keep what rights to life we were born with. We’ve got to be well aware of the tricks used by the enemy. We’ve got to be strong and committed for the long haul. Quite how we rescue the already damaged ones totally I don’t know, but any improvement on diet, hydration, exercise, and reduction where possible of stress, (like Zander himself admitted he’d made) must surely start the turnaround process? And wearing tee shirts declaring what we are doing, so we become part of a self publicising movement that sparks discussion. George Sorros and his ilk can’t stop us using our intelligence, each and every one of us. If we don’t, the world will sink under their control and we’ll turn into a load of pill swallowing zombies.
A Brief History of Leemon McHenry
https://www.revolvy.com/main/index.php?s=Leemon%20McHenry
‘he has argued that the industry-academic partnerships have worsened university research, created increased opportunities for scientific misconduct, and failed to protect academic freedom. This work falls within a new area of inquiry, agnotology, understood as the study of willful acts to spread confusion and deceit.’
The University of Edinburgh
https://www.iash.ed.ac.uk/profile/professor-leemon-mchenry
Biography
I have worked mainly in metaphysics and philosophy of science in my academic career, but most recently I have turned my attention to evidence-based medicine and medical ethics as a result of research consulting for a Los Angeles based law firm. My most recent book is The Event Universe: The Revisionary Metaphysics of Alfred North Whitehead, Edinburgh University Press, 2015.
Project
The Illusion of Evidence-Based Medicine
The scientific foundation of medicine, evidence-based medicine, is corrupted by the profit motive of the pharmaceutical industry. Without disinterested, independent bodies that design, conduct and report the testing of medicine for efficacy and safety, evidenced-based medicine is an illusion. I argue that Karl Popper’s philosophy of science, falsificationism, provides the framework and guiding principles for restoring the integrity of the system.
how and why we hide problems …
Annie
Yes, I agree Popper’s critique of totalitarianism ‘The Open Society and it’s Enemies’ and of scientific method are both flouted under present conditions – we have inappropriate closures of debate witch-hunts etc while the powers that be parade their liberal democratic credentials. It is no better than a macarbre farce. If he had improbably lived another quarter of century he would HAVE been appalled at the progress of our democracy. Recently, I wrote to the 73 British Euro MPs about their vaccine hesitance resolution. Those that wrote back from all the major political groups ignored all the information I provided both about the science and the conflicted institutions but just cited the WHO.
TheBMJ is littered with adverts from drug companies – whilst running high-minded campaigns about research and publication ethics. Should it be called a trade magazine rather than a journal? (backed by the BMA I believe). Thing is critical opinions or facts can be so easily edited out of journals and most readers have no idea what has been blocked – Open access doesn’t solve this problem as was hoped at one time. The bmj and other publications don’t publish any information about what has been rejected much less the reasons for not publishing even comments as well as articles.
Susanne,
Yes, it’s rather extraordinary that in the two weeks since Chris van Tulleckan’s programme which also focussed on the dangers of pushing unnecessary cow’s milk substitutes for infants, BMJ On-Line has mostly featured an advertisement for Danone’s Aptamil Pepti!!! You wonder whether it was done to repair potential damage to sales.
Oh it will be John. The moment we ever get any articles in the Press about deaths from RoAccutane isotretinoin, the next day a countering article extolling its virtues will pop up. We reckon the manufacturers must be watching us like hawks. What’s amazing is the speed they do it with.
“There are no easy answers, but I have come to believe that a medical journal that publishes company-sponsored good news along side of drug advertisements is a trade magazine rather than a scientific journal.”
Gotta love Leemon’s style of writing.
Nail on head.
A particularly queasy episode was the Jones report in 2011 introducing the concept of “false balance” which the BBC itself reported under the title ”BBC praised for science coverage”:
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-14218989
Prof Jones harped on about the status of people expressing opinions without perhaps noting that people outside institutions may actually articulate arguments without so much fear of professional reprisal. It promotes consensus science, while essentially excluding and marginalising the public, who must not know what the arguments are about, particularly when other scientist call the consensus into question. One might add this is particularly nasty when as in medical science ordinary citizens are the direct victims of institutional failure. While it might actually be the weakness of consensus science which is being protected by institutional means.
