In 1963, Hoffman la Roche launched Valium, the brand name for diazepam, a benzodiazepine. It followed hot on the heels of Librium – chlordiazepoxide – another benzodiazepine. This was like one company producing 2 SSRIs and able to get them to numbers 1 and 2 in the charts.
Arthur Sackler of Purdue and Oxycontin fame devised the marketing. This is where the money came from to create Purdue.
There are all sorts of stories about Roche patenting every possible benzodiazepine variation so no other company could get into the market but by the late 1970s Ativan – lorazepam and Xanax – alprazolam were muscling in, claiming to be shorter acting and less likely to cause dependence. This turned out to be like Paxil/Seroxat or Efexor claiming to be less likely to cause dependence than Prozac because they were shorter acting.
By the 1970s, Roche’s Valium was the best-selling drug in the world and the boss of Roche, Adolf Jann, was asked
The amount you have spent on research, especially considering the great profits you are making for example on Librium and Valium have made which you say you are spending most of it on research is giving you an immense amount of power over the direction in which pharmaceutical research around the world is going. It’s a large sum of money – don’t you think you should be accountable for that?
Jann responded: I would say no.
Interviewer: Why not?
Jann:
Because it is in my opinion absolutely logical that my task, my responsibility is to develop Hoffman La Roche. And why are we doing that? We are doing it because it is absolutely clear that the only chance for the social security or social health service is to make economies by finding new drugs.
This Adolf Jann Interview snippet is even more extraordinary when you see it. Adolf J gives a marvellous demonstration of a scene later acted out by Adolf H in the movie Downfall. (Google Hitler scene in Downfall to see what I mean).
The full story can be seen in The Antidepressant Story made 25 years ago.
In 1985, Valium went generic. Lots of companies could now make generic diazepam. Meanwhile concerns were growing about benzo dependence and the name Valium was beginning to symbolize the worst of modern pharmaceutical company marketing.
Today when generics come onstream, many branded companies opt to keep the branded drug available at a generic price as lots of people still want the branded product. In 1985, however, Roche eliminated the name Valium. It seemed to me at the time and I imagine many others as though they were trying to escape the growing dependence scandal.
What perhaps none of us realized was that the scandal was being created by other pharmaceutical companies bringing serotonergic drugs to the market – first Buspar and then the SSRIs. Company personnel went around actively telling doctors they would be sued for prescribing benzodiazepines when the new antidepressants were a much safer and more rational option and don’t cause dependence.
While Roche’s removal of Valium in 1985 seemed like a marker for the end of an era, it now looks more a dance move. Within 3 years of paroxetine’s launch in the UK there were more reports to the British regulator of dependence on it than there had been to the regulator for all benzodiazepines combined over the previous 20 years. Decades later medical bodies and regulators manage to look surprised if anyone asks whether there might be an SSRI dependence problem here.
We had not turned the corner into a more transparent and responsible era. No truth came out. Dogs barked and the Caravans moved on.
The Prozac Era
Two years later in 1987 Prozac was approved in the US. The marketing was inspired – you will lose weight on this drug, feel better than well. your inner Vincent van Gogh will blossom. People flocked to doctors to get it. Sales boomed. Even sales of a weird book Listening to Prozac telling you Prozac might cure your homosexuality boomed.
Prozac was the new Valium. This was always the plan. It was not much of antidepressant. It was useless for severe mood disorders But Lilly didn’t mind that. There was very little money in severe mood disorders. The money was in treating the nervous problems, the anxieties of everyday life, that the benzodiazepines had captured. The money was in converting cases of Valium into cases of Prozac. See Let Them Eat Prozac.
Joined by GSK marketing Paxil/Seroxat and Pfizer marketing Zoloft, the transformation took place with astonishing rapidity. Rather like no-one having heard of the RSV virus 2 or 3 years ago and now everyone knowing it is among the greatest threats to humanity and every mother needs to get herself and her baby immunized – see It is Hard for Thee to Kick against the Pricks.
Company propaganda is now so good they could take someone figuring on voting Harris or Trump today and by tomorrow have them converted to the opposite side with almost no memory they had ever thought otherwise.
