Editorial Note: Prior to the Panorama program Prescription for Murder tonight, a flurry of experts denounced the scaremongering. This didn’t just happen by accident. The denunciation effort was also more intense than the pressure brought to bear on the original Panorama programs in 2002-2004. The change is in part down to the fact that Sense about Science, which co-ordinates the Science Media Centre/Center, was set up for this and related purposes in 2003.
It would take a brave investigative journalist to investigate the SMC and SAS. No-one has been brave enough so far.
Some of the comments below are unfortunate. It seems counterproductive to have the new president of the Royal College defend antidepressants, as her predecessor did, rather than defend psychiatrists. If the pills are so good and so free of side effects, some politician is going to wake up some day to a new possibility – Honey I shrunk the shrinks and replaced them with nurses and pharmacists and we all are going to save a lot of money.
From: Edward Sykes [mailto:edward@sciencemediacentre.org]
Sent: 25 July 2017 13:11
To: edward@sciencemediacentre.org
Subject: SMC Roundup: Antidepressants and murder
Science Media Centre Roundup
Expert comments on whether antidepressants can lead people to become a murderer, as is being reported in advance of the upcoming Panorama programme ‘A Prescription for Murder?’*
Prof Wendy Burn, President of The Royal College of Psychiatrists, said:
“We are disappointed with recent coverage about antidepressants, especially since the reporting so far has not included a comment from the College.
“For many milder episodes of depression talking therapies will be recommended as the first line of treatment. For moderate to severe depression, antidepressants are an evidence based treatment. Their prescription should be reviewed regularly in line with clear national guidance. We know that more of the people living with mental illness now seek medical advice and we believe this explains the increase in the number of people being prescribed antidepressants. For many, these drugs have had a beneficial effect on mood and have helped reduce suicidal thoughts or self-harm.
“In all treatments – from Cancer to heart disease – medicines which do good can also do harm. This applies in psychiatry. Current evidence from large scale studies continues to show that for antidepressants the benefits outweigh the risks, which is why it is important to highlight that the experience raised by the author in the recent Sunday Times article is extremely rare.
“Any patient who is unsettled by this media coverage, or feels pressurised to stop taking an antidepressant drug, should not abruptly discontinue their prescribed treatment. Instead, they should make an appointment with their family doctor or mental health professional to discuss any concerns they might have. They should together make a joint decision about whether to continue antidepressant treatment.
“This decision should be made on their own individual experience and should be informed by how effective their treatment has been in helping to reduce depressive and anxiety symptoms, any side effects which might have occurred, and the risks of a recurrence of illness, if treatment is stopped prematurely.”
Prof Shirley Reynolds, Professor of Evidence Based Psychological Therapies, Director of Charlie Waller Institute, University of Reading, said:
“If the Sunday Times article is correct then the upcoming Panorama (A Prescription for Murder?) focuses on a BMJ study that came out last year that looked at suicidality and aggression during antidepressant treatment. Unfortunately, as we wrote in our letter published in The BMJ, that study had flaws in presentation and logic and the results were further misrepresented by the BMJ press release.
“The term ‘suicide’ was used when the data actually only referred to ‘suicidal behaviour which is a hugely important difference. The data in the study didn’t actually show any instances of suicide in children or adolescents. The authors also stated that antidepressants are known to increase the risk of suicide in children and adolescents, which is not factually correct and the references cited do not support their assertion.
“Furthermore neither the paper itself nor the editorial actually pointed out the significant fact that of the five antidepressants mentioned in the article only two (fluoxetine and sertraline) are currently recommended by the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence for the treatment of depression in young people.
“This matters because if people stop taking their drugs then that really can lead to an increase in suicides. A review of 574 youth suicides reported that only 1.6% had received antidepressants.
“Young people need access to a range of individualised evidence based treatments. The possible risks of harm from antidepressants (or psychological therapy) must always be balanced against the benefits of treatment and the increased risk of suicide in severe, untreated depression, but we must be very careful about turning people away from the very therapies that can help them.”
Prof Carmine Pariante, Professor of Biological Psychiatry, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience, said:
“There is no good evidence that antidepressants increase the risk of violent behaviour, and the extremely rare (and tragic) cases that are cited in support of this theory could be explained by chance: antidepressants are prescribed relatively widely, and so by chance someone on antidepressants will commit a violent act. Moreover, people on antidepressants may be suffering from some forms of mental disorder or distress that may, albeit very occasionally, increase the risk of reacting impulsively or violently.
“With 7% of the UK population and 11% of the US population currently taking an antidepressant, we would have clearly seen an increased risk of violence if there was one. With alcohol, for example, there is a clear evidence that it is linked to at least half of all cases of violent assaults, child abuse, domestic violence as well as homicides and murders.
“In contrast, we know very well that every time an alarm reduces the rates of prescription for antidepressants, suicide rates increase, including in adolescent and young adults. The risk of suicide attempt in patients treated with the commonly use ‘SSRI’ antidepressants is approximately one-third that of patients who are not treated with an SSRI. And this is without even considering the life-saving effects that these medications have on patients’ recovery from their mental health problems.”
Prof Allan Young, Professor of Mood Disorders, King’s College London’s Institute of Psychiatry, Psychology & Neuroscience , said:
“Antidepressants are widely used and at the same time that the MHRA is constantly monitoring reports, scientists are continually doing studies looking into any side-effects. We have to be really careful that there is good evidence for the claims we make and if we find serious effects then we shout about them because we want to help patients.
“If there was good evidence of antidepressants turning people into murderers then we would certainly be looking into that. It is an extremely strong claim and therefore needs to be backed by strong evidence. So many people take antidepressants that we will always be able to find some coincidences, but it takes a lot more evidence to mean it’s more than that.”
Prof Seena Fazel, Professor of Forensic Psychiatry, University of Oxford, said:
“I have spent some years looking at the impact of psychiatric disorders and treatments on violent behaviour and the data is quite complex. The first thing to say is that there is no clear evidence of a link between antidepressants and violent behaviour in older people. In young people the latest stats do show something, but we cannot say that antidepressants are making people more aggressive as we can’t tease apart whether it’s the antidepressants or the fact that young people on antidepressants are also using alcohol, and some actually have severe personality problems which can make them more violent in the first place.
“The whole picture is further complicated by the fact that we don’t have much really high quality data and most data comes from trials which are actually looking at things like verbal aggression, rather than actual violent acts. We are trying to get round this by looking at data from countries where national crime registers can be linked to records of individuals with depression. We can then look for any differences in individuals who are prescribed SSRIs versus those who are not. You can also compare the same person twice – once when they use antidepressants and once when they don’t.
“With colleagues at the Karolinska Institute, we did one such study based on all people in Sweden from 2006 to 2009, which amounted to around 850,000 individuals taking SSRIs. What we found was a complex picture although two patterns emerged – for 80% of individuals who were prescribed SSRIs and were aged over 25 years, there was no clear association with violent crime. In those aged 15-24 years old, there was an association with increased rates of violent crimes (and also violent arrests and non-fatal accidents), however that’s not as clear as it sound as this association was stronger in those receiving sub-therapeutic doses of SSRIs, suggesting that partial treatment of the underlying depression may be one explanation for this link in younger people.”
* As reported in the Sunday Times, Daily Mail and The Sun
Declared interests None declared
Note to editors
The Science Media Centre is an independent venture working to promote the voices, stories and views from the scientific community to the news media when science is in the headlines. Over 100 supporters including scientific institutions, media groups, charities, universities and corporate organisations provide a donation to support the Centre achieving its objectives. The SMC makes all organisational and editorial decisions independently of funders. This press release contains the personal opinions of those acknowledged, and represents neither the views of the SMC nor any other organisation unless specifically stated.
The Science Media Centre can also help you find an expert on a topical area of science, we have over 2000 media friendly scientists and engineers on our database and you can call us on 020 7611 8300 if you need an expert to interview.
The SMC has asked the experts in the above Roundup to declare any interests which may be regarded by a reasonable and objective third party as giving rise to a conflict, and their responses are included above.
For more details see our website www.sciencemediacentre.org, please e-mail the Science Media Centre with your comments on our service atsmc@sciencemediacentre.org
Dr Edward Sykes
Senior Press Manager and Head of Mental Health & Neuroscience
Science Media Centre
183 Euston Road
London NW1 2BE
Tel: 020 7611 8321
E: edward@sciencemediacentre.org
Web: www.sciencemediacentre.org
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups “1-corehealth” group.
from http://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/carmine
Carmine M Pariante has consulted to, served on the Speakers’ Bureau, and/or been a grant recipient in one or more of the following: American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE), AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers-Squibb, Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen Pharmaceutica, Lundbeck, National Alliance for Research on Schizophrenia and Depression (NARSAD), Pfizer Pharmaceuticals, and Wyeth-Ayerst. Charles B Nemeroff currently serves on the Scientific Advisory Board for Astra-Zeneca, Johnson & Johnson, Pharma Neuroboost, Forest Laboratories, Quintiles, the American Foundation for Suicide Prevention (AFSP), and NARSAD. He serves on the Board of Directors of AFSP, NovaDel Pharmaceuticals, Mt. Cook Pharma, and the George West Mental Health Foundation. He owns equity, stock, or stock options in Corcept, CeNeRx, Reevax, and NovaDel.
Others worth searching of course, perhaps other might?
Simply consulting for companies doesn’t make someone biased. I have consulted for most of these companies. Its a bit like being German in World War 2 – some people who are entirely normal go along with the system, others don’t.
DH
Conflicts of interest are important and must be carefully considered, particularly in regards to individuals who may be influential on medical policy and practice.
I’m currently investigating vaccination policy and practice. This is a very hot topic as governments around the world are implementing coercive vaccination policies, e.g. the United States, Australia, and recently Italy, France and Germany have announced initiatives in this direction.
It’s a serious matter when governments introduce mandatory medical interventions, and we must demand transparency and accountability for this serious intrusion by government on the bodily autonomy of citizens and their children.
It’s been my experience that academics in Australia influencing vaccination policy are very reluctant to disclose their conflicts of interest, e.g. associations with pharmaceutical companies, certainly I have had to fight to get such information, and this struggle is ongoing.
It’s interesting why these people are so keen to keep their associations with Big Pharma under wraps…
What’s the situation in the psych world, are conflicts of interest properly and openly disclosed?
I think we have a problem with the term expert here.
None of the persons who gave their ‘expert opinion’ are an expert on the subtle behaviour of the SSRI to induce violence in all ages and none of the ‘opinions’ give us anything apart from an opinion based on nothing.
It is unfortunate that those quoted may have some influence in the world view of SSRI and violence as they seem to be important people at the top of their game – but we know differently through our own experiences of the SSRI.
“You can also compare the same person twice – once when they use antidepressants and once when they don’t.”
He had a light bulb moment..
This, in essence is what the Panorama programme did with James Holmes and Shelley Jofre painstakingly putting together what James was like before and what he was like after. James seemed to have rather suppressed parents who said little initially but after gentle probing from Shelley broke down and you could then see their horror, shock and shattering disappointment coming through.
