This is the first link to the Politics of Care forum. Comments on this post ideally need to centre on reports of actions – outlines of actions that will make a difference or details of what has resulted from efforts to follow up on the leads here. We need to keep track of what has been done and what, if anything, has made a difference, rather than fool ourselves with nice words. The image is of the Death of Cu Chulainn.
Stephen O’Neill, a Northern Irishman, died in July 2016. The story of his death is told in the first 8 links below.
Stephen came into my life a year later in an email from Colleen Bell, his niece, asking me to give her and his family a view about whether the sertraline he was put on had killed him.
The events that followed Colleen’s email epitomize the state we are in.
Everyone involved in Stephen’s case and later inquest seemed to be decent people. The decent medical people, perhaps on the advice of their lawyers, shucked off responsibility – as medical people, maybe always advised by lawyers, regularly do.
An inquest is one of the few times a doctor can make the medicines we take safer – by telling a coroner that its likely a drug did kill the person.
Unless a doctor opens up this possibility, it is impossible for a coroner to do anything. Even with the option opened up, its difficult for a coroner. At best s/he can draw the attention of the powers that be to the case – who will then ignore what has happened.
It was unfortunate that Stephen’s doctor failed to rise to the challenge, because this was an occasion where a family was waiting to try and bring good out of a situation rather than seek retribution and with the resources to do so.
How the system dealt with Stephen is almost certainly how it will deal with you whether you die from drug induced agitation, a heart attack, or stroke – unless the failings of the system are so gross that they cannot be ignored in which case they get passed off as a rotten apple issue and throwing the apple out means the system stays the same.
This image by Paul Klee is called Whose Fault is it?
Stephen’s death and the way it was handled was an everyday occurrence. You and I are unlikely to have someone like Colleen to spearhead efforts to bring some good from the situation. She has since set up Stephen’s Voice on Facebook, dedicated to raising awareness of the issues.
In addition Stephen’s death opened up possibilities to write to Departments of Health throughout the Western European Archipelago, as well as to the Guideline makers in the National Institute of Clinical and Healthcare Excellence (NICE), drugs regulators, the British Medical Association and Brenda Hale, the then Chair of the British Supreme Court, drawing their attention to the fact that the medical literature on drugs like sertraline is almost entirely ghostwritten and there is a total lack of access to the data from clinical trials on this and all on-patent drugs.
The letters to and responses from these bodies are linked to the 7 posts below. Extraordinarily, the responses make it clear the powers that be know about the ghost-writing and lack of access to the data but feel helpless to do anything. They quickly jumped on a phrase, I supplied them with, that it’s not our job to police the medical literature.
What is true for the Western European Archipelago is almost certainly just as true of the powers that be in the United States, Canada, Australia, New Zealand, Europe, Japan, Korea and in Xi Jinping’s China and Narendra Modi’s India.
We have to make a difference in the case of a death like Stephen’s. Otherwise we will be hearing the Crack of Doom much earlier than we should.
I’ve been involved in an almost endless series of inquests for heading toward 30 years, where decent families have been seeking to alert others to the risks of treatment rather than trying to hold doctors or anyone else responsible. We have gotten nowhere.
Samuel Morgan’s recent death was one of the saddest. I spent time in this case trying to liaise with his doctor before and since the inquest, trying to get him to do what only he can do to help make treatment safer for the rest of us.
Samuel lived in South Wales, where some of the healthy volunteer trials of SSRI drugs took place and where the capacity of treatment to induce suicidality and enduring sexual dysfunction in healthy volunteers became evident several years before the drugs came on the market.
Where also the leading medical officer in the Welsh Government had acknowledged an awareness of a the ghostwriting of the medical literature and lack of access to the data. There was a chance for Dr Adams to do far more than almost any other doctor can do in circumstances like this – had he chosen to ally with the family.
See High Noon: Do not Forsake me Oh My Doctor.
Most passers-by if forced to read this post would likely figure antidepressant induced suicide is unlikely to happen to them. Most are likely also pretty annoyed at the Vaccine Hesitant who are putting us all at risk.
