Editorial Note: This is part 4 of Laurie Oakley’s series on Pharmaceutical Rape.
Many who experience life-altering, adverse outcomes after taking their medicines as prescribed do not receive acknowledgment of what they have experienced, let alone the medical care they need. Medical systems do not recognize many treatment related outcomes and patients are therefore denied knowledgeable, compassionate treatment for the iatrogenic illnesses they experience after following doctors orders. While health practitioners can generally make a good living within healthcare systems, thousands of patients end up on disability after adverse pharmaceutical outcomes. Without the support of a doctor to verify one’s condition, there are others who, tragically, end up on the streets.
The privilege of one who benefits within a system that uses pharmaceutical products to improve one’s own life and well-being while denying or remaining oblivious to harms suffered by others within same system.
Deriving benefit from and/or being complicit with healthcare systems while refusing to consider or acknowledge pharmaceutical harms suffered by others; routinely ignoring, denying, and/or explaining away harms reported by others.
In regard to pharmaceutical rape, this is an emotionally reactive, often arrogant stance that is taken when an individual (medical professional or otherwise) is exposed to suggestions of widespread iatrogenic drug induced harms. It is defensiveness on the part of the individual who often exhibits behaviors that include automatic skepticism, extreme unease, an unwillingness to listen, impatience, condescension, anger and argumentativeness.
Persons who demonstrate this fragility are unable to consider or acknowledge a medical reality that challenges a status quo that benefits them. They automatically discount information or ideas that make them uncomfortable and often attack those who are making claims. This stance is rooted in deeply ingrained ideas about the power of science and the prestige of the medical profession, as well as in the “goodness” of modern medicine. For many, one’s very identity as a doctor or as a patient depends upon viewing the systems in which one gives or receives care as safe places of care. Reflecting on or seriously considering the many ways people are harmed by pharmaceutical products is intolerable, as one believes these kinds of things “just don’t happen” in modern medicine.
Medical professionals who think in this way dissociate themselves from the idea of systemic, iatrogenic harms, and instead think of the injuries they do recognize as solitary incidents resulting from the “bad” behavior of others (whether the patient, drug industry or other medical professional). Doctors tend to be high achievers with a perfectionist bent. While attaining the high degree of competency required to practice medicine, many also acquire a deep sense of earned superiority. Any challenge to this core identity, or to the systems in which one is enmeshed, is intolerable.
I never set out to become a medical heretic. That job was ascribed to me by certain pharmaceuticals that are said to work wonders for the majority of the human race, but not for me: miracle drugs like the SSRI anti-depressants and the ever safe benzodiazepines. So when I described to doctors all that had happened to me while on these medications, most stared at me as if I’d just grown a second head. My report, it seemed, was over-the-top.
One doctor congratulated me for kicking my “benzo habit” even though I had told her I’d taken only a small dose as prescribed by my doctor. When I tried to explain how tolerance withdrawal symptoms had been repeatedly misdiagnosed as somatization, and for that I had been given more psychiatric drugs over a period of several years while my physical and mental health deteriorated, she may as well have plugged her ears and shouted, la la la la la! Instead, she said, “uh huh,” before opening my chart and recording my history with benzodiazepines in the illicit drug use category.
After she left the agency, I started seeing a different doctor who listened to my stories in utter amazement. My experience was unlike anything he had ever heard in his many years of prescribing psychotropic medications. When I suggested that my ongoing, chronic insomnia might be a residual effect from having been prescribed a benzodiazepine for eight full years, he responded by saying there was no way of knowing for sure, and at one point even asked, if the benzodiazepine had helped me to sleep, why didn’t I just keep taking it?
Time for a new doctor.
I jumped from the frying pan into the fire. This new psychiatrist had a penchant for sighing and rarely looked at me. He mostly just shuffled papers and wrote things down. He wasn’t interested in knowing what my experiences with medications had been, my complex history, or anything else about me. He was interested in prescribing a certain medication for my insomnia which he pushed even after I had educated myself about side-effects and informed him I didn’t want to risk it. I did finally end up trying the medicine, which I didn’t like and didn’t continue. Then his impatience with me turned into disgust as he no doubt thought my fear of taking medications was irrational. He went on to tell me that millions of dollars and years of study went into the research and development of the drugs he prescribed and he was confident that they were safe.
—Rxisk. January 13, 2015
An umbrella term for arguments suggesting that serious pharmaceutical violation does not exist or that it is not a widespread cause for concern. “Apology” in this context means defense or justification, like in Christian apologetics, not as a statement expressing regret.
Pharmaceutical rape apologists frequently view patients and doctors who recognize serious adverse events as misguided persons who are anti-science, conspiracy theorists, anti-vaccinationists, or some other type of deviant. Pharmaceutical rape apologists disbelieve pharmaceutical harms because evidence of harm is not forthcoming in the scientific literature. They deny any adverse outcome that does not conform with harms already commonly noted within the medical establishment, and dismiss reports of adverse effects when they have witnessed the drug in question work well for others.
Pharmaceutical violations are dramatically under-recognized. There is an enormous amount of misunderstanding and stigma associated with people who claim to have been harmed. Physician skepticism and outright denial prevents victims from having their claims validated, let alone officially reported to regulatory agencies. Instead of gaining support from a doctor to make sense of what has occurred, adverse effects are often trivialized or misdiagnosed as separate conditions (usually needing additional treatments).
Allegations of false reporting of injury often occur (within the realm of childhood vaccine administration, for instance). The medical establishment maintains that most pharmaceuticals, with rare exception, are safe and effective when taken as prescribed. There is very little room left for discussion of even the known risks of harm. Serious adverse events are said to be “rare,” yet when they occur, victims and/or their families often find it difficult if not impossible to convince medical authorities that the event is related to medication.