Bill Inman, the founder of the UK Yellow Card scheme, tell’s in his book ‘Don’t Tell the Patient’ how in order to protect the vaccine programme (in those much more limited than it is now) the Department of Health created and packed committees. He remarks that he had never seen anyone worse treated than Prof Stewart who was telling the truth about the DPT – a fundamental strategy is to outnumber with yes-men, who fail to perceive – if we are being generous – that they have substituted tribalism for science.
The BBC, of course, had its last gasp of independence with the Kelly affair, and the Hutton Report. Essentially, the report found that BBC’s journalist, who was telling the truth, to be lying on technical grounds, and Prime Minister Blair, who was lying, to be telling the truth on technical grounds. The Director-General and the Chairman resigned and that was more or less the end of a once respected institution. Barely a month a later when I was trying to question the Head of News about their reporting of the Wakefield affair, he kept on referring me to a Today programme journalist, affiliated to Sense About Science, who never, of course, answered.
As to Jones I recall him frankly admitting at least a decade ago that genetics was proving to have only very marginal benefits to medical science, and a decade later it is still the geneticists who dominate the field of autism research having only demonstrated over three decades their entire irrelevance – as autism rates head beyond 1 in 30 the only explanation lies in the direction of toxic environmental insult.
https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k1674/rr
And Karl Popper had long ago explained the dangers of bureaucracies. What is dismaying is that we seem to learn political lessons for only a brief time before being pitched again towards authoritarianism.
Brent Wisner named Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar Due to Landmark Paxil Suicide Verdict Against GSK
https://www.baumhedlundlaw.com/5-18-law360-wisner-titan-of-plaintiffs-bar/
“Brent is a brilliant young attorney,” Rapoport said. “His witness examinations were consistently to the point, effective, interesting and often entertaining. He created a David v. Goliath atmosphere that I believe contributed to the plaintiff’s verdict.”
The case has been described as groundbreaking and likely to shape the landscape of pharmaceutical litigation for years to come.
The documents, now a part of ‘The Monsanto Papers,’ suggest Monsanto ghostwrote academic articles exploring, among other things, the health risks associated with Roundup and its active ingredient, glyphosate. “Clearly Monsanto’s lawyers made a mistake,” Wisner told the New York Times after the documents went public.
Wisner sent the declassified documents to the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of the Inspector General, European regulators and European parliament which led to important safety investigations in the EU and a widespread inquiry into Monsanto’s scientific manipulations of carcinogenicity data.
This video needs to be highlighted (and you are in it Dr Healy). The documentary ‘Is Giving Antidepressants To Teenagers A Bad Idea?’
Quite amazing to see Andrea Cipriani admit that these drugs mostly don’t work for teens considering he promoted them recently in the media for adults. If Cipriani hasn’t seen the raw data of SSRI’s and adults then surely his studies don’t stand up to scientific scrutiny?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h19YkIdX4nE
Yes. And let’s not forget ‘putting all those cards on the table, crossing out all the SSRIs and putting a question mark on Fluoxetine’ – it was the Cipriani study that got Carmine Pariante a complaint to the GMC and it was the Cipriani study, that has the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists a ‘live’ complaint regarding the letter in The Times Newspaper – ‘that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment’.
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-43143889
‘puts to bed’ ..?