It was a good move to have several segments of DH which always brought the story back to some form of rationale that the product had a large bearing on James’s behaviour and it seems rather surreal that this was not investigated in the courtroom.
I think it is obvious to all of us who have a great deal of personal experience with SSRI and other psychotropic drugs that the drug played the principle role in changing our behaviour and David Carmichael is the prime example of that. He is not planning on taking any of this lying down.
If Panorama had produced a programme around David Carmichael, for instance, the public sympathy would probably be enormous as David is eloquent, tells it how it was, has dignity and is able to translate the Paxil very well. David C does not have orange hair or staring eyes ..
This blog is so important as it primarily shows how those quoted are promulgating the reaction we received from our doctors and psychiatrists, our family and friends, and, how we were viewed in society as a whole during our Seroxat Experience, or otherwise, and I am looking forward to listening to all the comments from those with ‘lived it’ experiences.
I am sure the thoughts will be wide ranging and pertinent and will throw light not only on ‘the joker’ but how we dealt with the aftermath and how we are fed up to listening to Experts who absolutely have no idea of what they are talking about.
Doctors, who needs Doctors ..
Honey I shrunk the shrinks ..
https://twitter.com/BBCPanorama/status/890302508656099329
I guess @panorama didn’t win the popularity vote according to Garp .. tbe .. to be expected ..
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1eOVwReJhFNWWJ9Dm_Fi7TRH-JcNl4m7bYxh6dnYZTxw/edit?usp=sharing
I’m a Doctor, spend 94-2001 working as locum GP and in ED after internship where i went into iatrogenic insanity, benzo for ED stress and coffee insomnia then SSRI for the depression soon after, manic and engaged to a stranger in a week and other impulsive a uncharacteristicly reckless behaviour, withdrawals new drugs increased doses, mood stabilzers antipsychotics..you shrinks all know it..well in my 15 years on disability pension, recoverring with herbal cannabis which is much milder and unlike you’d think..gave me time to research the scientific evidence more broadly based on both clinical and personal experience as well as talking to many survivors of psychiatry..you can all sit in your ivory tales supporting you club with closed eyes to the harm you all do by labelling the vicyim..but many like me are getting off the chemical cloud you put our heads into and see what you are doing..we are talking to lawyers and they have started circling..your deluded and self assured opinions don’t count in the face of the scientific evidence which doesn’t make it into you lush drug company sponsorred conferences..many are walking away from chemicals to herbs..and history will remeber your dark profession with the distain you all deserve.
The most striking thing to me about this response is the premise of Science Media Centre (and Sense About Science) that no one must ever or report about anything without their say so. Undoubtedly the title of the programme last night was sensational, but actually the journalist at the end seemed unwilling to draw wider conclusions, no doubt already anticipating censure. There were two wider issues which were clearly to be drawn from it: the care needed for the prescription of these products if given at all – which some of the professional seemed completely oblivious of – and the issue of just how many random violent crimes might be related to SSRIs.
What I do not actually see in the above SMC comments is anyone disputing the main body of the report – what they cannot take is anyone talking about it at all. But to accept that SMC should control the public discussion – and no doubt most journalists will be duly intimidated – is infantile and ultimately dangerous.
David,
I am a 69 year old retired Psychiatrist.
From the information that’s publically accessible about this case he seems to suffer from a schizophrenic illness. The symptoms are typical of the hebephrenic /dementia praecox/ disorganised schizophrenia.
As regards the role of SSRI’s in influencing his behaviour, is there any evidence that he was taking them, particularly around the time of the killings? Unless his medication administration was being well supervised, the chance of him complying was zero.
I know you provided a report on him. Are you able to share any relevant details to the above?
Gill
He does not in my opinion have schizophrenia. See the post on RxISK about this. I am happy he took the meds as prescribed.
David
“I am happy he took the meds as prescribed” — in “American” this would mean, “Oh, I am so glad that James took his pills as prescribed!”
In “UK” does this translate as “James really did take his pills as prescribed–I am satisfied that this is true” ? (confused Yank)
It’s hard for me to see how someone with “hebephrenic, disorganized schizophrenia” could win admission to a highly competitive graduate school of neuroscience, and complete the first year. I think some “experts” have tried to re-interpret his earlier introversion and social anxiety as “negative symptoms of schizophrenia,” but this seems entirely bogus. He was a shy, anxious nerd perhaps, but one whose conduct did not worry parents, teachers or friends.
One of the strangest, saddest things about this case: James Holmes was in a small, elite grad-school program, surrounded every day by psychiatrists and leading neuroscience researchers. In retrospect they all would like to say he had a longstanding, severe mental illness. But at the time not one of them could spot it. Including the top-notch academic teaching hospital department of psychiatry to whom he turned for help? The ones who prescribed the sertraline, and escalated his dose to 150 mg? Have any of them ever experienced a microsecond of humility, contemplating that fact?
No – it means my view is that he took his meds.
David
Thanks for your reply. The fact that he was studying neurochemistry may well have made him more compliant with his medication. How do explain the fact that some of the psychotic symptoms (e.g. the neologism of “freezing” and bizarre thoughts re nuclear weapons) were present before he was prescribed Sertraline? I am aware that we only have got snippets of information through the media. You have seen more extensive documentation.
Gil
There was almost nothing abnormal in JH prior to treatment. There was a certain geekiness. The key thing was not just the change in thoughts after the drug was started but the change in the way his thoughts were held along with a lack of concern about the conequences.
DH
I spent countless hours digging through media reports from the trial period and also from the time of the crime. Of note is that the psychiatrist’s sordid past was widely reported at the time of the crimes but not a single pixel on the topic could be found in 2015. In fact you don’t fund anything until you force Google to search news per se, not the whole web, and direct it to the period right after the crime.
I also had information from student-journalists (online) at the university that differs from what was reported in the Panorama show. I don’t know how to verify it, the the UC students state that his last prescription of sertraline was for 45 pills, not 30, which would have taken him to just days before the crime, assuming he took pill #1 the day he filled the prescription and didn’t skip any days.
It looked to me like even our dear friend Jeffrey Lieberman stuck his nose in, by allowing a respectable publication to print his opinion of Holmes’s mental status….just before some jurors were fired for exposure to media reports…
The psychiatrist he had was awful, and her expert friend who missed also the true extent of the danger that was Holmes…he was worse, and considering his field of study…it plays like cheesy fiction…
The defense was weak on psychiatry, and their best witness blew her chance.
“Holmes’s Untouchable Drug-Dealing Shrink”
subtitled
“Colorado, Take her License.”
http://wp.me/p6r8oJ-lf
What we have here is basically a power-struggle and information war. Organizations like Sense About Science want to control public opinion, they want to influence or control the consensus, or maybe they want to be the consensus itself. Either way, this a very dangerous development (however not as powerful as it thinks). The fact that they had prepared these statements well in advance, before they had even seen the programme indicates that they saw the programme as a threat that needed to be nullified before it grew legs. The internet is an information wild west though, and they cant control what people say, think, or express, on it-particularly on social media- twitter/blogs/facebook etc. They can influence mainstream opinion (such as trotting out ex Royal College Of Psychiatrist’s head- Sir Simon Wessely) on to undermine people like Kirk Brandon on BBC’s ‘Victoria Derbyshire’ show, or they can call on the MHRA to back them up with statements about SSRI’s, etc- but they cannot control the information itself. Personally, I think there are more compelling cases than James Holmes, in regards to SSRI’s and violence/homicide, however, now that the ‘cat is out of the bag’ with this documentary, the public will ‘google’ and will see that the Holmes case is one of many thousands of instances of SSRI induced harm/behavioral changes etc. This documentary will no doubt educate and inform many thousands of people about the potential dangers on SSRI’s, and in their internet searches they will come across blogs, and forums, which will further inform them of the corruption in psychiatry, the fraud of the Pharmaceutical industry, and all the other issues surrounding SSRI’s, and that can only be a good thing…
Wessely garners his supporters ..
They are up in arms … and in Spain ..
Simon Wessely Retweeted
Matt TurnerVerified account @MattTurner4L 21h21 hours ago
Ahead of the BBC Panorama documentary on antidepressants tonight – read my piece on them. Stand by every word.
Simon Wessely Retweeted
Dr Kate Lovett @DrKateLovett 2h2 hours ago
Storming ahead @wendyburn in today’s Thunderer “Stop this dangerous scaremongering over antidepressants” @rcpsych
Simon Wessely Retweeted
louis appleby @ProfLAppleby Jul 26
A media throwback: sensationalist, exploitative, not even new, with stigma & risk to patients collateral damage.
https://twitter.com/ProfLAppleby/status/890108330802282496
Truthman30 @Truthman30 12h12 hours ago
Replying to @ProfLAppleby
so glad that BBC decided to warn the public about the dangerous side effects of SSRI’s- because the psychs or Pharma won’t..
louis appleby @ProfLAppleby Jul 26
Replying to @mhtodaymag @andymcnicoll
Thanks, in Spain so I’ll miss this (& won’t be watching tonight). Glad you’re discussing it.
What now?
http://www.alltrials.net/news/alltrials-review-of-pharmaceutical-company-policies-on-clinical-trial-transparency/
Companies may now be conducting their business to a better standard than their published policies. In some cases we certainly hope so. We have created a page on AllTrials.net where companies can post these updates by emailing: alltrials@senseaboutscience.org.
ben goldacreVerified account @bengoldacre 23h23 hours ago
JOURNALISTS. We have an interesting paper and website on trials transparency launching tomorrow. E if interested ben.goldacre@phc.ox.ac.uk
JOURNALISTS. We have an interesting paper and website on trial transparency
GSK if interested
What is wrong with Wessely?
What has Wessely ever done to discuss, probe, investigate, listen and learn?
His anger is palpable and between them all, it is he who should be held up to account.
Why?
Because at one time he was involved in a huge skirmish over ME and received death threats for his stance.
He dropped it like a hot potato and immersed himself in veteran affairs rarely coming up for air about matters going on under his nose.
https://twitter.com/WesselyS
Simon Wessely @WesselyS 2h2 hours ago
Simon Wessely Retweeted louis appleby
So it’s a cautious welcome then @ProfLAppleby ? Seriously, you are right.
Simon Wessely Retweeted
louis appleby @ProfLAppleby 9h9 hours ago
louis appleby Retweeted The Mental Elf
In case @BBCPanorama mistake twitter outrage for success, need to make clear prog was harmful, reckless, unscientific, unbalanced & wrong.
Wessely has been promising/threatening to leave the ME area for years, yet he continues to be involved in the area (he was an advisor to the infamous PACE Trial http://www.virology.ws/mecfs/ ).
I think it is very possible that he got a relative handful of very nasty emails, not necessarily from patients, but it is part of his modus operandi to paint himself as an abuse victim and to give a misleading impression of ME/CFS patients as crazed hysterics. I think that this is so that people will not look into the actual issues further, and just satisfy themselves that he is on the side of right. Unfortunately this tactic has worked very well and was lapped up by journalists and others.