Secondary victimization is the re-traumatization of the pharmaceutically injured through negative social responses from medical, mental health and/or legal professionals, as well as from others (sometimes including one’s own family). This is a nearly universal experience for those who have been harmed and may be especially insidious for those who are diagnosed with mental illness, chemical dependency, as well as the vaccine injured (and their families). Behaviors associated with secondary victimization include:
Pharmaceutical violence typically leaves the individual with an array of new problems that were not present when the treatment in question was first initiated. Many hurtfully deny or disbelieve the iatrogenic nature of the person’s condition, and additional physical and/or mental effects caused by treatments often bring about additional stigmatization. The alienation suffered as a result of these acts is deeply felt:
“I am a wreck after 8 years on Effexor, but of course once on the drugs your credibility is gone, so who listens to a person with a psychiatric “label” even though the label is false? Not only victims, we are totally ignored, while the psychiatrists somehow get put on a [false] pedestal. Challenge them at your own risk of getting a “label.” No other doctors on earth have this sort of irrational power; just because they judge someone as this or that, often in a 10 minute appointment. I would like to know of just one person who ever went to a psychiatrist and didn’t get [labeled].”
—Commenter, DavidHealy.org. May 14, 2015
Unlike sexual rape, pharmaceutical violations almost always occur over a more prolonged period of time. Where a sexual assault survivor may experience a post traumatic stress reaction in the months and/or years following the event, pharmaceutical victims oftentimes experience these physical and psychological symptoms as adverse-effects while taking psychotrophic medications. Prolonged discontinuation syndromes upon stopping some medications are common and may overlap with a post-traumatic stress reaction from taking psychotropics. The trauma experienced from pharmaceutical violation can include disruptions to normal physical, mental, emotional, cognitive, and interpersonal behavior. Whether from a discontinuation syndrome or from the medications themselves (which are often reinstated to avoid this withdrawal-like condition), pharmaceutical survivors end up suffering, often for many years, with symptoms identical to PTSD.
Effects associated with both sexual rape and pharmaceutical violation include but are not limited to:
Prior to taking Seroxat (Paxil), I had symptoms of tiredness and nausea. My general practitioner (GP) diagnosed me with anxiety and prescribed an anti-psychotic drug. Within 3 days I couldn’t eat or sleep due to severe agitation. I was vomiting, pacing the floors, and crying uncontrollably. My GP diagnosed this as an anxious state and started me on Seroxat. (During this time it was discovered that I was badly anemic and needed a hysterectomy due to severe blood loss. This was more than likely the cause of the original tiredness and nausea). Even though I had informed my GP of heavy bleeding, etc., it seemed easier for him to give my symptoms a label of anxiety and start me on a roller coaster of dangerous psychiatric drugs .
I remained on Seroxat for 6 years as every follow up I was just given more prescriptions. I decided to take myself off the drugs during my 6 years of use with disastrous consequences. I became obsessed with trying to hang myself and couldn’t function due to multiple horrendous symptoms, both mental and physical. Needless to say, I admitted myself to hospital as I had no idea what was happening to me. [I] felt better after Seroxat was reinstated.
I then decided to wean off again with instructions from my GP to taper for 9 months using alternate days[…]That was September 2004. I am now 8 years drug free and still living with damage incurred from taking Seroxat. The first 3 years of quitting were hell. Symptoms included anxiety, panic attacks, paranoia, agoraphobia, hives, itching, tingling, agitation, aggression, suicidal thoughts, homicidal thoughts, weak muscles, vision coordination issues, cognitive problems, dizziness, nausea, headaches, manic behaviour, racing thoughts, gastric upset, balance problems, burning sensations, heartbeat irregularities, palpitations, night sweats, insomnia, and total feelings of despair.
Eight years later to date I still have all these symptoms randomly. They come and they go, and although not as intense as the first years, it still gets pretty scary at times. Is this anything like prior to taking the drugs? No. I felt tired and nauseous. Was it worth taking this drug? No. The side effects of insomnia, muscle pain, blurred vision, weight gain, and feeling null and void of everything was worth nothing. Zero. Zilch. Will I ever recover? Who knows? GP’s offer no validation or support. Will anyone be accountable for the damage I have? No. Everything is denied.
—Rxisk.org. August 29, 2012Share this:
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
A comment on this article from Jen Leavesley (@leoniedelt) on Twitter:
“Absolutely. I was treated like I invented the depression, anxiety and paranoia that topiramate (Topamax) caused me, just to annoy Neuro. And it was treated as “evidence” that my seizures “may be non-epileptic” – further harming my self-confidence and diagnosis.”
Thank you for this latest article in a great series and for the list – all recognised
Those Sirs and Doctors sure are busy, busy, busy at Live longer, Feel Better…….GlaxoSmithKline this week
Sense About Science @senseaboutsci
Great to see! @WellcomeTrust appoints independent review panel for clinical data sharing website http://bit.ly/1nwdFPE #AllTrials
Yeh, Very ‘independent’ having Doctor still knows best Murray Stewart
“Providing researchers with access to data from clinical trials is scientifically essential and helps ensure that the contribution made by volunteers who participate in our clinical trials is used to maximum effect in furthering knowledge. We’re encouraged by the continued growth of support for greater transparency and we hope that the Wellcome Trust’s involvement will encourage further participation from the broader scientific community.”
This word ‘independent’ again..and Which man?