THIS is what every school and college should have for COMPULSORY viewing – and not just in England but everywhere. All teachers, from nursery upwards should view and believe in it. Pupils from mid primary upwards should be introduced to it. It should also be used for discussions during parents’ evenings. It would be so much more effective than a day’s training for a member of staff who then takes on the role of evaluating the mental state of their school’s pupils. If we could get this done, we’d stand a chance of getting teachers, parents and pupils to begin to understand the subject of mental distress. If I had a £ for every time that I was told by teachers that ‘________ is fine in my class, they laugh with the others…..they are just attention seeking when they tell you about their anxieties etc.’, I could have retired as quite a wealthy ex-teacher! There is this notion that a child who is in danger of self harming etc. walks around alone in a distant, sullen mood or in floods of tears. This video shows the mood swings, the sudden deterioration which leads to self harming and also shows how quickly ( with the correct intervention) the mood can be lifted. Jess is an absolute star in allowing herself to be shown in this way. We owe it to her and her family to use it in all ways that we can to raise awareness of what’s going on and how easily it can affect just any family. Dr. Chris’ documentary may not be perfect but it’s the best that we have at present and we all accept that the best message comes from peers – especially in the form of a visual documentation like this.
(and how many of us agree wholeheartedly with Jess’ mum’s explanation of how she carries on so calmly? We’ve all been there!).
Totally agree Mary. Dr Chris did really well to get across the points he did. It was predictable that NICE didn’t want to be interviewed. And yes, it’s so utterly obvious that (a) Jess was finding school difficult and (b) that being holed up in her bedroom made everything ten times worse. That lovely woodland couldn’t fail to lift the mood, along with the supportive company of others. At least in Dr Chris, Jess’s mum had someone to confide in for a while which would lift the fear wonderfully. We parents feel so alone when dealing with these youngsters’ anxieties and we are on duty 24/7. Then one gets blamed by mental health services for paying too much attention, like clucking mother hens. The stress of being on a watching brief, worried about your child’s suicidal thoughts and what they could lead to, and being castigated for fuss8ng by doctors at the same time, is almost unbearable. I identified very much with the other mother who’s daughter had died. She said she never really thought her daughter would actually do it. In my heart I felt the same. When they do, it’s so out of character it must be the effect of medication, Sertraline and Olanzapine at high dose for our son.
I find it utterly astounding how Andrea Cipriani can stand over his study touting the benefits of SSRI’s in adults when he knows damn well that the raw data is inaccessible and he hasn’t even seen it! himself!
Is Cipriani merely another drug company Shill? It seems he has declared various conflicts of interests with drug companies over the years…
“…Andrea Cipriani AC was expert witness for Accord Healthcare for a patent issue about quetiapine extended release….”
http://cmd.cochrane.org/declarations-interest
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/many-antidepressant-studies-found-tainted-by-pharma-company-influence/
“….Cipriani agrees that it is important to point out the manipulation of meta-analyses are by the pharmaceutical industry. “We need to highlight that these meta-analyses are more a marketing tool than a science,” he says. But Cipriani, who had seven articles flagged in the review for reported conflicts of interest, thinks that it is an oversimplification to condemn all studies with industry ties. Rather, Cipriani advocates transparency and says that the main problem is the lack of disclosure. To his credit, even with conflicts of interest present Cipriani included caveats in the conclusion or abstract in two of his papers. He was one of the few researchers with stated conflicts to do so, however.
According to Cipriani, academic journals, the gatekeepers of scientific evidence, are the ones who should be responsible, both for looking into conflicts of interest and weeding out those studies whose conclusions do not match up with the supplied data….”
Andrea Cipriani has recently produced the two leading meta-analyses on AD’s in under-18’s and adults, in 2016 and 2018 respectively. Dr Healy does not think a great deal of these because he argues the studies that have gone into them are old, flawed and biased. But even with this dodgy data AD’s show up as having feeble efficacy in adults and practically none in under-18’s. Dr Cipriani said recently of the adult study that “there was an undue focus on the binary and polarising question of clinical significance”. What a daft comment, nearly as good as Professor David Taylors “much better than placebo”. There is so much truth distortion going on I do wonder when someone like the GMC should take a look.
Many thanks for your comments.
A Postscript on the Taylor and Francis Debacle:
When I withdrew my paper from “best practices review” I was contacted by an editor of the Taylor & Francis Cogent Series, for the transfer of my manuscript to be considered for publication in one of their journals — for a price. She suggested Cogent Social Sciences so I looked into this journal and found that they published “The conceptual penis as a social construct” published in the names of Jamie Lindsay and Peter Boyle. When the authors of this piece, Peter Boghossian and James Lindsay announced that they had passed peer review for what was obviously a complete hoax, in the fashion of the Sokal-style hoax, Cogent Social Sciences retracted the conceptual penis paper.