This is an interesting open letter from someone in the House of Lords who he tried to tar with the same brush (because she dared to ask questions. To these people questions are harassment).
“I note from recent correspondence arising from the report in the Independent on Sunday on 25 November 2012, that you believe me as guilty of harassing you. Perhaps it is not surprising that I regard this belief with something less than amusement….Patients must be able to trust doctors and scientists. You have betrayed this trust. A scientist should be able to accept honest criticism. You have misconstrued criticism and turned it into harassment. You have much to answer for, so it ill behoves you to employ diversionary tactics in an attempt to portray yourself as the injured party.” http://www.investinme.org/Article-395a%20Letter%20from%20Lady%20Mar%20to%20SWessel.htm
The science media centre promoted the storyline of poor “scientists” abused by crazy patients storyline http://www.virology.ws/2016/02/01/trial-by-error-continued-a-few-words-about-harassment/ and from a blog from the Centre For Welfare Reform (note, FOI requests get classified as “harassment” by some researchers who don’t seem to like the idea of anyone critically viewing their work) :
“Partly as a result of a prolonged media campaign, those ME/CFS patients who are concerned about the behaviour and quality of work of some of those researching their condition have faced a routinely stigmatising portrayal within the UK media.[2,10,13-26] Minutes from a 2013 meeting held at the Science Media Centre, an organisation that played an important role in promoting misleading claims about the PACE trial to the UK media, show these CFS researchers deciding that “harassment is most damaging in the form of vexatious FOIs [Freedom of Information requests]”.[13,16, 27-31]” http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/major-breaktn-pace-trial/00296.html
There was an attempt to use the crazy harassing patients story to stop data from being released from the PACE Trial (Wessely wasn’t a lead in this trial, but was an advisor to it and colleagues were involved in the trial). It didn’t work this time. Sorry I don’t have the energy to summarise the saga properly but this is a comment from the Centre for Welfare Reform which quotes the ruling by a Tribunal which ordered the release of data:
A summary of the Information Commissioner’s submission argued that: “Professor Anderson’s ‘wild speculations’ about the possibility of ‘young men, borderline sociopathic or psychopathic’ attaching themselves to the PACE trial criticism ‘do him no credit’. Nor do his extrapolations from benign Twitter requests for information to an ‘organised campaign’ from an ‘adversarial group’ show that he has maintained the necessary objectivity and accuracy that he is required to maintain.”[1] The Tribunal’s majority verdict went on to conclude that: “It was clear that [Anderson’s] assessment of activist behaviour was, in our view, grossly exaggerated and the only actual evidence was that an individual at a seminar had heckled Professor Chalder.” Of Chalder’s testimony, the Information Commissioner reported that “she accepts that unpleasant things have been said to and about PACE researchers only, but that no threats have been made either to researchers or participants. The highest she could put it was that some participants stated that they had been made to feel “uncomfortable” as a result of their contact with and treatment from her, not because of their participation in the trial per se.” [emphasis in original][1] http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/major-breaktn-pace-trial/00296.html
This is a little more from the Centre For Welfare Reform:
The other two examples of harassment provided were “complaints” and “House of Lords debates”.[13] It is questionable whether such acts should be considered forms of harassment. One of the agreed action points from this meeting was to “collect evidence about the impact of harassment e.g. dealing with requests eats into research time. Feed into debate about misuse of the FOI Act”. The government recently declined to exempt university researchers from the Freedom of Information Act in the way that PACE trial researchers had campaigned for, and it seems that the evidence of harassment collected was not sufficient for the Tribunal either.[1] http://www.centreforwelfarereform.org/news/major-breaktn-pace-trial/00296.html
The latest in the ongoing PACE Trial saga is an attempt to stop publication of a journal which contained mostly critical commentaries on the PACE Trial (I don’t know who tried to stop it. Simon Wessely denies it was him, and I don’t think he would risk a direct lie like this so it is more than likely someone else): https://twitter.com/newhealthpsych/status/891379622750846977
The Science Media Centre can’t resist taking another jab at ME/CFS patients, this time because they opposed a trial of a quack treatment Lightening Process (sometimes called a “training progamme, which got them nicely around some potential legal pitfalls), on children. (more about this ridiculous “therapy” below)
There is to be a press conference on Wednesday about this trial which was carried out on children. The person leading the trial has a history of producing extremely poor quality research on ME. She has been sitting on the results of this trial for ages so, I think the publication might be due to the pressure that was on her to release the information? Or maybe she had to submit it to a lot of journals before she found one of poor quality enough to accept it?
I am a bit surprised that they are going to the trouble of a press conference, for such a study, but I imagine the leading light of the study likes to self-promote tirelessly.
The Science Media Centre have issued a news briefing, which includes this statement (the press release had an embargo til Wednesday, but it has been broken on the internet by someone critical of the trial. I am not sure if you are happy to have this quote here so you can remove it if you want):
“Researchers decided to test the robustness of this treatment so, despite activists trying to stop them, they ran its first ever trial”
Ahh those pesky “anti-science” patients again. The Science Media Centre likes to present itself as pro-science, yet they are undermining legitimate questions put by people who thought this trial (of a quack therapy) was potentially harmful to children.
These were some of the points raised by objectors:
Main Issues of Concern
1. There was no sound justification for conducting this research on
children before its safety and effectiveness had been assessed in adults.
2. The Lightning Process is advertised as a non-medical tool and the
LP practitioners are not medically qualified, yet the PI claimed that
this was a study of treatment for ME/CFS.
3. In Q2 of the study application form, the lead researcher (Dr. Esther Crawley) did not declare this to be a clinical trial, yet the children were to undergo the Lightning Process as part of the feasibility study.
4. Dr. Esther Crawley claimed that it was necessary to assess
the safety and effectiveness of the Lightning Process, yet in QA22, she replied, “We do not believe there are any risks of being part of this study.”
Minutes of the SW ethics committee meeting (10) show that Dr. Esther Crawley was aware there are risks to patients from doing the Lightning Process.
5. The trial participants were denied their right to give informed consent
to take part in the research, in breach of the Declaration of Helsinki.
6. Child Protection concerns regarding risk to the trial participants mental and physical health; and the Lightning Process research collaborators were trading in breach of Advertising & Trading regulations.
https://frownatsmile.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/smile-trial-summary-of-concerns/
This “treatment” is beyond ridiculous. Basically lifting ideas from Neuro-linguistic programming and selling it at a high price (approx £600 a go for a weekend course). There are accounts of it here http://www.sayer.abel.co.uk/MESNORFOLK/LP.html
It is high-risk for patients as it encourages them to ignore and push through symptoms, so bad relapses can occur. Patients can also blame themselves when it doesn’t work (as they are told it works if you do it properly). This could be psychologically damaging to children in particular.
It is part of the treatment to say you are better even if you are not, so patient reports of recovery (without corresponding objective evidence of an increase in activity, for example) is totally unreliable. Patients are basically told it is their fault if it doesn’t work, or if they are being “negative” about the treatment or their symptoms. As far as I know this trial is going to rely on questionnaire-based results and not objective markers, which is usually the modus operandi of the Biopsychosocial school when it comes to ME/CFS.
The Lightening Process practitioners had rulings against them by the Advertising Standards Authority (both in Ireland and the UK) over unsubstantiated claims they were making about LP.
I wonder what tack the SMC is going to take on this trial? I can’t imagine that even the SMC will stoop low enough to promote this quack treatment, so whatever way the results were written up I can’t see they will be over-positive about the Lightening Process, yet they also will not want to say that this trial was a waste of time and money and put children at risk. The lead researchers is a “one size fits all” CBT and GET promoter for ME/CFS so I can’t imagine her being overly positive about LP either, as that is not where her interests lie. My guess is somehow this will be spun as a victory for CBT over LP, that they learned more about the mind-body interaction in the trial, but that we need more CBT trials in children, and please give us more money to run more stupid studies.
Apologies for replying again to my own post, but I am a bit shocked. They are billing this ridiculous therapy, the Lightning Process, as a successful treatment. It was an unblinded trial, relying on questionnaire-based results, involving a treatment that it is part of it to say that you are better even if you are not. A new low for the Science Media Centre to be promoting this nonsense (they had a press conference earlier today, the embargo was until today at 11.30pm so news reports coming out now).
Phil Parker, who “invented” the Lightning Process (i.e. re-packaged and branded NLP as the Lightning Process) seems to think that he is psychic and can enter other people’s bodies! (second-hand account here admitedly, but hilarious): https://twitter.com/maxwhd/status/909932330571231234
I’d love to think this was the beginning of the end for the SMC, as how will any “skeptics”, or pro-science people, support them now? Anyone can see, if they look into what LP is, that it is rubbish. But then the establishment has a grip of an octopus so we could be seeing trash like this produced for years. I did hear that at least one journal rejected the paper, but how on earth did it ever get published at all?
The guardian, egged on by the Science Media Centre press release presumably, and lead “researcher” Esther Crawley, cannot resist having a go at patient “activists” who they paint as anti-science. Esther Crawley is calling for more research, more money for herself no doubt. She is an astonishing self-promoter, I will give her that. BBC looks like it will give this a positive spin also.
The prevalance figure they give is ridiculously over-inflated, 1% of school children with ME? I’d eat my hat if that were true. Esther Crawley has previous for conflating ME/CFS with Fatigue (some of which could be amenable to simple lifestyle changes).
I will just go now and shout stop at myself until I release all my negative thoughts 😉 Apologies if I am banging on about this a bit, but this might turn out to be of some use in undermining the SMC.
Professionalisation
Strategies to secure public acquiescence with the claim for professional status have largely made through appeals to science and reason, according to the biomedical model.At the same time, the knowledge must retain a level of opacity and mystique as to render it inaccessible to others.The development of professional power does not rest only on securing rights over knowledge and practice -it is also crucially based on the interactive relationship such as trust.They have no empirical support, so I don’t trust their opinions.Dr Corry exposed the ignorance of 8 professors on Monday 19 October, The Irish Times published a letter from eight psychiatrists, professors of psychiatry who lead the teaching departments in the subject.The eight professors denied that antidepressant use is connected to homicidal acts, they were careful, to use the word cause rather than link.when all eight accused Dr Corry of stating definitely cause antidepressants homicide.Ignorance among the eight professors who control the teaching is not just deplorable it is appalling it is dangerous.My life is equally precious as any other person. I question everything and continuing learning my plan I simply go to the local bookshop or library and obtain books on the subject that has always interesting me and give myself time to read.Life is for learning the brain does improve with age if it is fed and nurtured properly.
JOURNALISTS. Peter Hitchens to the Rescue Remedy … and the story of ‘our times’ ..
27 July 2017 2:55 PM
How to be a Scaremonger – Reflections on BBC Panorama’s study of the Aurora mass murders
So far, the only response I have seen to the BBC’s Panorama programme on James Holmes, the Colorado mass killer, is an article in The Times of London, behind a paywall, accusing the programme of ‘scaremongering’.