Prozac came with great marketing and great shenanigans in the management of regulators. The shenanigans have led to a state of affairs where the greatest concentration of Fake News on earth centres on the drugs – any of the drugs – our doctor might prescribe for us.
The shenanigans mean that any warnings on clear phenomena like SSRIs making people suicidal or homicidal are viewed as tokenistic – May Contain Nuts labels – regulators and companies covering their backs rather than something to take seriously. See Doctors Disclosures and The Seductive Charm of Pharmacology.
The new Big Pharma had CEOs and legal firms that overlapped and interchanged with Big Oil or Big Tobacco . It used the same Doubt is our Product strategy to manage adverse events invented by Big Tobacco. Any hint of an academic article suggesting there might be a hint of an adverse event linked to an SSRI gets met with counter-blasts from experts claiming there is no risk here – not for suicide, homicide, withdrawal, birth defects, sexual dysfunction, alcoholism or anything else.
Because they are unavoidably hazardous, drugs like Prozac are on prescription-only. Your doctor is supposed to be the Risk Manager for these hazards. But doctors prescribing the drugs from Prozac onwards have been told their perceptions of what might be happening their patients are essentially anecdotal and irrelevant. This leaves them in a position where they don’t know what to tell patients and so they tell them nothing.
This all happens because pharma have persuaded regulators to become Risk Communicators. Risk Communication is the up to date term for being Economical with the Truth – a phrase that originated with Robert Armstrong, a British official, in the Spycatcher trial, in 1986 – the year between Valium and Prozac.
Risk Communication is all about lies scented with an only-in-the-public’s interests fragrance. Who decides the public’s interests? Bureaucrats who have a job brief that includes partnering with pharma. In its modern form Risk Communication took root with Prozac – it was a way to manage the suicide crisis.
Never concede our drug is causing a problem. When a suicide and antidepressant controversy blew up in 1991, the regulators crafted language saying that the treatment of depression can lead to an emergence of suicidality. This leaves regulators able to say – look we warned.
But doctors have been trapped into seeing any worsening as a worsening of the illness and they double the dose of the drug if things seem to be getting riskier – doctors no longer have any weapons other than drugs with which to combat risks. Taking someone off their drugs has become close to unthinkable.
Partnering with Pharma would be fine if the bureaucrats also partnered with Medicine. But they can’t – medicine is missing in action. The Prozac and suicide controversy branded doctors and patients views about what was happening on a drug to the patient in front of them as anecdotes. The BMJ played a major part in facilitating this.
No BMJ, NEJM or any medical journal editor ever since has had to guts to come out and say we made a terrible mistake – see Vampire Medicines and Silencing Doctors, Silencing Safety.
As a result, doctors have lost the confidence to claim that We, not the drugs, Save Lives. Almost no trials of any drugs submitted to regulators in the last 30 years show lives saved.
When a second suicide and antidepressants controversy blew up in 2004, the American Psychiatric Association rushed out a statement that APA believes antidepressants save lives. This is a suicide note. It should have said APA believes Psychiatrists Save Lives. See Suicide Note.
Because of BMJ, APA, RCP. NICE and other guidelines makers, along with FDA and other regulators, we now are at greater risk from good doctors than old-style cowboys. Doctors are now viewed as good because they adhere to guidelines etc. When these guidelines are based on a ghostwritten literature with no access to clinical trial data and when the CEO of NICE says we know that but what can we do about it – The NICE before Xmas – we have an extraordinary situation.
Between this and the treating of risk factors rather than illnesses, clinical medicine is now as dysfunctional as the Soviet Union was at the time of its collapse. See Embracing Healthcare’s Opportunities.
Thirty years ago the idea that a large proportion of negative company studies could be reported as positive in the very best journals with no regulators, journals or anyone having access to the data behind them would have been unbelievable.
Regulators are supposed to police company adverts. The consumers in this case are doctors who consume by putting medicines in our mouths. The adverts aimed at them are what look like peer-reviewed publications of clinical trials appearing in our most prestigious medical journals. Thirty years ago the idea that adverts (trials) regulators knew to be misleading, even fraudulent (negative studies) might be run in our journals without some part of the regulatory apparatus complaining would have been beyond belief.