But now the problem: if my paper is unacceptable for one Taylor & Francis journal, why is it acceptable for another Taylor & Francis journal? The answer appears to be the considerable pay-to-publish scheme of the latter which has been exposed by Boghossian and Lindsay.
The ‘Respected’ BMJ put Study 329 through the wringer when it was submitted for publication and this was not a Hoax. The Hoax was down to GlaxoSmithKline and Keller et al, ghost-writing the safety of Paxil, and it was Shelley Jofre who pursued GlaxoSmithKline employees, Keller and co and uncovered data files in California for the four Panorama programmes.
Panorama, unfolded the murky history of Seroxat, with Brilliant Persistent journalist, Shelley Jofre, chasing GlaxoSmithKline Keller MHRA and uncovering Data in four programmes, the fifth being A Prescription for Murder?
The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine Publishes Study 329 Continuation Phase
https://study329.org/study-329-continuation-phase-september-21-2016/
https://study329.org/
After publication of the Acute Phase rewrite in September 2015, the team began work on the Continuation Phase. We always expected to publish this in The International Journal of Risk and Safety in Medicine but it seemed like a good idea to send the Continuation Phase to JAACAP first, as the original Keller paper was published in JAACAP.
The former editor Mina Dulcan and the current editor Andres Martin and the American Association of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, whose journal this is, have been lobbied heavily from 2006 onwards by Leemon McHenry and Jon Jureidini, trying to get them to do the decent thing and retract the Keller paper. But in vain. We were pretty certain they would refuse the Continuation Phase. But they needed to be given the opportunity to dig a deeper hole. And they did.
Thank you very much Leemon McHenry I wasn’t aware of ,and couldn’t be, if it wasn’t for this bog, just how far the tentacles of Taylor and Francis had spread and how far they are incorporating other publishers and research institutions into the network. Just read that They have offices in Boca Ratan, Boston, Melbourne, Singapore, Beijng, Tokyo, Stockholm, N Delhi, N York, Philadelphia, Johannesburgh, Oxford – and the money to fund them must be massive. They have an agreement with one of the biggest research institutions in Europe ie Max Planck and a partnership with Routledge. People are quite cynical about books on sale which are giving advice on every aspect of life these days , they can cause a certain amount of harm but there is no way most of us can know whether the advice from scientists and ‘experts’ is reliable even if published in ‘prestigious’ ‘world renowned’ journals. We might get a hint from T and F’s claim that ‘OA is an open access (not really) publisher that puts authors’ interests at the heart of everything. Selecting your own publishing contribution for open access digitalization has enabled them to put 13.000,000 pages from 1,200 (might have missed off a nought) journals on line. Hmmm – what chunk of info shall I contribute?… We don’t know which medics to trust. we don’t know which publications to trust, we don’t trust the BBC, we don’t trust the regulators, we don’t trust drug companies, we don’t trust researchers, we don’t trust politicians – it is a very precarious state we are in.
Re-posting my letter to day in BMJ RR. Actually, it was responding to Steve Hinks on the subject of HPV vaccines, but it quoted from a 2005 House of Commons Health Committee report on the ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry’. Not only did they censure the Department of Health and MHRA for being naive and lax they also attacked indiscriminate prescription of SSRIs by GPs – so how much worse is it now 13 years later (3 times perhaps)?
https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rr-7
Where are we going?
Re: HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds Nigel Hawkes. 361:doi 10.1136/bmj.k2059
Steve Hinks [1], this is a catalogue of horrors. It is salutary to recall that in 2005, just as the present editor of this journal was taking over the reins and just before the introduction of these products, the outgoing House of Commons Health Committee produced a report ‘The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry’ in which it censured both the Department of Health and the MHRA for being too close to the industry [2]:
“The Department of Health has for too long optimistically assumed that the interests of
health and of the industry are as one. This may reflect the fact that the Department
sponsors the industry as well as looking after health. The result is that the industry has been
left to its own devices for too long….