The author is a senior British psychiatrist, Professor Wendy Burn, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
Yet when I call for an inquiry into this increasingly worrying correlation, I am invariably attacked angrily. Why? Because cannabis, antidepressants and steroids are now so widely taken, in some cases by quite influential people, that each drug has a powerful lobby fearful of what such an inquiry might conclude. That is all the more reason to hold that inquiry.
One of those interviewed was Professor David Healy, and you would be well advised to read this astonishing account of what has happened to him because of his sceptical stance on the subject of SSRIs
wendy burn Retweeted
The Times of LondonVerified account @thetimes 14h14 hours ago
Stop this dangerous scaremongering over antidepressants, writes @wendyburn http://thetim.es/2vMr8YA
https://twitter.com/thetimes/status/890598916428886016
Leonie
https://leoniesblog.com/2017/07/28/bbcpanoramaa-prescription-for-murder/
Sertraline, the SSRI that James Holmes was prescribed, is sold under the brand names of Lustral in Europe and Zoloft in the U.S. It was interesting to hear Delnora Duprey speaking on the programme; In 2001, three weeks after he was prescribed sertraline, Delnora’s grandson Christopher Pittman shot and killed both of his paternal grandparents. Then there was David Carmichael, whose account of his time on Paroxetine (Seroxat/Paxil), leading to the death of his young son, is equally harrowing.
Since their inception and without exception, all the SSRI drugs have been implicated in suicides and extreme violence, including homicide.
Useful information
https://leoniesblog.com/shane-clancy-ssri-suicide-violence/
Panoroma ..
https://twitter.com/rcpsych/status/890887620041068544
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES
By Professor Wendy Burn
Updated July 28, 2017 09:08 BST
A Prescription for Murder? BBC Panoroma just set mental health journalism back decades
http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/prescription-murder-bbc-panoroma-just-set-mental-health-journalism-back-decades-1632322?utm_campaign=/prescription-murder-bbc-panoroma-just-set-mental-health-journalism-back-decades-1632322
Panoroma just set mental health journalism back decades
When they can’t even spell Panorama correctly, you might as well not bother to read the non sense ..
“That duty of care is at risk when people are told that the lifesaving drugs they are on might make them prone to murder.”
Come on, Ms Burn, this was an investigation about one person who nearly had the death penalty and who is serving several life sentences in solitary confinement.
He was extremely fortunate to have a BBC programme made about him.
You are going to be a huge hindrance to patients when you tell them they might be prone to murder
Nobody else said that, just you ..
We looked at the clinical trial transparency ..
https://twitter.com/GSK
GSK Retweeted
Sense about Science @senseaboutsci 2h2 hours ago
We looked at the clinical trial transparency policies of the world’s largest pharma companies @bmj_latest #AllTrials http://bit.ly/2eTr0Cj
GSK Retweeted
ben goldacreVerified account @bengoldacre 5h5 hours ago
ben goldacre Retweeted The BMJ
OUR NEW PAPER. How do pharma companies transparency policies compare? #AllTrials Data at http://policyaudit.alltrials.net
One thing I have encountered with people on SSRIs (who are quite devoted to them) are obviously diminished inhibitions: people behaving in socially aggressive and often rather unacceptable ways (of course, well short of murder). In these cases it was evident that medication was making life more tolerable for them but not necessarily for anyone else. To emphasise, I am talking about nothing which was remotely criminal yet the diminution of inhibition could – if this is the way they work – on similar principles easily lead to actual criminal behaviour. They certainly led to loss of judgment.
Excellent observation.
Very little is ever discussed about the SSRI’s dis-inhibiting side effects, yet it is these side effects that often cause a lot of problems for many people. I was certainly disinhibited on Seroxat, I went from shy to extroverted in a space of a few months, however my behavior and personality changed negatively. It was my ‘nature’ to be shy, not extroverted, and this personality change was not suited to me. I caused myself a lot of embarrassment in my young years on Seroxat, and the shame in how these drugs change our personalities, and the regret many SSRI users feel because of it, is another topic that is not often discussed. SSRI’s can also cause people to behave impulsively, the fear of consequence is often removed along with the dis-inhibition. SSRI’s also cause mood swings, volatility, and aggression at times, therefore you can imagine the combination of these side effects in an already disturbed mind like that of James Holmes. Not everyone will murder on an SSRI, but some will, even if that’s a tiny minority, it’s something that people should be warned about.
To add, I am writing anonymously to protect other people’s identities but also as just an ordinary citizen with random experience of people on SSRIs – as neither a relation or a professional. Additionally, I have known two people on SSRIs who committed suicide, so the drugs certainly did not help them even if they did not necessarily contribute to the cause. I can think of only one person who told me they were taking them who was behaving in outwardly normal way. Obviously many people might be taking them that one encounters without them revealing it, and perhaps the people who mention it form an interesting subset.
Nevertheless, I wonder how many other ordinary citizens could make similar observations from their circle of acquaintances?
“ceaseless turmoil seething”
http://blogs.sciencemag.org/pipeline/archives/2017/07/28/gsk-rearranges-once-more
Anyone for cricket ..
Simon Wessely Retweeted
Lancet PsychiatryVerified account @TheLancetPsych Jul 28
Panorama’s prescription: @ParianteSPILab’s review of “A Prescription for Murder?”
http://www.thelancet.com/pb-assets/Lancet/pdfs/S2215036617303127.pdf …
Simon Wessely @WesselyS 2h2 hours ago
Just seen Ben Stokes become second England cricketer to hit 3 successive sixes in a test. First was Wally Hammond in 1933. I missed that
7:21 AM – 28 Jul 2017
When the tough gets going, head off to the Oval ..
Do-over
July 30, 2017
Reed Smith Widow Fires Back At GSK Bid For New Trial
https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2017/07/30/reed-smith-widow-fires-back-at-gsk-bid-for-new-trial/
Law360, New York (July 17, 2017, 8:40 PM EDT) — The widow of a Reed Smith LLP attorney who died after taking a generic form of one of GlaxoSmithKline’s antidepressant drugs has blasted the company’s bid for a new trial, saying the company’s arguments for a do-over ignore evidence that does not fit its narrative.
hitchensblog
The BBC’s Panorama programme was attacked last week by the President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists for alleged ‘scaremongering’. Why?
http://hitchensblog.mailonsunday.co.uk/
The BBC has grim doubts about ‘happy pills’
This gripping, tragic and carefully researched piece of work explored the mass murder of 12 people in a Colorado cinema, five years ago. It found that the killer – previously a shy, peaceable and awkward student – had undergone a huge personality change after being prescribed increasing doses of ‘antidepressant’ pills.
He suddenly became a gun enthusiast, his academic work went down the drain. He dyed his hair orange. He began making crude sexual remarks to women.
Now, varying personality changes are not all that uncommon in people who are prescribed these pills, as any careful reader of the newspapers will know. Sometimes they are mild, sometimes they are large. But they do suggest a problem that needs addressing.
The programme was careful not to say the pills caused the murders. How could we know? Proving that A caused B is, oddly enough, one of the most difficult tasks in science. But this is by no means the only case of a person taking ‘antidepressants’ going very badly off the rails.
Add to that the discovery a few years ago that the pill companies had (quite legally) suppressed their own research, showing their products were not as effective as claimed, and what do you have? You have a case for a thorough inquiry into the whole thing. It is not ‘scaremongering’ to ask for one and I’m very glad Panorama has brought this important subject right into the mainstream of debate.
Of course, one of the biggest conflicts is just simply prescribing the products. It is very odd when one considers the reaction of the professionals. It was abundantly clear in the documentary about the Holmes case that the medicine was not only wrongly prescribed, the dose kept on being upped. The prosecution expert made an unwarranted claim that the “side-effects” would have worn off by the time Holmes committed the crime. But most professionals who have pronounced just seem concerned not to have the matter discussed at all rather than admit the products are potentially hazardous, could cause hideous crimes, the causes of which are then covered up in the courts. Meanwhile, the prescribing doctor walks away smelling like a rose.
If the professionals showed a little concern about what happened they might look a whole lot better, but basically for those that have pronounced it is question of not talking about the elephant in the room. As a class they don’t give a good account of themselves if they play it this way.
Isn’t it interesting that if the care-givers (the psychiatrists) show concern for patients possibly having these scary side effects it undermine the power/status if the ‘care-giver’ (admitting problems with the ‘treatment”). Therefore, ironically, instead of showing concern- the psychiatrist- ignored, denies and obfusticates- the issues thus causing harm to the patient (whose vulnerable well being is the responsibility of the care-giver).
What a sad, tragic, and pathetic state of affairs…
In the end I fear it is about all about status and fear of exposure: the powerful are always weak – and they always hate the truth.
The response is that of a class with zero moral compass, fearful that they might be held responsible for misprescription if the conversation ever took place. That is the only sense I can make of it.
Response by reporter, Shelley Jofre, to feedback to a Prescription for Murder?
https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=980060275467799&id=647687225371774
“We believe it is in the public interest to talk about this openly and that, in doing so, it may prevent future tragedies.”
Leonie Retweeted
Shelley Jofre @ShelleyJofre 4h4 hours ago
Thanks for the feedback on last week’s @BBCPanorama which I read carefully. Can’t reply to all, response here: https://m.facebook.com/story.php?story_fbid=980060275467799&id=647687225371774 …
Simon Wessely @WesselyS 7h7 hours ago
Simon Wessely Retweeted Michael Farrell
Extraordinarily good reporting from @David_Dobbs about the latest career move from the fascinating Tom Insel
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2017/07/the-smartphone-psychiatrist/528726/
The Smartphone Psychiatrist
Frustrated by the failures in his field, Tom Insel, a former director of the National Institute of Mental Health, is now trying to reduce the world’s anguish through the devices in people’s pockets.
https://twitter.com/MichaelFarrellE/status/891622770341171202
Ian Hamilton @ian_hamilton_ 8h8 hours ago
Replying to @MichaelFarrellE
“Our house is on fire,” the man said, “and you’re telling us about the chemistry of the paint. We need someone to focus on the fire.”
Regarding Insel
http://www.ageofautism.com/2015/09/if-the-iacc-had-met-it-would-have-to-consider-the-cdc-whistleblower.html
We all have our priorities.
“Ruling institutions—the state, the press, the church, the courts, academia—mouth the language of morality, but they serve the structures of power, no matter how venal, which provide them with money, status and authority. In times of national distress—one has only to look at Nazi Germany—all of these institutions, including the academy, are complicit through their silence or their active collaboration with radical evil. And our own institutions, which have surrendered to corporate power and the utopian ideology of neoliberalism, are no different. The lonely individuals who defy tyrannical power within these institutions, as we saw with the thousands of academics who were fired from their jobs and blacklisted during the McCarthy era, are purged and turned into pariahs.”
“…a life dedicated to resistance has to accept that a relationship with any institution is often temporary, because sooner or later that institution is going to demand acts of silence or obedience your conscience will not allow you to make. To be a rebel is to reject what it means to succeed in a capitalist, consumer culture, especially the idea that we should always come first…”
“To resist radical evil is to endure a life that by the standards of the wider society is a failure. It is to defy injustice at the cost of your career, your reputation, your financial solvency and at times your life. It is to be a lifelong heretic. And, perhaps this is the most important point, it is to accept that the dominant culture, even the liberal elites, will push you to the margins and attempt to discredit not only what you do, but your character.”