Want women at the top? Get a man in: Ministers facing ridicule after appointing man as head of panel to ensure more women are appointed to boards of top firms
By Gerri Peev, Political Correspondent For The Daily Mail – February 8th 2016, 12:22:10 am
Controversy erupted when it emerged that not only had the government appointed Sir Philip Hampton to the panel, but they had hired a woman to fill in as his deputy (file photo).
Witty isn’t doing a great job
Witty’s best efforts
Witty is making a bit of a hash
Witty seems to be quietly resigned
By Ben Marlow
7:12PM GMT 06 Feb 2016
If Neil Woodford is serious about wanting to see GlaxoSmithKline broken up then he had better prepare for a long wait because Andrew Witty, the drug giant’s boss, is determined to resist such a dramatic move, at least for now.
“The fair at Cappawhite is no place for a man with a thin skull.”
I turned up this famous quote in a guide to the history of West Tipperary, Ireland, my great-grandparents’ home turf. It comes from a defense lawyer’s argument in an 1870’s murder trial involving a man killed by a blow to the head in a “faction fight” at a county fair. (There was plenty of political and economic violence in those parts between landlords and their dirt-poor tenants – but the “faction fights” were mostly just irrational bloody feuds among drunk young men for the sake of honor, revenge or nothing in particular.)
The defendant argued that in no way had he meant to kill the victim—and what was a man doing at the Cappawhite fair after all, if he could be killed by one lousy whack upside the head? He was acquitted. Tipp-on-Tipp violence was just a fact of life, it seems, at least among the peons. If you can’t take the heat, stay out of the kitchen.
I’d hate to think this was becoming the rule of thumb at your local hospital as well. But as Laurie points out, the blame-the-victim response thrown at victims of prescription drug harm are not too different. Nobody forced you to go to the fair! Why didn’t you stay home?
a public-private……guess there was a little accident..P P P (Stud329)…cloudy?
*Roughly 90% of compounds that enter clinical trials never manage to demonstrate the efficacy necessary to become approved products*
CTTV’s founding principle is that drug developers can more easily do their jobs if they understand just what they’re chasing. Roughly 90% of compounds that enter clinical trials never manage to demonstrate the efficacy necessary to become approved products, according to the center, and many of those failures stem from cloudy understandings of the biological underpinnings of human disease. The goal of CTTV is to unite industry and academia in the process of target validation, working together to flesh out the natural causes of illness in hopes of creating better drugs down the line.
• • GSK Retweeted
FierceBiotech @FierceBiotech Feb 8
Biogen joins a GSK-led data-sharing project to make R&D more efficient. http://www.fiercebiotech.com/story/biogen-joins-gsk-led-data-sharing-project-make-rd-more-efficient/2016-02-08 … by @DamianFierce $BIIB $GSK
Like, Target Validate Tipp Story, Johanna……:
Perhaps an explanation for the knee jerk, denial reaction displayed by doctors upon hearing their patient refer to new and troubling symptoms as, ” side effects from prescribed drug therapy”, can be gleaned from the unwritten code of etiquette amongst doctors:
Never –in any way, implicate medical *malpractice* directly to a patient; AND never endorse a patient’s suspicions of malpractice resulting from the treatment prescribed by another doctor.
Similarly, a nurse who criticizes or condemns the practice of any licensed health care professional to a patient or the patient’s family–or to colleagues and co-workers– inside the facility where she is employed, will be subjected to disciplinary action for unprofessional conduct.
This long standing code of conduct is sometimes described as protecting the brotherhood, which assures one of his/her own protection as well. The fear of liability for mistakes is so great that even after incorporating research findings that showed a substantial decrease in litigation in cases where the doctor fully disclosed his/her error to the injured patient and /or the patient’s family and showed deep remorse , the practice of assuming and verbalizing full accountability, as preface to full apology is rare– while peer colleagues continue to *circle the wagons* in protection for and defense of their *brother* who is at risk to be the target of a malpractice law suit.
“Never an unkind or critical word shall be uttered to influence or support a patient’s suspicion or accusation of medical malpractice.” The first commandment in areas where medical injury law firms advertise for customers; areas where there is the greatest likelihood of a large financial settlement for damages .
“Do not judge, lest you are next to be judged and very well may lose –, suffer substantial material loss, and loss of reputation, license & the career you went into heavy debt to pursue.” The second commandment. Even if adequately covered by malpractice insurance, your premiums will rise through the roof– after just one settlement– with or without conviction of medical malpractice.
“Deflect mistakes, reframe complaints– CYA– at all costs.” The third commandment…
And so on, and so on.
The message was clear:
Keep these commandments and you have a better than even chance of maintaining the lifestyle afforded by the career path in medicine that you chose.
Break even one of these commandments– and you’ll be facing the worst alone.
Now that doctors are directly beholding to the industry that produced the drug you may be citing as the cause of damage, which triggers the “fear of litigation” trauma response from the doctor, the brotherhood has essentially expanded. The stakes are high enough apparently to have sparked an evolutionary process. What looks like either abject ignorance or malicious intent, may well represent a new skill set required for survival in the medical profession. (I think the theory for this type of evolution should be named, “Antisocial Darwinism”)
How can we co-exist, or survive in this new environment, with these newly evolved professionals occupying positions in all levels of the health care industry? I think our survival may depend on a move in the direction of criminal charges and prosecution for pharmaceutical rape- (technically, medical assault and battery). This potentially could produce many desired effects; an environment that is selective for purely human traits topping the list.