“The most immediately worrying consequence of the problems described above is the
unsafe use of drugs. Over-prescription of the COX-2 inhibitors, Vioxx and Celebrex, has
been linked to thousands of deaths and many more cases of heart failure. These case
illustrate a series of failures. Manufacturers are known to have suppressed certain trials for
these drugs in the US and may have done the same in the UK. In addition, there were
inadequacies in the licensing and post-marketing surveillance procedures and excessive
promotion of the drugs to doctors.
“What has been described as the ‘medicalisation’ of society – the belief that every problem
requires medical treatment – may also be attributed in part to the activities of the
pharmaceutical industry. While the pharmaceutical industry cannot be blamed for creating
unhealthy reliance on, and over-use of, medicines, it has certainly exacerbated it. There has
been a trend towards categorising more and more individuals as ‘abnormal’ or in need of
drug treatment.
“The industry is by no means solely to blame for the difficulties we describe. The regulators
and prescribers are also open to criticism. The regulator, the Medicines and Healthcare
products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), has failed to adequately scrutinise licensing data
and its post-marketing surveillance is inadequate. The MHRA Chairman stated that trust
was integral to effective regulation, but trust, while convenient, may mean that the
regulatory process is not strict enough. The organisation has been too close to the industry,
a closeness underpinned by common policy objectives, agreed processes, frequent contact,
consultation and interchange of staff. We are concerned that a rather lax regime is
exacerbated by the MHRA’s need to compete with other European regulators for licence
application business.
“Inappropriate prescription of medicines by GPs is of particular concern. Some have
prescribed SSRIs, for instance, on a grand scale…”
Sadly, the committee that filed this enlightened report was immediately dissolved in advance of the 2005 General Election and it seems as if no politician has dared to touch the issue since, and rather look ever more manically toward the industry to solve the nation’s health problems. Public appointments of industry connected figures go almost unremarked (and governments no doubt congratulate themselves on their shrewdness). Last December it took Tom Jefferson to comment on a row of astonishing appointments to high public positions in an opinion piece ‘The UK turns to Witty, Vallance, and Van Tam for leadership: revolving doors?’ [3]. Jefferson also wrote:
“The lowering of regulatory and HTA [Human Tissue Act] standards is in full swing and its main driver is the pharmaceutical industry. The general rhetoric of rushing drugs and devices through to needy patients willing to accept substantial risk rests on very thin evidence of benefit and unclear public support.
“Improving the quality of evidence is desperately needed as shown by the scores of examples of clinical trials that have been abandoned or distorted that have come to light in the last decade. Pandemic planning also requires some rethinking as the millions of pounds spent on a dubious pandemic with equally dubious fixes has shown…”
About Andrew Witty’s new Accelerated Access Partnership an article in the hard journal warned [4]:
“Nonetheless, the proposal says too little on expected benefits for patients and wider society. Instead, several concrete pledges are made to industry, including a promise to establish a new commercial unit within the NHS to “immediately streamline the pathway for access discussions” and pave the way for “flexible and confidential commercial arrangements.” Why? Because innovators want it, according to the report.”
The problem of course is that business solves its own problems not the public’s. We need our institutions to protect us, not leave us ever more exposed. The new parliament in 2005 failed to grasp the nettle presented by the Health Committee report and now we are really in trouble.
[1] Steve Hinks, ‘Re: HPV vaccines are effective and safe and work best in young women, review finds’ 13 June 2018, https://www.bmj.com/content/361/bmj.k2059/rr-6
[2] House of Commons Health Committee, The Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry, 2005 p.3-4 https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200405/cmselect/cmhealth/42/42.pdf
[3] Tom Jefferson, The UK turns to Witty, Vallance, and Van Tam for leadership: revolving doors?, 6 December 2017, http://blogs.bmj.com/bmj/2017/12/06/tom-jefferson-the-uk-turns-to-witty-…
[4] Naci H and Mossialos E, Accelerated access to new drugs and technologies, BMJ 2017; http://www.bmj.com/content/359/bmj.j5387 (Published 22 November 2017)
The Time is Ripe for – Whistleblowing ..