It is probably worth mentioning in passing that on all sides people claim that the US and New Zealand are the only countries with Direct to Consumer Advertising (DTCA). Many people point to this as a feature of exactly what needs to be put right. From industry’s point of view – this is marvellous as it gets their critics looking at the wrong thing. The entire world has DTCA locked in place. The glossy, sometimes clever, retro copies of old-style adverts that can be seen in medical journals are a kitsch irrelevance, other than to divert the critics from spotting the new look adverts.
Thanks to medical spinelessness, this is now the norm.
Prozac Stepping Down
Last week Focus Taiwan carried a Society page article saying that Lilly was withdrawing Prozac – globally. Taiwanese regulators, doctors and generic companies had been told of this in June and that supplies of Prozac (branded fluoxetine – fluoxetine would continue) would stop in November taking availability up to the end of the year. But supplies stopped in September and doctors have been told to stop prescribing it. No time to organize a leaving do.
Just in Taiwan? It may not be the same elsewhere. The Asian market was much smaller. It would be good to hear from anyone anywhere getting fluoxetine as a Prozac branded generic.
An Era Ending move or a Dance move? Will the Caravans moving on pay any heed to the mongrels left barking for years, maybe even decades to come?
The ‘Anodyne’ Adolphs…
The Scotsman – Are we completely clear about the Strategy?
Are the Pros and Cons remaining muddled and disinformative?
Politics
Exclusive:’Shocking’ antidepressant figures revealed as Scotland accused of ‘getting it wrong’ on mental health
https://www.scotsman.com/news/politics/over-reliance-on-antidepressants-in-scotland-change-mental-health-4840608
New figures show the number of antidepressant prescriptions in Scotland has soared in recent years.
Scotland has been accused of “getting it wrong” in tackling the mental health crisis as “shocking” figures have revealed the number of antidepressants prescribed has soared by more than 200,000 in the past year.
Figures published by Public Health Scotland show there were 8,275,583 antidepressants issued in 2023/24 – an increase of 222,801 on the previous year.
It is also an increase of 758,891 on the 7,516,692 antidepressants prescribed in 2020/21 when the Covid pandemic and two nationwide lockdowns hit Scotland.
The figures have sparked calls for Scottish ministers to “take stock” of the use of the drugs, with demands for a cultural shift away from pills towards other forms of treatment for mental health problems.
Nick Ward, chief executive of Change Mental Health, described the figures as “shocking”, but said they reflected the “significant increase” in people seeking support for their mental health.
He said: “A lot of people go to the GP and the easiest thing for the GP to do is prescribe antidepressants, and it is really sad. Lots of the people who are prescribed antidepressants will be working-class people, because it is cheaper, easier and they can’t advocate for themselves.
“Someone who has a mental illness needs really complex support like therapy and counselling in the community, but GPs don’t always prescribe that – they just give people pills and hope it gets better.
“It is an indictment that we are not getting it right in this country.”
Mr Ward added: “We absolutely as a society have an over-reliance on antidepressants. They can be transformative in allowing people to function, but it is not treating the cause and that cause will come back if it is not treated.
“It is a very short-sighted way to address a significant underlying problem.”
In its 2007 election manifesto, the SNP pledged to “reduce over-prescribing of antidepressants”. And once the party was elected to power in Holyrood that year, ministers said they wanted to cut antidepressant prescriptions by 10 per cent.
Three years later, the SNP once again pledged to cut prescriptions of these drugs after their use increased by 7 per cent.
Scottish Conservative MSP Edward Mountain said: “Years after the SNP pledged to stop the rise in antidepressants, the figures continue to surge.
“We now have an extremely serious situation where huge numbers of Scots are being medicated for depression and anxiety. Of course, this treatment absolutely has a part to play, but we really need to get to a place where other remedies are offered.
“Many have complained that people are simply parked on medication because there’s an absence of alternatives. We urgently need ministers to take stock of this situation and come up with some solutions.”
Paul Sweeney, Scottish Labour’s mental health spokesperson, said the increase was “another reminder of the scale of need for mental health support”.
He said: “While antidepressants will always have a place in tackling mental health struggles, they should not be a substitute for lack of resources elsewhere. The reality is that under this SNP Government, the thousands stuck on psychological therapy waiting lists may feel they have no choice about the kind of treatment they receive.”