Isn’t it a shame that the present situation forces us to think on the lines of your last paragraph but when pinned against the wall what can we do but kick out? When our son had his horrific experience of ‘rage’ on Seroxat ( well over 12 years ago now) the mental health advocate pleaded with us to sue his GP for ‘lack of care and supervision’. Our son’s permission would have been necessary to do so; he was already trying to cope with prison life at that point and our feeling was that further negotiations would be a step too far for him, therefore we declined the offer of support to take matters further.
At that point, there was little that we knew about the mysteries of the mental health service. Due to his experience, our interest grew – and, oh boy, over the years, how the list of ‘hindrance rather than help’ has grown – but, unfortunately, nothing that you can point your finger at and shout “that’s it – no more!”
I feel that our (‘us’ collectively not ‘us’ personally) saving grace will be the day when one step too far is taken by someone in authority, causing damage that WILL fit a criminal charge brought by the ‘damaged’ person and all hell will be let loose. Hasten the day! We can but dream!
I completely understand your son’s reluctance to spin the wheel of misfortune and lay bare his journey thru hell, then awaiting the judgment –and even if it is in his favor, the spoils are a sum of money that quantifies the value of a loss he, the victim, cannot even fathom.
I have had conversations with young adults and parents of minors who were victims of pharmaceutical gang rape, grappling with how to express their righteous anger. Whether or not to seek legal assistance in pursuit of monetary compensation — always in the absence of any display of concern or remorse by the perps, was on the minds of everyone I assisted via some form of advocacy, therapeutic support and mentoring through the process of recovering from pharmaceutical gang rape. A few of these conversations spilled over into an attorney’s office, but even an attorney expressed a strong desire to file a malpractice lawsuit, most of my *clients* backed out. Some claimed it was way too re-traumatizing, most of the young adult victims felt that being awarded money as compensation for their agonizing ordeals was an insult.
One young woman actually said this quite clearly:
“First go ’round I was tortured and disregarded for ‘their financial gain’, then I am shown a carrot– an invitation to be judged after recount the most humiliating experience of my life –all for a shot at ‘a piece of the pie’. Makes me no more human than they are– really, like adding insult to injury. At least in this, I have a choice.”
Most of my young adult *clients* chose to take the moral high ground and use their experience to warn or directly support other victims.
Amongst those young adults with whom I have been engaged in dialogue around criminal charges as opposed to allegations of medical malpractice,there is consensus on what I consider the crucial issue. In the absence of a humble admission of error, by a doctor (only takes one, they agree) which would only seem legitimate if followed by a commitment to provide care that addresses all damages incurred, there is an insatiable hunger for justice—. Consensus was also reached, by my small sample of a population of pharmaceutical rape victims that is truly incalculable ; they totally agree that justice requires truth, which in this case is a full disclosure of wrongful acts. Full disclosure of disregard for all areas of responsibility associated with the trust placed in medical doctors (willful act),coupled with the severity and scope of physiological and psychological damage (serious harm), defines these acts as rape–and provides a more profound definition of victims’ suffering.Both of these concepts are being explored and explained in detail by Laurie in this series.
The next phase is still in process, but essentially involves a good news/bad news scenario. The good news is that in the U.S., our criminal justice system has prosecuted cases on state and federal levels that violate existing laws that address: intentional fraud for financial profit that causes, and disregards evidence of harm to the *public*. Our attorney generals review and prosecute these cases.
The bad news is that *medical* practice is beyond the scope for judgment in our criminal court system. A matter of respect for the requisite knowledge, training and experience required to attain a license to practice medicine. Therefore, the petition for criminal indictment and/or the charging document submitted to an attorney general MUST be supported by qualified professionals, MD’s in an established practice of good standing within our medical community. Needless to say, this is a formidable challenge, though it was recently undertaken and successfully prosecuted, in California– resulting in a guilty verdict for 3 counts of second degree murder charges against a doctor whose prescribing practice fits the pharmaceutical rape profile.
It is noteworthy to appreciate the role the family members and significant others of this doctor’s victims played in bringing this case into a criminal court.
So, I don’t agree that seeking what will satisfy the victims,(based on my encounters and reading about so many others), in terms of justice , requires a catastrophic event to precipitate criminal charges and felony prosecution of pharmaceutical rape. Rather, an expansive, diverse and unified constituency bringing the salient issues to public attention and to the attention of the medical community, political arena, focusing on the case for criminal prosecution is both practical and realistic– in fact, the foundation is already under construction.
One final point to ponder. Throughout the history of medicine as a recognized, highly esteemed profession, there have been doctors who threw caution to the wind in order to develop and promote life saving treatments and safe practices for patients. The current threat to us as patients’ is also– spreading a plague throughout the most prestigious of our academic medical centers. Doctors who pick up the gauntlet and prepare for a duel that must be fought where doctor’s have long feared to go– will be fighting to protect their claim to all we have granted to licensed medical doctors.
Katie, there is a lot of truth in what you say. I would imagine that most victims would be more than happy if the truth came out, in public, that the drugs that they were prescribed caused their problems. I know that to be the case here – ours as well as our son’s. There is only one person who has openly told him that the drugs – the initial one and others which have followed to this day – have caused his problems. His respect for that person goes beyond words.
Money, through compensation, does not come into the picture in my mind – certainly not individual compensation anyway; far better, if a company were to be found guilty, if they were instructed to donate an amount of money to the Health Service of affected countries, which in turn should be used to provide for the long-lasting needs of their victims as well as warning of the dangers posed to all of us by our medications. This, I feel, would take away the guilt of the sufferers, as until it is publicly declared there is always a hint of “it wouldn’t happen to someone like me – there must have been a slight ‘flaw’ upon which the medication adversely reacted” that they feel comes from some sections of society – mostly from those who should know better!