Doctors who fail to stand up for their patients or the patient’s family at inquests do a great deal to created vaccine hesitancy. They kill the trust that those who have been harmed by treatments originally had – or they would never have taken the treatment in the first place. This trust is not just in sertraline or a vaccine, its trust in the doctor recommending it and in the institutions that s/he trusts.
Anyone who figures our institutions cannot be trusted
is on pretty solid grounds. These grounds offer a good basis for hesitancy. This has nothing to do with fear of vaccines and everything to do a horrible awareness that we cannot depend on people we thought we could trust.
For your doctor or politicians or Brenda Hale, or NICE, or Medical Associations or Medical Journals or anyone else to blame anyone who is vaccine hesitant for these reasons is contemptible. This is a problem that is not going to go away until we either have a complete surveillance state or doctors and others regain our trust.
For many people Onora O’Neill, also from Northern Ireland, is the person who speaks most eloquently about our need for Trust. Life though is complex and however it happened she now liaises with Sense about Science, effectively and outsourced public relations agency for industry, especially the pharmaceutical industry. An agency of the kind that does so much to sabotage trust in our institutions. See Trust me I’m not a Doctor.
The documents attached the second set of O’Neill posts can be downloaded from the posts, which gives context, or gotten on request from DH, and adapted to European, American, Antipodean, or other jurisdictions – anywhere where there are regulators, politicians, senior law officers or others who should be told about the hole in the bottom of our institutions through which trust is leaking out.
We can host all letters here along with any responses received.
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
Thank you for this and all your work, David Healy, Colleen Bell and others. So grateful for all you do, will share and spread this message here in New Zealand, Sarah Preece, NZ
Reports of Actions –
Conservative MSP Miles Briggs has called on Health Secretary Humza Yousaf to intervene to request the removal of the Sackler name. He said: “I’m deeply concerned Scottish institutions are being used in this way by a firm which is so synonymous with the deaths of so many people from opioids and the misery that addiction brings to communities. The new health secretary should be making sure health boards are made aware of this situation so it cannot happen again, and he should be ensuring that due diligence is carried out over every similar offer of funding in future.
“Scotland has seen more than its fair share of drug-related deaths and addiction, and the very least we should be doing is ensuring those who profit from such an industry are not given an air of respectability just because they offer to fund projects from the billions they make from industry profits.”
The Scottish government said it was for the universities to comment.
The Doctor with Two-Practices – Scotland – Canada
The Doctor with One-Practice
Why should Seroxat, an infamous killer-drug, be treated any differently to Oxycontin?
From Scotland to the Crack of Doom …
Reports of Actions –
Politics of Care –
ANOTHER GSK move to GOV.UK
Former GSK chief appointed to lead Antivirals Taskforce
Eddie Gray will head team hunting for at-home treatments to counter Covid-19
“He is bringing to the taskforce a wealth of industry expertise that will be crucial in ensuring we are identifying treatments effective at the earliest stages of exposure to this terrible virus,” Hancock said.
That makes Sir Patrick Vallance, Sir Andrew Witty, Moncef Slaoui – right hander to Donald Trump, Ian Hudson – Chief of MHRA – Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
The easy way to grind Paroxetine in to the dust …
Seems fairly obvious where this recommendation came from …
Ssh Do you want to know a secret? More trust will be cascading out of the NHS soon. Thousands of people are likely to be duped by this deliberate withholding of information which means unless people excercise their right to opt out of allowing use of their data – pharmaceutical companies will have a bonanza There is or should also be info on surgery web sites or GPs should be showing individuals how to excercise their right to opt out .People in England need to be quick before our most ‘trusted institution’ shafts us yet again. Anything Matt Hancock and co. have a hand in can lead to dire consequences = and they have no conscience They can’t be trusted.
The biggest data grab in the history of the National Health Service is just weeks away!
🤷♂️ What’s about to happen?
The Government has hatched a plan to copy the entire GP medical history from every patient in England to an NHS Digital database from July 1st 2021.
The data may then be made available for commercial third parties to buy and disclosed for research purposes.
The records include deeply private information including mental and physical health records as well as sensitive codes such as criminal record, relationship status, abuse and abortion.