Alex Cumming, executive director of operations for Scottish Action for Mental Health (SAMH), said:
“Medication has its place, but it has to be part of a broader consideration of what’s right for the person. Depression can take many forms and be more or less severe, so a range of treatments should always be considered. Depression is often linked to significant life events, and problems in life can rarely be solved overnight.
“Antidepressants should therefore be just one piece of the puzzle in most cases, with other treatment options such as talking therapies and social prescribing to community resources such as peer support groups, conversation cafes and physical activity programmes all capable of making a significant contribution to better mental health.”
Figures published earlier this month from the 2022 census showed 617,100 Scots reported having a mental health condition– a rise from 4.4 per cent to 11.3 per cent of the population.
The jump was driven by a dramatic, six-fold increase among those aged 16 to 24, prompting critics to raise concerns over a growing mental health crisis.
The concern over the level of antidepressant prescriptions comes as the Scottish Government faces added pressure to review its free prescriptions policy amid more expected spending cuts to be unveiled in December’s Scottish Budget.
Caroline Lamb, director-general for health and social care and chief executive of NHS Scotland, said in August that “universal benefits” needed to be reviewed as Government departments looked to dramatically cut spending.
The Government said it was working hard to improve access to mental health support, and claimed taking antidepressants should not be stigmatised.
Mental Wellbeing Minister Maree Todd said: “It is important not to stigmatise the use of antidepressants or other mental health medication.
“People feel more able to come forward and talk about their mental health, which is a welcome sign that stigma is decreasing – the latest data shows. We are improving care and support for people living with depression, including appropriate access to support and treatments when they need them.
“All medicines are prescribed based on the clinical need of the patient. Decisions about the appropriateness of antidepressants are made by clinicians in discussion with the individual about what matters to them, and with reference to their medical history.
“The Scottish Government recommends that all medications, including antidepressants, be reviewed regularly to ensure that they remain the best option for the individual.”
A statement from Public Health Scotland said there were a significant number of antidepressants used for reasons other than their original licensed indication, including amitriptyline, which could be prescribed to treat pain.
“As the reason for prescribing is not available from the Prescribing Information System (PIS), it is not appropriate to assume that the use of a particular drug/drug class definitely represents use only in the original licensed indication,” the statement said.
SUICIDE DES JEUNES SOUS ANTIDÉPRESSEURS : BRISER LE SILENCE DE L’INDUSTRIE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-a7uJ_qeNn4
“Suicide among young people taking antidepressants: breaking the industry’s silence
A reality for the families of Romain and Florian, who killed themselves while taking antidepressants. For their parents, this marks the start of a long search for the truth.”
Film from BLAST…
Goodbye/Au revoir Prozac in Canada
“Business reasons”
https://www.drugshortagescanada.ca/discontinuance/238851
https://www.drugshortagescanada.ca/discontinuance/238855
An update from Dr Pedro who has found that Lilly has also discontinued Cymbalta – Duloxetine in Canada. There doesn’t seem to be any arrangements made for or recommendations in respect of tapering.
I can imagine a lot of wags coming up with variations on the work Hyperbolic
David
Librium was first synthesized by scientists at Hoffman-La Roche in 1955. They fed this new compound to mice and reported that “Librium causes a mouse to hang limply when held by one ear.” Apparently they decided this was a good thing.
Arthur Sackler died ten years before Oxycontin was introduced. Arthur Sackler had nothing to do with Oxycontin. He had everything to do with creating a system which made drug wrecks like Oxycontin inevitable.
This was not. man who wanted to do well by doing good. This was a man who exercised a near-totalitarian level of control over drug information.
All the universities, concert halls, etc. that accepted his money ought to take his name off their buildings and distribute the money he gave them to the families of the victims. Of course, that’s not going to happen.
Patrick
Arthur bought Purdue and set his brothers up in the company. The business ethic was his
D
Prozac’s branded demise – which does seem to be global, as it said in the Taiwanese piece – is hardly a surprise in business terms. It’s reached the Dog stage – also known as a ‘Pet’ – (as an animal owner/lover I can’t say I like either of those insinuations) – of the good ole Boston Matrix. Overtaken by cheap generics in a mature market, what’s the point – there’s no money in it.