Thanks Katie! What you’re talking about should keep every halfway human doctor, nurse, etc. up late at night. It’s not just that they don’t aid or support the patient who has already been harmed. They will not intervene to prevent harm, either—even when they see you walking straight into the buzzsaw.
Last summer Rory Tennes wrote on RxISK about finally getting free from a regimen of pain management and psych drugs that almost killed him. He then had a chat with his family doctor, who had known all about his medication list:
“To my surprise, he said, “I saw that list and I remember thinking, how is this guy even standing in front of me today? Why is he not dead?”
I asked him why he didn’t say anything at the time. He said, “I can get into a great deal of trouble by criticizing the prescribing habits of other doctors. Legal trouble.” WOW. I did not know how to respond, so I didn’t. I just thought about it for a while, what that means for patients. Your doctor might not look out for you, even if your life is in danger, for fear of legal trouble”.
We’d all like to think our lives matter. But as the residents of Flint Michigan are finding out, for those in charge, there are more important priorities. Rory’s story here:
Well said Johanna!
I remember the first time that our son had an appointment with his psychiatrist after he was taken off Seroxat by 2 young psychiatrists. This appointment was to confirm his agreement with their decision and to discuss the implications of ‘cold turkey’ withdrawal – the thoughts of which horrified me as his words were ” you’ll have to watch him 24/7 now for the next 7 – 10 days”. In horror, I asked ( not very politely I’m ashamed to say!) why, in the name of goodness, had he not removed the Seroxat sooner. His reply? – “I didn’t put him on it, his GP did”. When I came back with “Well surely his GP referred him to you for your added support not a continuation of the problem as presented over the last 3 months!”. The reply this time? – “I’m here to SUPPORT the GP”. …”.and the patient?” – no, I was seen as the ‘carer’ and ‘supporting’ the patient/ client was my responsibility. Very handy! I knew nothing of mental health problems/support/medications/psychiatry – my nearest knowledge was of working closely with an educational psychologist and it was to him that I turned for advice on how to move forward at that point. Disgusting! By the way, the psychiatrist’s final words to me that day were (referring to my son) “If he were my son, I would be taking him privately for support now whilst in crisis”. I left in disgust and wrote to our MPs, AMs,Health MInister and his GP – just to air my frustration, but to no avail!
Johanna– to make matters a bit more confounding, the honorable practice of directly addressing another professional with concerns or criticisms of his medical practice- whether directly related to a perceived adverse event for a patient, or even in general terms, warranting review and caution, is at the very least a worthwhile pursuit in nearly all medical specialties– with the exception of psychiatry. Yes, there can be some nasty politics that ensue when doctors in purely medical practices engage in providing *professional feedback* of each other’s practice– especially if the two are not well acquainted with an already established personal level of respect for one another, or friendship, partnership, etc. BUT, in the field of psychiatry a challenge to a single psychiatrist is a *perceived*threat to ALL–much the same decorum one finds in the response of a commoner’s criticism of his King.–
If I were a doctor hearing what I suspected were reasonable complaints about another doctor’s prescribing habits, I would respond to the patient’s complaint by offering to arrange a meeting with this doctor– both of us sitting down with the *suspect* with the pure intention of getting to the heart of the patient’s concerns and developing a plan to address it.– Though on second thought– might be better to just company the patient (with her permission, of course) to her next appointment with the doctor– the element of surprise is necessary because her other doctor would no doubt decline my suggestion if made to him in advance–
Get the picture? What should be a simple straight forward process is governed by some sticky archaic codes of medical professional conduct. Bordering on the absurd at this juncture…
Yes, Yes, Yes, Katie, Mary and Johanna.
As I have said I had a good go at a lawsuit against a surgery and hospital with lawyers in Glasgow.
I had deliberate provocation; I had deliberate libel and slander not only at me but my mother, daughter and partner. I had threatening telephone calls from my Doctor abroad. I had a hostile letter from a Doctor who had discussed me with an NHS Trust.
It is almost impossible.
What I gleaned from all this, which took place over 13 years, from time of ‘incident’, was that if you try and sue they can sue you back for defamation of their perfectly guided treatment.
Guided by Pharma, Guided by whatever nonsense that came out of your mouth as you went through something as mind blowing as Paroxetine Haltation…
Also, as a very clever lawyer girlfriend found to her peril when she tried to sue Swiss Life who tried to dismiss her claim for insurance when she contracted ME.
In the Courtroom, SL put up a video, showing this partner in a legal firm, at 23, walking out of her cottage and get into her car.
They were hiding in the bushes videoing her movements.
She had sued for a lot of money, being a lawyer, and was ambushed.
Even sueing a multinational could bring its perils, what can they get on your private circumstances. What dirt can they dish up if they have a wish list to denounce all characters in your life?
When push comes to shove, I am of the opinion that a small squirt in a big fishpool is fodder for any smart ass that will not budge if their position is called into question.
A member of my ex terminated family is currently still a patient where all this happened and I have no doubt that to cross the line into lawsuits would bring me nothing but grief.
If, on the other hand, you have several thousand sitting around doing nothing, you can still sue, even historically.
The remaining limited choices could involve selling your story to a hungry newspaper, writing a book or tackling the Citizens Commission on Human Rights, East Grinstead, Sussex as per a letter in the Daily Mail Today re Suicide Risk and Prozac…Del Shannon in 1990.
When the Scottish Mail on Sunday rang me up for my letter of the week, prize, a weekend for two in a top hotel, as I had written about Paroxetine, I declined their invitation for obvious reasons…….
This is the Best Yet Talk Ever……on the same page.