👂 Oh, you didn’t hear about it?
The complete lack of transparency surrounding this bulk grab is seriously alarming and risks undermining faith in one of Britain’s most trusted institutions.
This scheme has been directly ordered by Health Secretary Matt Hancock yet he and the leaders of our country are quiet on this enormous project.
⏱️ You have until June 23 to opt out.
If you have ANY concerns about your private medical history being collected in this manner then consider filling out:
1) This Type 1 form to opt-out and return to your GP before the June 23 deadline.
2) NHS Digital’s online National Data Opt-out process (click here for additional information on how to fill out for children & guardians).
Once your data has been copied, it will never be deleted.
You can always choose to opt back in, in the future.
👨⚕️ GPs making a stand.
Senior GPs have already called on other doctors to refuse to hand over the information. “36 doctors’ surgeries in Tower Hamlets, east London, have already agreed to withhold the data when collection begins on 1 July, the Guardian understands.”
📣 Pass the message on!
The deafening silence on this needs to be amplified, please share this information far and wide so that people are aware of what is going on.
It is vital that we have a say in what is happening with our private medical information.
SHARE THIS MESSAGE
Digital Communications Manager
Update in Pulse Today – Doctors threaten legal action to halt ‘unlawful’ mass GP data extraction
Politicians like the disgraced Matt Hancock and corrupt Pharma companies are licking their lips – some decent doctors are trying to stop such a massive breach of trust – but citizens also need to take action themselves to support them.
They would have got away by stealth with this massive abuse The campaign has been great but the proposed duping of citizens is not yet over for Matt Hancock and co. If people support the action to stop unlawful data extraction action by individuals as well as groups need to be taken to state their decisions -as enclosed,,It is easy to opt out. Many GPs much less those who consult them had no idea this was planned.
View this email in your browser
The Government has buckled and delayed the NHS data grab!
The collection will now take place on September 1, 2021.
✔️ Good news: This should give a greater opportunity for people to opt-out, if they wish and allow more time for people to share the message.
❌ Bad news: The Government is still refusing to inform every patient about the data grab and how to opt-out.
ICYMI: The Government is planning to copy the entire GP medical history from every patient in England to an NHS Digital database. The data will then be “pseudonymised” and could be made available for commercial third parties to buy and disclosed for research purposes.
🚨 If you’re concerned about your private medical history being collected in this manner then consider filling out:
1) This Type 1 form to opt-out and return to your GP before the deadline. This form will protect your GP data.
2) NHS Digital’s online National Data opt-out process (click here for additional information on how to fill out for children & guardians). This form will protect non-GP data, including hospital or clinic treatments.
You can always choose to opt back in, in the future.
Watch Conservative MP Jo Churchill announce the delay.
For more info visit medConfidential.
📨 Please forward this email to raise awareness about what is happening.
LEGAL IMPLICATIONS The potential for prescription medications to cause violence, including suicide, has wide-reaching implications in the law (Whitehead, 2003). First, if a crime is committed as a result of ingesting a prescription medication, many states have statutes that allow for the defense of involuntary intoxication (Myers & Vondruska, 1998). This has generally been defi ned as intoxication with a prescription medi-cation without foreknowledge that the medication can cause abnormal behavior. While mens rea or “guilty mind” is usually one of the necessary elements of a crime, states vary regarding the requirements for proving this mental state, sometimes requiring the accused to meet legal criteria for insanity. Some states require negligent prescription of the medication or require the individual to have taken the drug as prescribed in order to qualify for the defense. In most cases, involuntary intoxication can serve as a complete defense to the charges, similar to the insanity defense. Signifi cantly, even if the accused is convicted of the crime, the sentencing judge could and should take into account the fact that the criminal behavior was caused by or aggravated by a prescription medication. As a result, the judge could conclude that the individual does not pose a danger to society absent further exposure to the offending agent. Just as individuals convicted of crimes while taking psychoactive medications may argue that they are no longer at risk of perpetrating after becoming medication free, individuals adjudicated incompetent while under the infl uence of a prescribed medication may argue that they are no longer at risk of being incompetent after withdrawal from the agent. Second, if a patient is injured as a result of ingesting a prescription medication, the pre-scribing physician may be liable for money damages. In medical malpractice suits against prescribing physicians, the failure to warn a patient that a medication may cause violent and suicidal behavior, particularly if the medication’s label directly warns the prescribing physician of this risk, may be grounds for negligence. Third, if the pharmaceutical manufacturer failed to properly warn physicians of the true risks of suicide or violence associated with a medication, a patient may have a civil claim against the manufacturer in a product liability suit. Specifi cally, a pharmaceutical company’s failure to properly evaluate whether a drug can cause ber od ‘cases’ uicidal or violent behav-ior may be grounds for negligence. CASE EXAMPLES…
If a large enough number of rep0rts of ‘cases’ (ie dead, injured or incarcerated individuals) are collected – would there be an opportunity to take legal action in UK and elsewhere?