Nothing dramatizes the ethical void between the supposed altruism of public health and the commercial world more than these moments. Leaving a heap of human suffering in its wake, Lilly waves goodbye airily and goes off to richer pastures. That’s business for sure – but it’s care less.
This moment has been coming for a long time. I read a piece in the Guardian years ago – just checked it was actually in 2016, ‘Why big pharma stopped searching for the next Prozac. Pharma giants have cut research on psychiatric medicine by 70% in 10 years, so where will the next ‘wonder drug’ come from?’
‘They are also controversial and expensive to research. Some of the bigger industry players “decided it was easier to make money in oncology or diabetes and so they weren’t investing”, says Tracy.
“It’s probably not over-pejorative to say they got lazy. As patents (yes, at first I read patients) started to expire they realised it was pretty hard to replace those with anything that was truly new. I think the attitude has been that psychiatry is a black hole and that you put money in and nothing good comes come out – at least nothing particularly novel in a long time has come out.’
https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/jan/27/prozac-next-psychiatric-wonder-drug-research-medicine-mental-illness
It’s a salutary exercise to glance at the MHRA’s stated responsibilities in this context. A bundle of bureaucratic standards (redolent of RCAs) and fast market access etc., with a wriggly bit on ‘educating the public and HCPs about risks and benefits to ensure safer use of medicines.’ What? Notable omissions – tell the truth about drug risks and put patient safety above all else.
Our responsibilities are to:
• ensure medicines, medical devices and blood components for transfusion meet applicable standards of safety, quality and efficacy (effectiveness)
• secure safe supply chain for medicines, medical devices and blood components
• promote international standardisation and harmonisation to assure the effectiveness and safety of biological medicines
• educate the public and healthcare professionals about the risks and benefits of medicines, medical devices and blood components, leading to safer and more effective use
• enable innovation and research and development that is beneficial to public health
• collaborate with partners in the UK and internationally to support our mission to enable the earliest access to safe medicines and medical devices and to protect public health
https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/medicines-and-healthcare-products-regulatory-agency/about
Crikey, I looked at Adolf Jann! Central casting villain. At least in those days there was absolutely no pretence of being altruistic.
Btw who else noticed the ad opposite the Taiwanese piece – ‘The letters you see reveals your ADHD type?’ I know the letters I’d like to reply – but you wouldn’t print them.
Two years pulled – the runny stuff…
a “broader strategic review” of the paroxetine product family.
Discontinuation of antidepressant could affect tapering patients, say experts
Exclusive: Paroxetine 20mg/10mL oral suspension is being discontinued, but experts have highlighted how these liquid formulations of antidepressants are “essential” for successfully tapering patients.
https://pharmaceutical-journal.com/article/news/discontinuation-of-antidepressant-could-affect-tapering-patients-say-experts
The liquid selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) paroxetine (Seroxat; GSK) 20mg/10mL oral suspension is to be discontinued, raising concerns for patients in the process of tapering off the drug.
On 14 July 2022, the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) announced via a medicine supply notification that paroxetine (Seroxat) 20mg/10mL oral suspension would be discontinued in July 2022 and that there were “limited” supplies remaining.
The notification said that paroxetine tablets and unlicensed specials of paroxetine 10mg/5mL oral suspension remained available and could “support an uplift in demand”.
A spokesperson for GSK said the discontinuation was part of a “broader strategic review” of the paroxetine product family.
“GSK has decided to discontinue manufacturing, supply and marketing of paroxetine hydrochloride oral suspension products,” they said.
“We recognise that paroxetine hydrochloride oral suspension is an important medicine for some patients and regret any inconvenience the discontinuation may cause.”
Experts have highlighted that liquid formulations, such as paroxetine 20mg/10mL oral suspension, are “essential” for successful tapering from paroxetine and that, for the patients for whom this particular formulation has worked, the product withdrawal would be “of concern”.
Roz Gittins, president of the College of Mental Health Pharmacy, said: “Paroxetine, because of it’s relatively short half-life, can be more often associated with discontinuation symptoms’
“The liquid can be especially useful because it can enable more flexible dosing for dose reductions.