Prosecuting the criminal actions of each member of the pharmaceutical rape ring, opens the flood gates for an ocean’s worth of civil suits– or sets the stage for expansive efforts to respond to personal injury, which would be a business-wise beneficial strategy for pharma– . Though financial compensation and treatment could be included in the sentence/punishment for any guilty verdict as *restitution* , it would be an ingenious stroke of PR for top pharma companies to begin work on developing *recovery* programs now!
The bulk of the evidence that supports criminal charges -felony medical assault, is already accessible to the public, meaning that substantiating the charge that harm was a reasonable or even expected outcome, does not rest on the shoulders of specific individuals named in the case, or on the testimony of specific expert witnesses. Documents created and endorsed by qualified professional *experts* are already in the public domain, along with an impressively sizable and diverse readers list. Would be a lot harder to target individuals and/or intimidate the prosecutor.
Rxisk.org is the cornerstone of this social justice crusade, but let’s not forget that it was created to fulfill the crucial function that private industry and government sponsored *pharmaceutical consumer protection* agencies failed to provide, and doctors failed to demand as a crucial phase of drug trials. How could doctors themselves dismiss the need for assessing efficacy and safety in the clinical setting– over time?
Let’s not forget the response of both doctors in patient care settings and pharm execs who engage in strategizing campaigns for promoting drug therapies to these doctors. The most culpable perpetrators of pharmaceutical rape, preferred biased, and in some cases completely false company advertising propaganda over evidence based precautions and outright warnings that resulted from patient data.
I urge readers to remember, document and share the purpose for both the inception and the implementation of Risk.org , because just as GSK (to use as one well known example of pharma) claims all good intentions and dedication to excellence on all levels of their research, development, testing and marketing of *poisons* aka, drugs or medications, and would have us believe they adhere to the highest standards in science , ethics and regard for best treatments for patients/people/consumers aka, their market–and therefore would implore us to believe that unavoidable human errors or unfounded judgments from [perhaps?]unqualified or biased [jealous] experts account for any and all citations or allegations against GSK— Yes, and similarly, the same brilliant PR experts at GSK will discredit Rxisk calling it, David Healy’s Trojan Horse– a global enterprise constructed to defame and destroy– the most vital and beneficial industry on the planet; the work of research parasites and a host of angry under achievers.
Just saying, it seems like a good time to produce a documentary.
Further Compounded By:::::::::
Henk Jan Out @HenkJanOut
Why are @bengoldacre and @senseaboutsci not replying to the fair point from @statsguyuk? #alltrials https://twitter.com/statsguyuk/status/697397865904271360 …
Retweeted by Marco Blanker
Adam Jacobs @statsguyuk
@ddkinderallergo So the #alltrials campaign say, but I don’t think that figure stands up to critical scrutiny http://bit.ly/1KkyV4s
Henk Jan Out seems to have All Things covered…A Brilliant Read>
Henk Jan Out Retweeted
myTomorrows @myTomorrows Jan 11
Dr. J. Shannon, former Chief Medical Officer GlaxoSmithKline, has joined myTomorrows Supervisory Board http://bit.ly/1TPt4ob #HCLDR #JPM16
Henk Jan Out followed David Healy and Medicalskeptic
Doctors Still Know Best/ R-R to BMJ
06 February 2016
Edmund C. Levin
2424 Dwight Way, #2, Berkeley, CA 94704
The positions presented by the DOJ led to GSK settling the case, a consequence of which was the largest fine, $3 Billion, ever levied against a pharmaceutical corporation. This outcome does not speak well for S329 and is consistent with the findings of Le Noury et al . As a child and adolescent psychiatrist, I find it embarrassing that none of the listed authors of S329, a number of whom are my colleagues, have acknowledged the problems with the article nor has the JAACAP retracted it despite over a decade of complaints about its authenticity.
Edmund C. Levin, M.D.
09 February 2016
Researcher and PhD Fellow
Nordic Cochrane Centre
THE CASE OF TRIAL 329 CONFIRMS THE NEED FOR ACCESS TO COMPLETE INDIVIDUAL PATIENT DATA
Annie, – wondering if you’ve read This Present Madness by William Cory? (Rxisk post last week about it) Although a work of fiction, it really does add to the dream that we all hold so dear! Quite cheap as a Kindle book on Amazon – worth every penny!
Mary, I thought this might be up your street, as it were, any thoughts on this article today in the SMoS.
A pushy parent?
A dangerous woman?
Will she ever know who her son is again?
More, importantly, will he?
The fees are astronomical.
“When Oli started his medication our lives were transformed”.
“Dr. Branney now helps train GPs to recognise the condition”.
Oli is now on Ritalin and Prozac…he is 15 years old….he used to daydream..
He daydreamed, put on Ritalin, and then he was anxious, put on Prozac.
There is a pattern here and a GP who is a parent…….scary?
A VERY interesting article Annie within which there are many points with which I agree but others that I find impossible to believe.
He was 12 when diagnosed and she hadn’t worked out what the problem was? – how much attention had she given to her son up to that point I wonder. Also, where was the school that they hadn’t picked it up? Or was she the type of parent that didn’t ‘hear’ when school raised their concerns? To get a diagnosis of ADHD, a school relies on the parents to be open and honest about their situation at home to which the school will add their concerns, together with steps taken in consultation with the parents to help the child to make progress. Providing such evidence ensures a supportive attitude from the education authority and is normally followed by an assessment of need. Something was amiss here and I feel so sorry for the poor child.