London Evening Standard
Glaxo faces lawsuit as salesman claims he was bullied for whistleblowing
JIM ARMITAGE
6 hours ago
https://www.standard.co.uk/business/glaxo-faces-lawsuit-as-salesman-claims-he-was-bullied-for-whistleblowing-a3864001.html
He is now taking legal proceedings against the company in India’s labour tribunal system, adding to GSK’s whistleblower-related court cases over China and the US.
The Serious Fraud Office in the UK is also believed to be investigating how GSK treated whistleblowers in China, where corruption cost it around £300 million in fines.
The action came 12 months after Kumar’s sacking and a year and a half after Lord’s emails promising an investigation. It appears to have been made after his case was publicised by a blogger, Bob Fiddaman.
Monday, April 16, 2018
India: GSK Whistleblower Names and Shames – Part II
https://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2018/04/india-gsk-whistleblower-names-and.html#.WyPtRPZFwzM
Those emails and responses coming up in Part III
Bob Fiddaman
Investigative, reporting …
**UK Exclusive**
from Bob Fiddaman
Sunday, June 17, 2018
Dutch Court Rules for Plaintiff – Seroxat (Paxil) Psychological Damage
https://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2018/06/dutch-court-rules-for-plaintiff-seroxat.html#.WyZ9cvZFwzM
Extract:
GlaxoSmithKline, whose headquarters are in London, England, has been found guilty in the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland, in Utrecht for the damage suffered by a claimant caused by the use of Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US and Canada.
Looking at the online Court document, it appears that the Judge ruled for plaintiff because
“GSK knew from about the year 2000 that paroxetine for children and adolescents (under 18) was not effective”, also, GSK knew that Seroxat “had serious side effects, including (in short) suicidal behavior.” Furthermore, GSK “had to make that knowledge public at the time, and they did not. If they had done so, Eggebeen would not have been prescribed it in 2001.”
The conclusion of the trial found, “GlaxoSmithKline has acted in violation of the due care that, according to an unwritten law, is common in society, and therefore unlawful. This is unlawful towards the users of Seroxat, who (without warning) were exposed to the risks, so also against [the plaintiff]. The statement of entitlement can therefore be assigned.”
Bob Fiddaman
Let’s hope for a good outcome – that would be so wonderful. GSK is going to contest it though according to Bob F’s blog.. Whatever, the judgement shows what grossly immoral people are running the show and that those who persist in contesting them can expose them and win ,. The colleges of psychiatrists and GPs need to be flagging this up too – if they did their members may take the whole issue of serious side effects more seriously – ie when legal action is in the air. |It seems though that the law is too fluffy when it is stated that violation of due care is an unwritten law..common in society therefore an unwritten law. There is too much scope for finding loopholes to slide through surely..
James Moore Retweeted
Phil Hickey @BigPhilHickey 1h
Auntie Psychiatry: anti psychiatry cartoon blog https://buff.ly/2lfMbyn Here’s another powerful and insightful cartoon from Auntie Psychiatry.
http://www.auntiepsychiatry.com/Auntie%20Psychiatry.html#doubt
It didn’t take long to track down the almost word-for-word same argument from RJ Reynolds Tobacco CEO, James Johnston, in his evidence to Congress in 1994. Watch this…
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e_ZDQKq2F08
Doubt is our product ..
John Read Retweeted
Mad In The UK @MITUKteam 59m
*IMPORTANT* 30 EXPERTS ACCUSE UK ROYAL COLLEGE OF PSYCHIATRISTS OF ABANDONING EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE AND PROFESSIONAL ETHICS OVER ANTIDPRESSANTS COMPLAINT Interviews with Dr Sami Timimi @stimimi & Prof John Read @ReadReadj
madinamerica.com/2018/06/sami-timimi-john-read-latest-developments-uk-royal-college-psychiatrists/ …
Pls RT
Sami Timimi and John Read: Royal College of Psychiatrists, Latest Update
By
James Moore
June 19, 2018
https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/06/sami-timimi-john-read-latest-developments-uk-royal-college-psychiatrists/
Surely; this is one of the most shameful episodes in the Life of the Royal College of Psychiatrists and gives credence to the fact that if you wait long enough some one will come along and trip themselves up ..