Opportunity to present to the Isotretinoin Expert Working Group
MHRA firstname.lastname@example.org via service.govdelivery.com
2:03 PM (3 hours ago)
Isotretinoin Expert Working Group
View as a webpage / Share
Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency bulletin
Thank you for previously registering to receive notifications about the review of psychiatric and sexual side effects suspected to be associated with isotretinoin, which is being carried out by the Commission on Human Medicines (CHM).
The CHM’s Isotretinoin Expert Working Group (IEWG) is carefully considering all of the available information and thanks everyone who has already provided contributions to the review.
To aid the assessment of these important issues, the IEWG would like to hear directly from patients and other stakeholders on the following questions:
Based on your experience of isotretinoin, what aspect of treatment has had the greatest impact (positive or negative)?
How should the risks associated with isotretinoin be managed?
The IEWG is holding a meeting on Friday, 16 July 2021 and inviting patients and other stakeholders to attend and present their answers to these questions. Due to the current pandemic this meeting will be held virtually.
The purpose of this meeting is for the IEWG to hear any additional information directly from patients and stakeholders that has not already provided through the consultation or reported to our Yellow Card scheme.
You can register your interest in presenting at this meeting using this link. The deadline for registering is on Thursday, 17 June 2021.
We want to ensure as many people as possible can contribute so the IEWG hears the full range of views in the time available, so each person will be able to speak for up to 5 minutes.
Please note that it may not be possible to invite all those who express an interest in speaking to the IEWG, we will aim to cover the range of stakeholders who have indicated they wish to speak to the IEWG, and represent the positive, negative and neutral opinions in a balanced way.
Everyone who registers will receive a response by 30 June 2021, confirming whether or not they are invited to speak. If invited, you can stay for the whole meeting or leave at any time after your contribution.
Before presenting at the IEWG, we will contact you and offer you a preparatory meeting to explain more about how the IEWG meeting will operate and the Zoom meeting functions that will be used. The preparatory meetings will be held on Monday, 5 and Thursday, 8 July 2021. When you register you will be asked to indicate your preference. You only need to attend one preparatory meeting if selected to speak.
Attendance at the IEWG meeting will be by invitation only. However, the meeting will be recorded and subsequently published by the MHRA.
All attendees will be asked to confirm their consent to be recorded and will be able to specify their preferences regarding how their name is presented and whether or not they appear on camera. Consent will be verified before and after the meeting and agreed position reflected in the published recording. The final recording may be edited to respect the privacy preferences of the participants.
Patient and other stakeholder views are an essential part of this review of isotretinoin. If you are not able to present to the IEWG in this instance and you have additional new information you wish to share with them, please email us at MHRACustomerServices@mhra.gov.uk by Friday, 16 July 2021.
Patient, Public and Stakeholder Engagement team
The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency
Medicating Normal’s Angela Peacock discusses with Michael Baum the reasoning behind the firm’s success -.
There is no doubt that Michael Baum, of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman, has succeeded in bringing about the most litigation to do with the array of facets regarding antidepressants.and his take provides some useful information as to the hows and whys of why they do what they do, and some reasonable thoughts as to litigation in the field of antidepressants –
Michael Baum gives some interesting insights in to the where with alls of high profile litigation, the successes. And what lays behind -..
What Does the Evidence Actually Say?