Chris Hedges, talk given at Princeton University, April 2017:
http://www.truthdig.com/report/print/the_price_of_resistance_20170417
This is brilliant Laurie, thank you!
It reminds me of my father. He was a manic depressive, okay till he had major experimental heart surgery in 1940. He was an engineer, and by the age of 57 was no longer a locomotive designer but was relegated to caravans and their structure. He was unhappy about fire safety of particular caravans due to a kind of internal insulation skin (quite interesting now in the light of Grenfelk Tower). His company had this juicy contract with the National Caravan Council, all he had to do was sign off the safety certificates and all would be fine. Except he knew it wouldn’t. He was worried and he raised his concerns. The company he worked for insisted he sign and ‘pass’ approval. He wouldn’t. There was a stand off. He worked in an office overlooking Finsbury Square in London. Harassed constantly, in the end, still refusing to sign, he threw all the papers out of the windows and they fluttered all the way down to land on the red buses driving round Finsbury Square.
My father was ‘offered’ compulsory retirement. He was about to get his pension in 3 years’ time. He lost most of that. His manic depression was cited as a reason for his ‘unruly behaviour’. And it may have contributed, but the basis of it was that he stood out on principle. He couldn’t sign off as safe something that might have killed people. And he did this kind of thing all his life. So where did honesty begin and where was manic depression in all this? The family of course suffered financially, and cussed a bit, but was he right or was he wrong? At least he could live with himself. How can Big Pharma live with themselves? Maybe we need a few manic depressive folks in Big Pharma, who’d have the guts to stand up for what they know is right, without fear of consequences…..
Living in truth exposes the corruption, lies and deceit of the state. It is a refusal to be a part of the charade.
Great, Laurie!
Simon Wessely @WesselyS 37m37 minutes ago
Replying to @rcpsych
Quick correction – for all mental health problems. We certainly can for some
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 31m31 minutes ago
.@WesselyS “People always think that the world today is worse than in the past, but we can’t blame societal issues for MH problems.”
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 34m34 minutes ago
Speaking to @LBC, @WesselyS says: “Psychiatrists can make incredible differences to the lives of people. It’s a truly wonderful career.”
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 35m35 minutes ago
.
@WesselyS: “Working in mental health is a really great career. People should be inspired to think: Yes! This is something I could do!” #LBC
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 37m37 minutes ago
.@WesselyS tells @LBC “At the severe end of the MH disorder spectrum you expect to see a consultant. But current demand exceeds supply.”
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 46m46 minutes ago
Tune in to @LBC now to hear @WesselyS commenting on today’s #mentalhealth workforce announcement.
Quick correction – for all mental health problems people should be inspired to think:
Yes! This is something I could do!
Honey I shrink the shrunks ..
“I have a record for making things happen so it’s got to happen.”
https://www.mentalhealthtoday.co.uk/im-determined-to-make-it-happen
“It will be good for all doctors to be a bit more interested in people .. W. Burn ..
Tough decisions ..
GSKVerified account @GSK 54m54 minutes ago
What are the 3 ingredients for making tough decisions? Lessons from inside & outside the lab: http://gsk.to/2vaEoZx #MondayMotivation
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/three-steps-making-tough-decisions-paul-peter-tak
“Some projects can be halted before large numbers of patients are exposed to a medicine that is unlikely to have a transformational effect.”
I recollect a similar decision-making-process in Toronto ..
Laurie that is one of the best articles I have ever read. Everything in it is so very, very true.
Totally agree.
How much do Wendy Burn and Carmine Pariante profess to know about antidepressant and busting myths?
Want to know the facts behind #antidepressants? Join our psychiatrists in the #ADsMythBuster discussion Thursday 3 August 6-7PM.
The Questions are mounting up ..
For example
https://twitter.com/rcpsych/status/892072481833578497
https://twitter.com/hashtag/ADsMythBuster?src=hash
Q: Is three years between reviews rather slow?
© October 2014. Due for review: October 2017.
They have a copyright on a page with myths
For example
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/healthadvice/treatmentswellbeing/antidepressants/comingoffantidepressants.aspx
If you’re so on the ball, how does this have myths in it?
“mumble and speak too quickly”
British Journal of *General* Practice
http://bjgp.org/content/67/661/363
And where are the doctors supporting this petition? But, more importantly, where are those specialists who have repeatedly berated GPs for under-diagnosis and under-treatment of conditions like depression and pain?
In any other industry there would be howls for a public inquiry, a criminal investigation, and corporate manslaughter charges.
If you look closely …
http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PetitionAllSignatures.aspx?PetitionID=2845
This petition has been submitted on behalf of Recovery and Renewal independent self-help patient group in Scotland, to raise awareness of the plight of individuals in Scotland who are affected by dependence on and withdrawal from prescribed benzodiazepines and antidepressants – and specifically to ask the Scottish Government to support the BMA’s UK-wide call for action to provide timely and appropriate support for individuals affected. Please do add your own comments if you wish to.
http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01651
@RxISK 1h1 hour ago
Our ‘experts’ will be responding ..
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 3h3 hours ago
We appreciate all of your #ADsMythBuster questions. Our experts will be responding to them this Thursday from 6PM.
https://twitter.com/jf_moore/status/892405433998213120
James Moore @jf_moore 3h3 hours ago
Replying to @rcpsych
It’s going to be quite a task for you getting through all of the questions, I am very much looking forward to this. #adsmythbuster
As a patient with ME/CFS who has problems with all SSRIs due to chemical sensitivities (I have tried fluoxetine, paroxetine, citalopram, escitalopram, sertraline and even citalopram in liquid form so I could attempt to take it in minute doses – all with very adverse effects) the information that jumped out at me during the Panorama programme “Prescription for Murder” was the fact that James had suffered a bout of Glandular Fever prior to the onset of his psychological decline. Glandular Fever is a frequent trigger for ME/CFS (my own case included) together with the type of allergy that is often present in the condition. With the apparent associations between ME./CFS and autism (I have a relative with Asperger’s Syndrome) and James’ early social difficulties, is it possible that he already had a predisposition to this kind of problem including associated factors – for example glutathione depletion and methylation cycle problems, and already had a sensitivity to this type of drug as a result which then produced a heightened immune response affecting the brain post Glandular Fever?
Dear MEpatient,
I think you’ve hit on something very interesting here. Yes, glandular fever is often thought of as a predisposition to ME. Our son, when 9, was drenched in gramoxon, from an overhead crop spraying plane. He got what the Bronglais Hospital paediatric consultant at the time said was typical ME. This was also confirmed by Dr Bob Davies, an expert on sheep dip (organo-phosphate) damage when he was 16 and having problems still with ‘fuzzy brain’ – a spaced out kind of feeling scoffed away by our GP at the time. Dr Davies said the brain would find other pathways for memory to work. But that because of acetylcholine problems, our son should never have anti-depressants as he could be made suicidal by them, because of this. Farmers with sheep dippers flu (damage from the dip) often died by suicide, suddenly. We campaigned at the time with peers in the House of Lords to get OPs removed from sheep dip and it eventually was. Some might argue that it was cheaper before, but we felt on balance it was preferable to have a bigger bill than go off your head and possibly die.
When our son reacted with ‘low mood’to RoAccutane-isotretinoin for his severe acne, as so many people do, he was given Seroxat SSRI and quickly became almost psychotic. As parents we protested to his treating psychiatrist, who wasn’t interested in Dr Bob Davies’ report, in fact he poo pooed it, refused to read it, and also rubbished our opinions on how RoAccutane had caused our previously normally behaved son, to manifest suicidal thoughts and OCD.
As the years passed, our son managed to function reasonably well, with interludes of low mood, and strange quietness and sadness whenever he was given another course of RoAccutane, over an 11 year period. He also suffered recurrences of ‘foggy brain’, memory struggles, and ME type weariness physically. He was however gifted, ambitious and determined. He’d been like that since he first learnt to walk. 🙂 But after some Escilatopram in 2010/11 he began to seriously decline and life became a much greater struggle. He decided to sell his very lucrative IT business and began building himself a live/work studio next door to his old family home. He was aiming to get the work pressure down and devote himself to plant photography which he loved doing, and which he published and sold well. But when getting unnaturally tired and low, due to work and other stresses, whilst he was trying to complete these new plans, he unfortunately asked for psychiatric help and was totally misunderstood. No one would listen when we tried to explain about the ME and organo phosphate acetylcholine damage.
So, when we look at what Sertraline did to James Holmes, after glandular fever, and what Seroxat did to our son, with underlying ME, and even at the end, when our son took his own life in terrible head pain, he too had been on Sertraline 200mg for just a very few weeks, if that, – I think you raise a new and very interesting possible connection. Should it perhaps be looked at further? A lot of ME patients are given antidepressants. But isn’t ME thought to have an effect on the outer covering of cells? Could this mean that adverse effects of SSRIs might be more aggressive when taken by ME patients?
Sertraline can cause homicide in perfectly healthy peoplw who have never had glandular fever or any other infection
DH
DH
Yes, totally see that, but MEpatient’s point, echoed by mine, is that maybe certain factors could exist in a person’s physical/neurological historical make up that predispose them to adverse effects from these SSRIs.
You say that you yourself use SSRIs in situations where you feel they should be helpful. I expect our son’s first psychiatrist put him on Seroxat with equally good intentions. However, had he looked at the holistic picture, the underlying ME, chemical sensitivities, asthma, and had there been good research to show (if such IS the case) that he was likely to react badly to SSRIs as he was already reacting badly to RoAccutane-isotretinoin, surely the outcome might have been different? Had he listened to the family when explaining about the history, (our son being totally unable to think straight and do this for himself, being seemingly psychotic at the time and obsessed with wanting to die) instead of telling us that ‘no one takes any notice of the PIL, it’s just about extreme cases.’ Our son WAS one of those ‘extreme’ cases but this was said to be ridiculous at the time.
The pattern of ‘not listening to the history’ went on, like a baton handed from one doctor to the next, down the ensuing 11 years, when the same mistakes were made, over and over. Dr Bob Davies was himself a psychiatrist (based in Taunton) specialising in people made ill by organo phosphate damage. His studies, done with another neurologist, were groundbreaking and saved lives. He listened. He used his intelligence, gave our son time to talk (when 16) and explained what could be causing his foggy brain and memory loss. He told him how to manage these problems, and he did. He knew that SSRIs were death to someone with Olly’s history and he warned him against ever taking them. Olly went on to achieve spectacular academic results at school and University despite the ME tiredness manifesting occasionally when he forgot to pace himself and keep the stress levels down. It was the introduction of RoAccutane-isotretinoin when he was 21 (having resisted it since he was 15) which changed his life, followed by SSRIs including Seroxat for the ‘low mood’ from the acne drug. The temporary psychosis thus triggered branded him ‘mentally ill’ from then on, and the history became apparently irrelevant. But we feel Dr Bob Davies was bang on the money. Sadly he died so couldn’t help us in later years.