“Whilst the number being prescribed is not as great as some other formulations, it restricts the licensed versions available for the people who really need it,” she added.
Nicola Greenhalgh, lead pharmacist for mental health at North East London NHS Foundation Trust, said: “In terms of paroxetine … it is not an easy one to withdraw.
“We are increasingly learning that the old advice of withdrawing over at least four weeks is simply not tolerated by many patients and the advice that discontinuation reactions are normally mild and short lived is not the case for a significant number of people coming off of antidepressants.”
Greenhalgh added that some patients may need a few months to come off their antidepressants and may need liquid for only part of it, while others will have a prolonged withdrawal and may remain on the liquid for some time.
“But, [the discontinuation] is likely to impact any of those patients who are coming off,” she said. “Some advice has been to switch to an SSRI with a longer half-life but, from practice, it is not always as simple.”
Steve Bazire, honorary professor at the School of Pharmacy at the University of East Anglia, said that paroxetine was “rarely started these days” but that there were people still on it in the community.
He added that other paroxetine liquids and strengths, such as 10mg/5mL, 20mg/5mL and 30mg/5mL, had been mentioned by the Specialist Pharmacy Service as alternatives, but said it was not easy to find out who the manufacturers are.
“I’ve no idea how many people have the liquid … but overall, I’d say it’s a bit of a pain having this product discontinued, but if we can find out who makes the other liquids it would solve the issue,” he said.
David Taylor, director of pharmacy and pathology at the Maudsley Hospital and professor of psychopharmacology at King’s College London, said that he understood that other liquid formulations remained available.
“There may be differences in the formulation of different liquid oral products but I doubt they have any clinical significance given that the paroxetine content is the same,” he added.
The patient view
Sarah Tilley came off Seroxat over several years using the oral solution. She said:
“Many people trying to wean off Seroxat know how vital it is to get hold of the liquid version of the drug to help facilitate a safe and gradual taper. Without access to this it throws up lots of questions around how to taper safety and puts people at greater risk of experiencing severe withdrawal symptoms. The decision to stop making liquid Seroxat is both concerning and hugely disruptive for those trying to come off.”
Another patient, who wished to remain anonymous, had been taking Seroxat since they were in their early 20s. Frustrated by the side effects, they had attempted to stop taking it numerous times since 2004:
“For my latest attempt to stop Seroxat, starting from 20mg in 2018, I have used the oral suspension form to follow a hyperbolic taper. Doing so lets me precisely measure doses, avoids the risks of crushing tablets to make my own suspension, and is quicker and easier to order from my GP.
“So to learn GSK will no longer make the liquid form of this drug is yet another blow for me and for patients in the same precarious position. GSK must reverse this decision.”
Paul Sams, based in the North West of England, has now had a number of years medication free:
“The idea that this liquid form of Seroxat is no longer going to be available fills me with horror for the people hoping to come off this medication. I think the people who provide the tablet form should be firmly supported to continue making the liquid form of the medication available.”
This article was updated on 27 July 2022 to include patients’ views
To clarify, they are getting rid of the branded Prozac but generics will continue to be made, correct? I have a go-bag that lasts 18 months for the psych meds I am stuck on that can’t get off of despite devastating neurotoxicity. I even need a specific generic. It’s really life and death for me to continue to have access to these chemicals to which I am tied forever to. Freaking out over here right now thinking there could be a possibility that I can’t have access to generic Prozac.
To clarify. There are brand name products – Prozac. There are generic products – fluoxetines. And after patents expired we can now get Branded Generics and so we got Generic Prozac – this will have Prozac on the box but will be closer to a generic price. Trouble is some people needed absolutely continuity of the chemical and its additives and swore correctly that generic fluoxetines could differ from each other and from the original branded product. The Extra bit of trouble is no one can any longer depend on Branded Products or Branded Generics to remain the same without significant variations as they once mostly did – Branded Products are often now made in India in the same companies making the generics
D
In the midst of my Seroxat hoop-la, I collected my usual prescription from the practice pharmacy.
Seroxat was written on the packet, but the box was a slightly different colour and the GSK logo was not there. I took it back as I knew then because I was having such enormous problems with the Seroxat that I could not risk any deviation from the GSK Seroxat. It was also obvious to me that they had changed brands as a cost-cutting exercise.