We are being ‘academically thugged’ and if you listen to the Pod, you will hear the future plans that are available to the heroic 30 .. and counting ..
This is one time when there might be a Domino Effect …
Re Bob’s post shared by Annie regarding the verdict in the Netherlands.
Sadly, this is the most hopeful news and faith in the legal system I’ve had in 21 years following being prescribed Seroxat during a period of transient anxiety when a boyfriend ‘two-timed’ me at 21 yrs of age!
(If I’d been asked, previous to GSK’s illegal and immoral behaviours, a GP might have given me the “You’ll Get Over It/Him/ Time HEALS” chat”. Or even CBT).
Instead, (and well aware my story is far from the worst), a prescribed sentence to another 21 of dramatically opposed years of hell; from life wrecking, career wrecking, and relationship wrecking ‘mania’ to life wrecking and frequently life threatening akathisia, ‘offending’ drug hatred and offending class of drug dependency; all the adverse effects, some side effects, no support, no recognition; physical and cognitive disabilities thrown in for good measure amongst the legacy effects – and never of any benefit!
Some might have recovered from 40 road accidents faster!
Hopefully some hope for those in the UK waiting over ten years for recognition and justice now compared to their US counterparts – and for more cases from date of knowledge for minors who’s lives were lost or destroyed.
But then again, past behaviour indicative of future behaviour, the plan might be playing the legal out for decades until most of us are definitely dead.
this scroll is of great importance,., However the problem of the undermining of scientific information is even broader than described here ,. I was the Editor of the Int J, of BP disorders and the publisher decided to remove all funding for our office , our staff and all the operating costs,., thus our ability to operate efficiently and fulfill our review functions etc is damaged,. This publisher had asked us to inform authors of rejected MS that their paper could be submitted to the company for publication in another of their journals for a fee,.,Also ,. a journal in Europe is publishing a journal with the same name as ours for a fee,.
There are journals in operation now where , the authors pay to play ,., pay to review,., et and are paid to write an article,.,
There is a fundamental question created here,. the journal refuses to pay for the appropriate costs of production ,., so,., of course the entire journal publishing process becomes damaged or a charity case,.It costs to conduct science and education and our society has not come to grips with the destruction of this aspect of the process,.,
Read the news B DH in the Rxisk newsletter re deleted blog -I don’t have a facebook account so checked out whether they give reasons for deleting information – seems they don’t specifically put these online -but many of the complaints about deletions are referring to accusations of interferring in political and other campaigning or discussions and have had no response in the past from facebook about their complaints.
In April 2018 Facebook published ‘Content Removal Policies’ for the first time. Each ‘reviewer’ of facebook content is responsible on average for a user base as big as Pittsburgh. One method is to pick out buzzwords. There are some in the blog they might have picked on eg ‘war’ ‘propaganda’ ‘dissent’. But content is deleted also by complaints from account holders who object to it. This could very well be the organisations and individuals who lead them which often are named on this blog. (hopefully it is nothing to do with those who were angry enough via comments to want them taken down).
There is now a right of appeal according to what I can read without opening an account – in which case maybe the source of the complaint(s) just might be identified. Or we could ask them? eg the colleges of psych and GPs – GSK etc.
Someone on a thread of complainants about their posts being deleted has found a way around it by posting on facebook with a reference to their blog etc – without spelling out the detail on facebook. Some of the policies on facebook site 2015 by the way are extremely bizarre eg breasts can be shown as long as no nipples can be seen! Maybe sex is also a buzzword for reviewers.
I seem to remember Bill Gates was called before UK parliament recently – just possible they had a hand in it.