This is surely all about ‘listening’, learning and then tailoring the use of medication to a patient’s medical history. We are all so different. I totally accept that Sertraline can cause what it did in James Holmes’ behaviour, and that it probably caused our son to plan his own death with calm precision and carry it out, but our son would probably never been given Sertraline if the history had been different and had our warnings of his vulnerability to these drugs been listened to and acted upon back in 2001/2.
Heather
It is about listening. No one should have to begin pleading glandular fever or anything else in order to be listened to. It should be the case that the view of the person and their family is taken into account and unless there are exceptional circumstances is viewed as being correct because the simple fact of the matter is these drugs are poisons out of whose use we try to bring good. Introducing glandular fever puts the blame where it doesn’t belong – on something other than the carelessness of the doctor or his forgetfulness of the fact that what he was doing was using a poison and this always carries has the risk of things going badly wrong even in absolutely normal people
DH
What really grinds me is how much help and support is offered to people that do well on them. When you have problems they shut the door in your face and your left alone. DUMPED AND FORGOTTEN.
Its OK for them to make comments on Twitter yet when I ask a question or try to show them the science that they keep on banging on about I get ignored.
Surely people like me are just as entitled to have our questions and concerns looked at and taking into account. We are entitled to an expert opinion from you too surely.
I have paid my Taxes and NI Stamp all my life yet I get ignored, dumped like a sack of rubbish and feel like an outsider when it comes to the Authority’s.
10 Myths
Psychiatry Gone Astray
January, 21, 2014 | 197 Comments
https://davidhealy.org/psychiatry-gone-astray/
How should we use psychotropic drugs?
I am not against using drugs, provided we know what we are doing and only use them in situations where they do more good than harm. Psychiatric drugs can be useful sometimes for some patients, especially in short-term treatment, in acute situations. But my studies in this area lead me to a very uncomfortable conclusion:
Our citizens would be far better off if we removed all the psychotropic drugs from the market, as doctors are unable to handle them. It is inescapable that their availability creates more harm than good. Psychiatrists should therefore do everything they can to treat as little as possible, in as short time as possible, or not at all, with psychotropic drugs.
wendy burn Retweeted
Sameer Jauhar @sameerjauhar 13h13 hours ago
Replying to @peterkinderman @wendyburn and 4 others
Prob not best person to quote! Cochrane grp nt impressed, major COI, scientifically dodgy. sensationalist, grabbing headlines.
wendy burn @wendyburn Jul 31
Replying to @ClinpsychLucy @DBDouble and 3 others
What we need is to know is more about what does or doesn’t happen in the brains of people with depression.
wendy burn @wendyburn Jul 31
Replying to @ClinpsychLucy @DBDouble and 3 others
What happens in your life affects your brain. We just don’t properly understand how.
Shelley Jofre @ShelleyJofre Jul 31
Replying to @wendyburn @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
Did you watch the film in the end? Were the patient experiences of any interest?
wendy burn @wendyburn Jul 31
Replying to @ShelleyJofre @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
Every patient experience is of interest but not a side effect I have seen in over 30 years clinical practice with thousands of patients.
Shelley Jofre @ShelleyJofre Jul 31
Replying to @wendyburn @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
Did you watch the film?
wendy burn @wendyburn Jul 31
Replying to @ShelleyJofre @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
Yes, on catch-up
Shelley Jofre @ShelleyJofre Jul 31
Replying to @wendyburn @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
Times piece written before you watched it then. More patients now describing homicidal thoughts only after taking SSRIs. Worth exploring?
wendy burn @wendyburn Jul 31
Replying to @ShelleyJofre @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
Watching it didn’t change my opinion. It was exactly what I had expected.
Shelley Jofre @ShelleyJofre Jul 31
Replying to @wendyburn @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
New patient experiences worth exploring?
wendy burn @wendyburn Jul 31
Replying to @ShelleyJofre @ClinpsychLucy and 3 others
What bothers me is that the stigma around mental illness means many people ashamed of taking antidepressants. This makes it worse.
wendy burn @wendyburn 17h17 hours ago
Replying to @StuartMcCarthy_ @RoseAnnieFlo and 3 others
Yes they are safe as long as monitored closely.
https://twitter.com/wendyburn/status/892503676891299842
Pally with Pariante is potentially away from your purpose .. whatever that is ..
Suicide rates rise sharply in Scotland
2nd August 2017 by Robert Armour 2 Comments
http://thirdforcenews.org.uk/tfn-news/suicide-rates-rise-sharply-in-scotland?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_content=Oktopost-twitter-profile&utm_campaign=Oktopost-2017-08+General+Campaign
2nd August 2017 by Marion Brown
The socio-economic factors are very important – but we are seeing another very prominent factor … and that is that medications such as prescribed antidepressants and anti-anxiety medicines can have utterly devastating side-effects and withdrawal effects, which can directly result in people becoming very deeply suicidal. I work with people who call Samaritans in intolerable distress and desperation – and their doctors do not acknowledge that their prescribed medicines are a huge factor. Sometimes suicide seems the only way to end relentless and unendurable suffering and torture of mind and body. We have Scottish Parliament Public Petition currently under consideration PE01651 ‘Prescribed Drugs Associated with Dependence and Withdrawal’
http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01651
2nd August 2017 by Fiona French
I wonder what role prescription drugs play in these statistics. We are regularly told how effective antidepressants are at preventing suicide. However, we rarely hear about the suicides caused by them and the dreadful impact withdrawal from such drugs can have on people’s health. I have wanted to die many times over the past few years due to withdrawal symptoms from a benzodiazepine and SSRI. I meet others online who feel the same. In fact we have been left with such a poor quality of life that we question whether it is worth continuing with it. Our doctors cannot help us and neither can anyone else it would seem. Our calls for a helpline and specialist services simply fall on deaf ears both at Westminster and Holyrood. I can only imagine our numbers will continue to grow given the unfettered prescribing rates of antidepressants. I have spent 3.5 years in bed and have brain damage. My central nervous system is severely compromised making it unlikely I could cope with any future medical treatment. The NHS has no tests for such damage. We are cast aside as collateral
damage.http://www.parliament.scot/GettingInvolved/Petitions/PE01651
Class acts both ..
Simon Wessely @WesselyS 1h1 hour ago
Simon Wessely Retweeted Becky Inkster
Thanks becky and a real privilege to share stage with Tom Insel and @TheLancetPsych Class acts both. #digitalmentalhealth2017
Simon’s Shoe .. or, Shoo ..
Blog about “Prescription for Murder” …
https://twitter.com/robgpoole/status/892288834460946432
Simon Wessely Retweeted
Rob Poole @robgpoole Aug 1
On being truthful & nuanced about mental health in an age that is turning its back on decency in public discourse
One step forward, two steps back
http://robgpoole.co.uk/one-step-forward-two-steps-back/
The programme makers’ opinion was clear: the antidepressant played a causal role in the tragedy. This was supported by two psychiatric experts, Professor David Healy and Professor Peter Tyrer. Healy has expressed similar views in TV programmes over many years. Tyrer is the former editor of the British Journal of Psychiatry and he was the 2015 recipient of the Royal College of Psychiatrists’ Lifetime Achievement Award.
Healy expressed absolute certainty that the massacre would not have happened if Holmes had not taken sertraline. Peter Tyrer appeared to be saying something slightly different, but seemed to broadly agree with Healy. I do not understand how either of them came to a firm position.
*The paper, which is fairly technical, is more convincing than the anecdote and opinion that the programme relied upon.*
http://journals.plos.org/plosmedicine/article?id=10.1371/journal.pmed.1001875
The programme could have arrived at similar but less sensational conclusions if Healy and Tyrer had been more cautious in their attribution of causality in Holmes’s case.
We have to rise to the challenge of informing the public about mental health in a way that is both truthful and sensitive, based on science, not on propaganda.
https://www.bing.com/videos/search?q=ghostbusters+back+off+i%2cm+a+scientist&view=detail&mid=41B829D2774E929055E241B829D2774E929055E2&FORM=VIRE
“Pill-shaming” helps no one ..
https://twitter.com/ParianteSPILab/status/893038791363108864
Chrys Muirhead @ChrysMuirhead 6h6 hours ago
Replying to @ParianteSPILab @wendyburn @rcpsych
fyi here is a blog post by Dr Peter Gordon re opinion piece by Dr Des Spence
@BJGPjournal #ADsMythBuster https://holeousia.com/2017/08/03/the-medical-untouchables/ …
https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/life/pill-shaming-helps-no-one-with-depression
“Depression can destroy lives. It can be visceral, eating away at the core of who you are, spreading like a mold and settling like a thick blanket. Depression, contemptuous of the demands life places upon us, contrives to make us unreliable, inconsistent, unreachable. It can replace certainty with doubt. It can result in isolating self-loathing and, in the most unfortunate instances, lead to suicide. Those opting to take antidepressants are not trying to reach an altered reality, as such. They’re trying to escape from one where the sun never rises. Medication is often the least worst option.”
Seroxat can destroy lives. It can be visceral, eating away at the core of who you are, spreading like a mold and settling like a thick blanket. Seroxat, contemptuous of the demands life places upon us, contrives to make us unreliable, inconsistent, unreachable. It can replace certainty with doubt. It can result in isolating self-loathing and, in the most unfortunate instances, lead to suicide.
Those opting to take Seroxat are not trying to reach an altered reality, as such. They’re trying to escape from one where the sun never rises. Seroxat is often the worst option.
Carmine M. Pariante @ParianteSPILab Aug 1
Interested in #depression & #antidepressants? @MailOnline Antidepressants may not be perfect, but they DO save lives
https://twitter.com/ParianteSPILab/status/892633600738328576
Yes, and they also DON’T save lives .. a small %age don’t just die a pain free death, antidepressant death is one of excruciating mental torment and this is the debate – doctors avoiding responsibility for this horror scenario is the Crime of the Times ..
Ghostbusting ..
Simon Wessely Retweeted
Rob Poole @robgpoole 11h11 hours ago
Well done @rcpsych @skalidindi1 for getting evidence and nuance into the news! @IStocious
Pinned Tweet
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 21m21 minutes ago
All advice will be put in a separate document with links and evidence tomorrow #ADsMythBuster
Fiona French @benzosarebad 21m21 minutes ago
Replying to @rcpsych
#ADsMythBuster Is that the end of the conversation for tonight?
Conversation…obsequious blindfolding..
https://twitter.com/rcpsych
Cry me a river ..
https://fiddaman.blogspot.co.uk/2017/08/gsk-blame-stewart-dolin-in-move-for-new.html#.WYNrB4WcGZ8
Another absolute rule is that the corporation never backs down – they just think up childish excuses like a petty a criminal, hoping no one will notice. What would happen if these ridiculous defences came through the mouths of the CEO or Chairman instead of through lawyers?