Ritalin is not the answer, it is merely a crutch. It is useful, in the short term (provided it suits the child), in calming the child sufficiently for a positive approach towards change to be introduced – strategies can then be put in place to support the child to succeed with the small steps introduced to aid improvement. Long term use produces zombies who are beyond the reach of ‘steps’ of any size – yes it produces a quieter child, yes it makes a teacher’s life easier, yes it gives other pupils a better chance to learn BUT IT DESTROYS THE CHILD IN QUESTION. To then add Prozac – well, that is beyond the pale!
Reading the description of this child again, I cannot see how he’s been put on Ritalin in the first place – he’s described as a ‘daydreamer’ therefore doesn’t need medication to quieten him down – far from it!
I feel that possibly what has happened here is that we’ve got one side of the story and that important facts are missing. We know only too well how dangerous that can be.
I wouldn’t call her a pushy parent necessarily – but I do wonder if she has fully accepted the situation in the first 12 years of her child’s life.
I think that the fact that she’s a GP and is happy to have him on 2 medications says a lot – she doesn’t have his best interest at heart that’s for sure.
She now trains other GPs to better recognise ADHD? What does she recommend that they should do – filter more profits to the pharma companies?
The ‘specialist school’ probably works well, provided the staff have adequate, specialist knowledge – but,at the price, it is out of reach of many families. The ‘specialist knowledge’ should be available in each and every school – no-one should be excluded from education due to lack of funds or any other cause.
You’re right, it is a very scary story!
I try and keep going with everything and anything I can watch and read regarding the treacle and sludge that comes our way and here is a whole w/end viewing for you.
Keep up your lovely comments, re Seroxat, with very best wishes, Annie
There are 39 Videos, here.
I have seen several over the course of years, but, today, I plucked one at random.
(Mainly because of the very attractive tie, pale green, blending nicely with the Cobalt Blue walls)
This was a fairly relaxed film, but, it contains some explicit interviews/trials.
)You wouldn’t want to meet the Lilly guy on a dark night(
There are acres of film here…….
A Timely reminder……
Also, thinking about how to put over the Melodramatic Experience of my own, I am tempted to write an Afternoon Play, approx. one hour, which is solely based on narrative, which I have bucket loads of and half of which is in my Medical Records:)
Before anyone nicks my title, I might call it To Whom It May Concern, as I have Critical Evidence of Wrongdoing from Relevant Medical/Witnesses who were around at the time……and both parties headed their support with this address…..
Annie – what a wonderful idea – and the idea for the title is brilliant.
The book I mentioned is not about Seroxat, even the name of the SSRI in it is fictional. The plot is so true to life though – even if it does go beyond where we’re at up to now – but, who knows, maybe even that will be true to life one day.
I think to not be believed is such an insult. To be told that what’s happening to you is imagined when the person knows it’s happening to them is cruel and I would think makes the person feel very desperate and isolated.
To be cont’d………*beyond* Seroxat..
Two little “Admissions”:
A Clinical Director sent me a “sincere sympathy” letter, without ever meeting me, initially telling me that he would have interviewed my GP for telling an untruth about “Medication” but that he couldn’t now that she was “dead”.
(It didn’t occur to him to check out his Consultant Psychiatrist who was not dead?)
Hospital Admission One.
The currently “undead” Doctor’s Boss, abroad, sent me a Letter telling me the “incident” was too long ago.
(I had never referred to an “incident”?)
He phoned me, from abroad, telling me he was a very busy man and didn’t have time to read my correspondence.
He caught me on the hop.
ET phone home…..
Hospital Admission Two.
“Have you any idea what happened to me?” I yelped.
The endless silence from the end of the line, told me everything that I needed to know….
.Carl Elliott @FearLoathingBTX
Audit of U’s human research reveals profound ignorance, chaotic mess http://www.citypages.com/news/audit-of-us-human-research-reveals-profound-ignorance-chaotic-mess-8041884 … by @shijundu #bioethics #mnleg #UMNProud
Retweeted by Data Based Medicine
Carl Elliott @FearLoathingBTX
Paxil Suicide Case Heads to Trial http://nzzl.us/agVTGdh via @nuzzel thanks @Truthman30
Retweeted by Data Based Medicine
Thank you, Mary.
Sense About Science @senseaboutsci
#AllTrials #AAASmtg – Whew! “@GSK has had academic institutions threaten to take them to court for releasing data”
Retweeted by Amanda
Pauli Ohukainen @PauliOhukainen
Is this 4 real? Initiative opens Bristol-Myers Squibb trial data 2 researchers │ http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703%2815%2900646-8/abstract … @bengoldacre #alltrials #openaccess
Retweeted by Caligirl22
Duke and Squibb
ben goldacre @bengoldacre Feb 11
ben goldacre Retweeted Pete Deveson
It’s such a bizarre, senseless fight for a government to pick. Mindless willy-waving.
Lisa, you are so right, as usual, I feel like I have been banged on the head by a million Toblerones…….happy Valentines…
An excerpt from Edmund:
“Now, let us poke the hornets’ nest that is forced psychiatry!
In Switzerland, this practice is marketed using the euphemism of “care” to justify the deprivation of freedom. To the uninitiated, this verbal construction must appear somewhat perplexing.
Can the relationship between care and the deprivation of freedom be described as anything other than complete incompability?
Barrister at Law
The amendment to legal guardianship law which came into force on 01/01/2013 changed absolutely nothing. All it did was create even more new euphemisms for violations of all human rights. It is just a new way of expressing the same things:
“This is a very high rate of kids going on to become suicidal. It doesn’t take expertise to find this.
It takes extraordinary expertise to avoid finding it.”
David Healy @ DavidHealy 9 Sep 2015
From the start GSK faced ?’s re: teen Paxil/Seroxat trial. Will they stand by it now?