Saw both the film about James Holmes and your response to Gwen Adshead in TheBMJ today abd thank you very much for not keeping quiet as so many do.She has been involved with prescribing drugs for decades – it is impossible that she is unaware of the dangerous adverse effects of SSRs – it is public knowledge as well as known in psychiatric literature and anecdotal accounts.- her claim that suicide is rare is disingenuous and shameful.
Coincidentally there was a programme about Broadmoor soon after the documentary about James Holmes. Gwen was working there during what was described as one of the most violent decades of it’s history. There were high numbers of suicides and assaults by staff as well as service users. It would be useful if an audit of the drugs prescribed during this period was carried out and made public. It was in some ways a useful programme which highlighted abusive behaviour in psychiatric institutions but also shamefully concentrated on stigmatising fear mongering about people referred to throughout as dangerous ‘paranoid schizophrenics’ A smirking ‘archivist’ gave the public a access to individuals’ medical notes
The final word .. ?
Pinned Tweet
RC of PsychiatristsVerified account @rcpsych 17m17 minutes ago
Missed the #ADsMythBuster live Q&A session with our experts? Heres your chance to look back at some of the best bits
https://twitter.com/rcpsych
Simon Wessely @WesselyS 10m10 minutes ago
Good reporting by @BBCNews. But the new President of @rcpsych is Dr or Professor Burn, not Ms. She has earned it
https://twitter.com/WesselyS/status/893182244457721856
Aíne @amobeirne 15h15 hours ago
Replying to @HealthRegLawyer @WesselyS and 2 others
They seem more concerned about their own titles than this person. Where have I seen that before! #ADsMythBuster
embarrassing for the
Ms .. ?
DH
In response to your comment dated 4th August ‘Heather, it’s about listening….’ I’d just like to say of course I agree with you and in an ideal world there would be universal listening but we just CANT get it from doctors and psychiatrists, and what they always cite is how these drugs have helped thousands of others, so when it goes wrong for us, we are unusual, they don’t know why it has, or we are making it up, imagining it, or it’s a sign that we have ‘mental delusions.’ We are desperate to get them to listen. And then, having listened, to actually ACT. But what if it HAS helped all those others, why has it had a different effect on us? My point and MEpatients’ was asking whether there could be conditions (like the CYP 450 deficiency or being weakened by CFS) that could explain WHY we have such a different result. Because if so, maybe then they would listen because they might see some logic in it. For instance, you say on the BBC documentary that you yourself sometimes prescribe these medications and find them useful in some cases. Are there certain criteria you use so you know whether or not it may trigger a bad result in some people? Or is it like Russian roulette?
We have another example of lack of listening this week. Well, two in fact.
The first was the Inquest of Luke Reeves, who died by suicide after taking RoAccutane-isotretinoin 4 years ago, and who, his father reports, had his personality totally changed by the drug. No one listened when his parents kept reporting this. And in the newspaper report, readers’ comments, whilst some are supportive, others say their children took it, it was effective and helpful and they suffered no ill effects. Those of us many parents who have suffered the same bereavements as the Reeves, tend to wonder if ROCHE plants all these positive media reports, but we’ve also talked to real people, with no interest in lying, who have taken it with no problems. So why? How can this be?
In the RxISK section on listing side effects for medications and RxISK report findings, I looked up doxycycline (a tetracycline) recently for someone. I noted that it said on no account should one take it with Sertraline as the latter can cause chemical brain changes and as yet we do not have good enough brain scanning techniques to show what it does to the brain. (Mary and I were quite interested recently in new brain scanning techniques just reported). We know that Vitamin A is toxic in large quantities, it’s the main ingredient in RoAccutane-isotretinoin, and Dr Doug Bremner’s scans have already shown damage to 21% of frontal lobes of the brains of some who take it! but at Luke Reeves’ Inquest the Coroner, when told this, simply said she could not comment on the effects of drugs causing suicide and just said that he obviously was not thinking straight when he died and that ‘he must have been in a bad place.’ This was despite his father trying to present yet more anecdotal evidence and saying that surely, as there is so much of it out there, there must be a point where anecdotal evidence becomes proven.
The second example of ‘not listening’ was given by Judge James Munby yesterday, trying to find a bed for a suicidal young girl in custody, to treat her safely. He finds this incredible and says how can we call ourselves civilised etc etc if this state of affairs is allowed to go on. Well, as many of us could tell him and anyone else who just might listen, this has been going on for years. Certainly to our personal knowledge since 2001. They may of course listen, but as Spruce has so often pointed out, nothing changes anyway and the deaths go on. Almost one suicide a month from RoAccutane-isotretinoin suicides, which Robert Reeves protests is actually murder by Big Pharma. He KNOWS what he saw happen to his son, all we 18 parents KNOW what we saw happen to ours, and we protested, but because others report benefit from these drugs, we are dismissed as being unfortunate, collateral damage. We want to know why our young died and others didn’t. We can’t rest till we do.
And, one final point. Roche, in their usual sickening disclaimer printed in the Inquest report, say it’s very sad and they send their sympathy etc to the parents but acne causes people to feel depressed, so it’s the depression that causes the suicide, and thus depressed patients should never have it prescribed for them. Well, everyone who gets acne finds it depressing, show me the person who doesn’t feel miserable when covered in it. So how does that argument stack up? Your acne makes you depressed, you go for treatment to the doctor, the dermatologist gives you RoAccutane-isotretinoin to clear the acne and cheer you up, and then when you get low mood during the treatment, you apparently should never have been given it because you were depressed about it in the first place. The Perfect Circle. And furthermore, why it is then that they turn to suicide, sometimes long after their skins have cleared? Answers from parents on the latest post on the Olly’s Friendship Foundation facebook page……
H
You need to learn from Roche’s reply. For companies its always the disease that causes it. If you introduce glandular fever or CYP 2D6 or brain scans you play into their hands. The plain fact is some people become suicidal or homicidal on very small doses of any of these drugs and you have to stick with the drug caused it. You’re job as a parent or partner or daughter is to make doctors listen – using whatever means it takes
D
The Judge is just playing a game by being shocked he know’s the press are onto it so has to look concerned for the national media. Sure Its his profession that lock up the mentally ill in prisons e.t.c. they don’t care at all otherwise they would raise concerns but they don’t. They are all part of the problem.
Totally agree with every word you say Anne -Marie – they have their social standing and stick together like glue. All that you and your adverse reactions mean to them is more profit to stash away!
“Whatever means it takes” ……. answers on a postcard please!
Because I am trying VERY hard to get the doctors I have been in contact with to LISTEN and, so far, it’s proving impossible …. the deafness is rather soul destroying ….. but I will keep on trying.
Any tips will be very gratefully received…….
Jane, I can totally relate.
If I find myself banging my head against a wall trying to get a doctor to hear me, it means that I’m not accepting reality and it’s me who better change. Yes a doctor “should” listen, just like the alcoholics in my life “should” stop drinking, but just because their behavior affects me doesn’t mean I can force my solutions on them. In a nutshell, I am powerless over the choices and behavior of others.
Just like I don’t expect to find bread at the hardware store, I don’t expect to be heard by doctors trained by and invested in the current system. I can still speak and live my truth, but I will be tolerating doctors who aren’t listening until I find the ones who are.
Very recently I began doing some serious work to recover emotionally from not being heard and already things have begun to shift for me. I don’t think it’s a coincidence that I’ve recently had some decent experiences with two new doctors, probably because I’m naturally approaching things from a different angle, or with different energy, than I had before starting the grief work.
As far as moving things forward, I’m wondering if our future lies in finding doctors who are looking for alternatives to the current system and who are as jaded with it as we are. In the meantime there is a lot we can be doing to help ourselves, perhaps starting with acceptance of the reality that we can only change ourselves.
Dear Jane,
Oh how I agree with your comment here.
To try to get them to listen I have tried the following:
1. Politely supplicatory reasoning, deferring to their assumed greater knowledge but just asking nicely if I could mention something…..
Result: accompanied by aloof smile (no fangs):
“Well, you can believe what you like, look up whatever sources you wish, but the bottom line is the BMJ ran an article on ‘whatever it is’ and I have to go with their views. End of discussion. And furthermore -“well, if you think you don’t like my opinion,, why don’t you go and find yourself another GP, it’s entirely up to you.” (Except that that isn’t easy in remote country districts where there isn’t any choice geographically)
One lady GP, quite well thought of, during the days when we had adverse effects from sheep dip and organo phosphates, wrote in her referral letter to my son’s dermatologist (GP was pressing him aged 16 to take RoAccutane-isotretinoin and he wouldn’t) “the mother carries a huge file of information with her when she comes to see me, it is very intimidating…”
2. You can be argumentative, more strongly. Only did this once, reporting the ghastly effects a Prednisolone 11 day steroid course was having on me having been given it for grass pollen allergy (possibly) and I was swelling up like a frog, eyes bulging, continuous pressure headache, pains thudding down arms, roaring palpitations, etc, chest pains, diaphragm not moving right so breathing restricted, eyelids swollen up so could hardly open eyes, unable to pass urine, “You are quite aggressive aren’t you? Steroids could not be doing this to you, you can’t be allergic to them, we use them to TREAT allergies. There ‘s nothing I can do for you, I accept you say you feel all this but this is all in your head.’
When in my defence I mentioned our (nice) GP who we knew well from our last home would vouch for me, we just having had to move practices for geographical reasons, “Mmm, now you are exaggerating, you don’t really know him I’m sure, you just think you do… What you need is a psychiatrist.”
We actually eventually got a referral through persistence to an allergy consultant privately from this GP and the consultant actually agreed with us. The referral letter was peppered with derogatory remarks about the size of our house and how much money we had got or not got. The GP didn’t intend us to see it but the consultant accidentally sent it to us! 🙂
3. You can try emotion, my mother used to genuinely break down into sobs when trying to get help for my manic depressive father. This definitely doesn’t work, the tissue box is passed to you, the GP looks awkward and says “Mmm, we’ll see what we can do,” but doesn’t, and you are noted down as being an hysterical woman. She was, it got her nowhere. Even though her father and brother were GPs. Pulling any sort of old boy network rank might work for some but didn’t for her. She was, of course, a middle aged menopausal woman, God help her. I wasn’t, I was 16 and tried a hunger strike. That just got me branded as vulnerable and crackers.
4. Take matters into your own hands. Research, read and learn all you can. Slowly groom the next GP in little bite sized chunks by showing her/him how undemanding and sensible you are, employ lots of flattery and wide eyed serious listening pose at all times, till you judge the subtlety has worked and then put in your important question or point, when they have decided you are no threat. You might get a result. Humour is good too, so long as they are not too tired and have actually naturally been endowed with a sense of one.
Any more ideas for Jane’s postcard?
Well, Heather, I can tell you what I have done but, as yet, I cannot tell how successful, or otherwise, the exercise has been.
Having spent nigh on 13 years of watching Shane’s medication changes, increases of same and spells as an in-patient lead him nowhere at all and having spent the same time protesting against the increases etc., I felt that enough was enough. I had grown tired of repeating my ‘damaged by SSRI’ tune to no avail but could not just give up and let him deteriorate any further without one, last attempt. I knew that there was one voice who would tell me straight whether my gut feeling about all this was true or not – and it did!
Having to own up to Shane’s regular psychiatric team that I had been offered extra support elsewhere for Shane, I gave his care co-ordinator (who had only recently taken care of Shane’s case) a rundown of matters plus my concerns regarding the non-listening and non- acceptance of the situation. He was immediately won over. He’d already noticed that each crisis seemed to be connected with Shane’s medications. He was quite horrified by our account of Shane’s experiences on Seroxat. He’d been given the idea that Shane’s problem was linked to alcohol and nothing else!
From that time, over eighteen months ago, I have kept a daily record of Shane’s condition – the ups and downs of reducing his medications, the length of time it’s taking to reduce and the teeny, tiny steps that he has to take to manage to reduce safely.
My idea is to present this, on completion, to the psychiatric team. Will it be accepted? Will any notice be taken of any of it? I doubt it very much – but it will give me the satisfaction of showing them that my thoughts, repeatedly shared with them over those thirteen years, were true.
This is why all the stops were pulled out, seldom having the opportunity, with #myths – buster ..
James Moore @jf_moore 3h3 hours ago
.@Fiddaman Download an unexpurgated & unsanitised account of the RCPsych #ADsMythBuster Q&A here, please RT thx http://www.jfmoore.co.uk/ads.html
1:14 AM – 5 Aug 2017
https://twitter.com/jf_moore/status/893747146217881602
Right click on the link below to download a full pdf copy of all tweets submitted between 31 July and 3 August that included the term #ADsMythBuster
Please note, this is a large file of 97 pages
http://www.jfmoore.co.uk/ads.html
The minutes are still ticking ..
http://www.jfmoore.co.uk/ads_files/%23ADsMythBuster%20-%20Twitter%20Search.pdf
David
I’ve just come back from a coffee morning in the Olly’s Friendship Room in our village. We were talking about Judge Munby’s comments in the media about ‘child ZX’. I said the shortage of places of safety, beds in hospital, were pretty bad in 2001, but maybe not so bad as now. I said we blamed ourselves for not saving Olly, for not raging about the effects of the prescribed meds more. Which fits with what you say ‘your duty as a parent or partner or daughter is to make doctors listen….’ But once polite firm reasoning had failed and we were branded as over protective and fussing, had we shouted and threatened going to the media, Olly, whose life after all, it was, would have been horrified and felt worse shame in front of his friends than he already did. I accept that we did not know about RxISK then, so that weapon was not in our armoury.
When I was 16 and my dad was so manic that he was physically attacking my mother and making us homeless and penniless, our GP (who was intelligent and thoughtful and cared deeply about us all) said that in law he could do nothing to make my father accept treatment ‘unless his behaviour was seen to be adversely affecting the child (me)’. So I tried going on hunger strike, it being my job, as I saw it, as his daughter, just like you suggest, to help my exhausted mother get him treatment. It backfired. I got very thin and was regarded as crazy myself. I then carried that stigma for the rest of my life.
So, I can see what you are saying and it’s good sense about science, but I just don’t know what other tactics we could have used. The trouble is, these deaths from isotretinoin go on and on, warnings are ignored, and we feel more and more desperate. Some of us dally with resorting to taking part in really extreme gestures, but if we did, we’d either be locked up in prisons for criminal behaviour or branded forever for being mad. I suppose a hunger strike could work, but it weakens the participants, which makes them less able to think properly. Meantime the companies continue to tie us up in knots whilst they weave their webs of credibility.
H
Its a matter of power. The power the system has over people suffering adverse effects is like the power men had over women until recently or England had over Ireland or whites over blacks. Power however always has its weaknesses and if women or blacks or the Irish work together they can find ways to dismantle it. The challenge to us is the same perhaps borrowing from other successful tactics.
RxISK was set up to do this. In a few weeks time I hope to get back to this theme.
At the end of the day, no-one should underestimate how crazy the system can get when you challenge it, how nasty doctors can get and how figures like Ben Goldacre can rustle up lynch mobs.
David
Thanks for this David, we’ll look forward to the RxISK insights soon into how to undermine the controlling power. I think that’s what so many of us long to find a way to do. It’s just that we lose hope sometimes when we seem to be always failing and getting nowhere. Particularly when so many youngsters are going, literally, through hell on isotretinoin. They care about getting rid of their acne more than anything else, they start off as reasonable well adjusted people and the parents watch as they slide into madness, and once they’ve lost their minds, whatever ROCHE say to the contrary, very often there’s no way back. It’s like they are walking into quicksand and we can’t save them. Prescriptions have risen by 650% in about 5 years. The odds against us winning by warning them seem insurmountable and frustration takes over. We need some canny advice!
And yes, we sure know from experience how nasty doctors and wolves in sheep’s clothing can get, it’s going on for us personally right now but we have to take each official hurdle as a challenge to jump, hold your nerve, and then on to the next one. We find ourselves doing a lot of dogged jumping right now 🙂
In the BBC Panorama segments below, which aired in Britain on October 3, 2004, David Healy says we may come to see GSK’s masking of data about these withdrawal symptoms as “one of the biggest medical scandals ever.” Senior pharmaceutical regulators in the UK acknowledge they were “disgusted” and “horrified” by the deliberate withholding of information. The President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, Dr. Mike Shooter, argues that the deception “has serious implications for the whole of psychiatry; it has serious implications for the whole of medicine.” An investigative body in Britain met to consider whether to indict the drug maker on criminal charges.
http://www.christopherlane.org/the-paxil-papers/
*Sealed*
http://www.christopherlane.org/files/2016/01/Paxil.Litigation-1w6in3d.pdf
Related to this ..
ben goldacreVerified account @bengoldacre Aug 4
Related to this, while the Panorama on SSRIs and murder was clearly absurd, why can the greybeard medical fraternity not see that they lay..
https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/893487065383530497
ben goldacreVerified account @bengoldacre Aug 4
To expand just a little further on that thread. Ask yourself, why are SSRI’s fertile ground for a conspiracy theorist Panorama? Answer…
ben goldacreVerified account @bengoldacre Aug 4
… because GSK were caught banged to rights withholding adverse data from regulators and doctors. In this century. Hence the conspiracists.
ben goldacreVerified account @bengoldacre Aug 4
…These things do not magically appear in a vacuum. The public are not morons or fantasists. They are non-experts responding somewhat…
Related to this ..
https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2017/08/05/ex-seroxat-user-kirk-brandon-discusses-seroxat-side-effects-with-simon-wessley-royal-college-of-psych-uk-on-bbc-tv/
“absolute certainties” ..
Related to this ..
TranspariMED Retweeted
Cochrane UK
✔ @CochraneUK
“A medical culture too comfortable with non-publication and non-reporting” Great article by
@Swykstr #AllTrials https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/1/16012946/clinical-trial-research-public-transparency?utm_campaign=vox&utm_content=entry&utm_medium=social&utm_source=twitter …
https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/8/1/16012946/clinical-trial-research-public-transparency
The Big Idea..GSK, the first Pharma Co to sign up to Alltrials ..
Shelley Jofre @ShelleyJofre 14h14 hours ago
Replying to @bengoldacre
Caught by Panorama
11:02 AM – 5 Aug 2017
https://twitter.com/ShelleyJofre/status/893895004929892353
Incredibly the College of Psychiatrist is – a Charity! are they conforming to Charity Commission regulations?
The Charter ..
TO ALL TO WHOM THESE PRESENTS SHALL COME, GREETING!
The Objects and purposes for which the College is constituted are to:
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/pdf/College%20Supplemental%20Charter28April2014_asamended.pdf
(a) advance the science and practice of psychiatry and related subjects;
(b) further public education therein;
(c) promote study and research work in psychiatry and all sciences and disciplines connected with the understanding and treatment of mental disorder in all its forms and aspects and related subjects and publish the results of all such study and research.
4. For the purpose of attaining the objects of the College but not further or otherwise the College may exercise the following powers:
(a) to encourage and promote amongst its members and others the exchange of knowledge, information, experience and ideas relating thereto and to related subjects, sciences and disciplines;
(b) to encourage and promote amongst its members and others working in allied and related sciences and disciplines the achievement and maintenance of the highest possible standards of professional competence and practice;
(c) to act as a consultative body in relation to matters of public and professional interest concerning psychiatry and the treatment of mental disorder in all its forms and aspects and to give consideration to improved methods of hospital and other medical administration, medical education and training ;
(d) to promote and to encourage the promotion of new measures leading to improved methods of prevention and treatment;
… any mis-recital, non-recital, omission, defect, imperfection, matter or thing whatsoever notwithstanding.
http://www.rcpsych.ac.uk/usefulresources.aspx
Ps does anybody know what drugs by name are being prescribed in places where they are given compulsorily – such as high security institutions and prisons.
Caught by …
wendy burn Retweeted
ben goldacreVerified account @bengoldacre Aug 4
Someone just asked me to speak “against SSRI’s” (ffs) in a debate. Here’s my ridiculously pompous reply on structural problems in EBM.
https://twitter.com/bengoldacre/status/893464607762862082
Truthman30 @Truthman30 Aug 4
Replying to @bengoldacre
You’re right that is a ridiculously pompous reply.. the ‘evidence base’ about SSRI’s is shoddy as hell. Patients experiences r real evidence
He said ‘they’re happy pills, they’ll make you feel better’. And that was it, and I was told to go into the waiting room again.”
Delays, stoppages or changes to medication were noted to be the underlying causes of confusion, anxiety and distress reported by half of prisoners interviewed. At a time when prisoners are perceived to be in a particularly vulnerable state and experience the loss of normal social support, such actions should be recognised as representing the removal of a prop. Restrictions to self-medicate further limit individuals’ opportunities to engage in self-medication and management that are generally available to them in community settings.
Medication management and practices in prison for people with mental health problems: a qualitative study
https://ijmhs.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1752-4458-3-24
Gwen Adshead, Trustee of college of psychiatrists; (author of article re James Holmes in THeBMJ) ex chair of POPAN (Pevention of abuse by psychotherapists) which morphed into ‘Witness’ before whatever it is called now ,also gives free lectures, writes articles and writes books on the issue of ethics in psychiatry. It may be helpful if she could review aht she wrote and write an update to include the way her profession is dealing with the harms caused by SSRs. and circulate it for free amongs trainees and others. Book titled ‘A Short Book About Evil pub 28th April 2014) .
Quote from book preview – ‘The fragility of Goodness is Considered’. really?
The SMC is your Illuminati.
If, for any reason, you thought the Illuminati was just another conspiracy then you must look into the financial backing of the SMC. It’s practically everyone and anyone whose sole purpose, it appears, is to stifle voices.
They hire KOLs to play down the controversy. They are funded by the media who allow the KOLs to reduce the intensity of the flame before it gets too many people talking about the truth behind that flame.
These guys are new to my radar. It’s somewhat deflating when one reads who they have on board.
For the first time in many years, I am totally shocked by it all.