Not done 1-5 “ “ “
221 Photos and videos
Swiss Life/UK Life…twimg
Complacency is not good medicine. ‘I am a doctor, I know best.’ I can take as much time as I like and as I see fit, I can prioritise appointments, I can listen to you yet it will go in one ear and out of the other ear. I listen to my colleagues more than my patients, I can do what I think is best, because at the end of the day I can apologise and that will be the end of that. I can keep blaming the patient because he is a head-case and everyone will believe me and not them. It is convenient for me. But I am still doing you a favour by listening because nobody else will listen to you. I can keep being entertained by the appointments I have with you, and be amused by your memory loss. It is something I am familiar with. I know you will suffer, but I don’t care, my next appointment will be over soon and I will get paid just the same. But as I said: ‘you are funny and amusing.’ Hahaha.
Too late you say, hmmm I did not know that. Oh you’re what hmm 30- something now, I ve been seeing you since you were 12. Oh, But if you show your anger, I will show you the door. Don’t you have any manners, can’t you be polite. Hmm
This is the exact treatment I have got from my GP.
Thank goodness for Leonie.
I had to think more about some of this in the last few years.
Albeit only from own recent unbelievable personal experience (to me) and as a lay person, if not already researched and a link confirmed, I do believe that SSRIS can cause a stress syndrome or PTSD in some patients post a very severe withdrawal
and/or akathisia or psychosis (also depending upon if the patient was given any warnings and upon the stressors or psychosocial factors in their lives at the time or which they faced in that state).
Further, I believe that for some patients, especially those patients who had been prescribed these particular drugs long term or from a young age and who may suffer from a severe shock withdrawal, that those patients who may happen to be more
vulnerable than others to suffer from PTSD may actually be likely than not, to be vulnerable to suffering from some form of PTSD: entirely owing to the particular side effects and adverse effects of these particular drugs.
Especially if a patient also undergoes what is known to be a traumatic experiences in a state of akathisia as a consequence of the withdrawal and withdrawal symptoms (and as the personal health crisis or trauma, sudden and unexpected for many, can generally lead to, or cause other life crises or relationship crises. Also compounded by the patient feeling out of control and that their very life is under threat; by the horrors of disbelief etc). And/or if highly emotionally impactful stressors were already were present or remained ongoing in any patient’s life. (And which a patient many may have sought help to cope with and which they may have been, more likely than not, prescribed SSRIS).
Beyond the terrifying and life threatening drug induced emotional turmoil of akathisia alone, the sudden (experienced as ‘sudden’ to the body and mind and to the person even in tapering perhaps) and overwhelming sheer intensity of emotions post possibly years of chemical numbing on SSRIS not only requires the bewildered brain and the body to start recalibrating and processing buried traumas (and in this state).
To be in this almost incredibly sensitive state, and in proportion to the extraordinary vulnerability and fragility of this state, any otherwise less impactful traumatic experiences(to same person who had never taken SSRIS and/or to the same person still on SSRIS), may be so impactful in this state as to be equally extraordinarily traumatic – if not completely devastating.
Equally, and where the human mind was simply not designed to have to go through such an experience (much less designed to adapt for years, even decades, to a drug which lowers empathy and causes emotional numbing) ,any(additional) traumatic experiences encountered in this mental and physically more sensitive, fragile, and vulnerable state, may have have far more serious and far more impactful psychiatric, physical, and cognitive consequences for the patient than they, or the average psychiatrist, even present day trauma experts, might reasonably expect.
Perhaps also manifesting, along with the damage, in felt to be physical pains from the constant fight or flight adrenalin surges, consequent thyroid problems if any, Cortisol problems etc along with ‘fibromyalgia’ etc.
(I do not know the science. I do know that I was quite literally doubled over in physical pain – be it psychosomatic or not –for a long time, at a memory or had exaggerated fears and tremors at the sound of someone’s voice that previously may have been only an annoyance. Also horrific nightmares every single night and other stress syndrome symptoms which you may expect in a soldier sent home from Beirut and not in the average Joe who simply ‘discontinued’ a ‘medicine’ post 20 years exposure. And even before
ending up more disabled, homeless, and in bereavement, for a while.
(Though I believe a stress syndrome was always there post Seroxat, then numbed on follow ups).
This is a really bad attempt (so hard to think at all) at making sense of my then incredible state, incredible even to me, for myself and to try to convey a state far worse (if you can believe it) than akathisia or when combined with akathisia. And that is also very difficult, if not impossible, to convey to anyone who may not have experienced it.
And which does not dissipate: completely altering. Both (another) new body and a third new state in later life.
I suspect that not only do, and will, many suffer from low stress tolerance etc. but that many suffering from withdrawal and akathisia post long term exposure may not just be at risk of a stress syndrome. Owing to the side effects and adverse effects of these drugs, they may actually be at very high risk both emotionally and physiologically, and depending on other variables with their health and in their lives, of a stress syndrome – if not PTSD.
Also, of course, that any stress syndrome a patient may suffer from will also be misdiagnosed (if a doctor will take what a patient is saying, or trying to say, if they can talk at all, on at all. They won’t. Even if a psychiatrist will take on the word ‘akathisia’ – before ignoring it, these people will be worse off trying to get help than as they are: on their own.
We’ll never know the actual toll: either to adverse effects or eventually for some.
For me, beyond the horrors of imagining a soldier suffering from akathisia, especially post years of emotional numbing (and who may already have suffered from PTSD or have been prescribed these drugs for PTSD – or not) what these drugs are also capable of for some may also help explain more of what is happening to some people in the military and to veterans.
Just unimaginable, unbearable, horror.
They would not have a hope.