Actually, they were very good about it and all subsequent prescriptions were branded GSK. I had expected a bit of a commotion but none came.
After this, and years later, on a small amount of a blood pressure pill, I repeatedly asked for the same manufacturer to be given to me, being a bit paranoid about differences contained in the pill.
They sort of tried, but kept saying they couldn’t get hold of my original prescription. This went on for quite a while and I had to give up. Now every prescription has a different box and different manufacturer. As this pill is not really likely to have any morbid repercussions, I guess I can live with it..
The problem comes with the law. If I had taken generic Seroxat, switched mid-term, there is no way that I could have been a litigant in the UK GSK Seroxat litigation.
Look what happened with Stewart Dolin. Wendy, his wife, was awarded $3m with a jury win for the death of her husband from Paxil. She subsequently lost the award as GSK argued it was a generic version of Paxil.
Wendy Dolin Takes on GlaxoSmithKline And Wins — For Now at Least
By Jim Gottstein, JD
https://www.madinamerica.com/2017/05/wendy-dolin-takes-on-glaxo-smith-kline-and-wins/
‘The other thing about Wendy’s interview that I would draw attention to is her description of the importance of the ruling on generics:’
Excellent article.
When Pharma leads a woman to investigate ‘Akathisia’ with almost dire consequences and what happened next
Could ‘Akathisia’ get you, either way
MAID for Akathisia
Alberta woman’s medically assisted death delayed last minute by B.C. judge
The woman was scheduled for an assisted death in Vancouver on Oct. 27 at 8 p.m.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/maid-death-delayed-1.7368473
An Alberta woman was denied a medically assisted death in Vancouver this past Sunday after an interim injunction was granted in B.C. Supreme Court barely 24 hours before she was scheduled to die.
According to court documents, the woman was approved for medical assistance in dying (MAiD) in July by Vancouver MAiD provider Dr. Ellen Wiebe after her own doctors in southern Alberta wouldn’t approve it.
Wiebe was scheduled to conduct the death at 8 p.m. on Oct. 27 at the Willow Reproductive Health Centre.
The injunction application and civil claim were filed by the woman’s common-law spouse. Both names have been ordered anonymized by the court.
In the documents, the husband argues that his wife’s condition — akathisia — does not qualify her for assisted death.
He also claims that the MAiD process was flawed and that his wife has mental health problems that “underpin her wish to apply for MAiD.”
People with mental illness as their sole underlying medical condition are not eligible for MAiD under current legislation.
‘Extreme, irreparable harm’
In his reasons, Justice Simon Coval granted the 30-day injunction, stating there was “clearly a situation of extreme, irreparable harm.”
He also said there is an “arguable case about whether or not the MAiD criteria and process has been followed.”
“I can only imagine the pain she has been experiencing and recognize that this injunction will only make things worse,” said Coval. “But … in my view, the interest of justice requires that this interim injunction be granted.”
According to the civil claim, the woman was diagnosed with rapid cycling type 2 bipolar disorder and has been prescribed medications for various issues since 2018.
The husband said one medication in particular, Quetiapine, left her feeling drugged, unable to move, extremely lethargic and with an “inner sense of fear.”
Under medical direction, she began to taper off the drug but experienced distressing side effects, described as “‘the horrors,” which included an inner sense of terror, inability to sleep at night or sit still, and suicidal thoughts.
After researching her symptoms online, the claim says the woman became convinced that she had akathisia — a condition described as an “inability to sit still” that’s been associated with certain types of medications, especially antipsychotics.
The husband said she was assured by two experts that the condition was treatable but never followed their advice.
He said in early 2024 she began exploring MAiD and that after being refused by her own doctors in Alberta found Dr. Wiebe online.
According to the husband, Wiebe did not speak to the woman’s doctors directly but asked that she obtain and forward her own medical records. He said his wife’s psychiatrist indicated she never requested her psychiatric records, which suggests they were not used in Wiebe’s MAiD assessment process.
According to the husband, Wiebe gave his wife approval for MAiD after their first Zoom meeting.
He said because his wife couldn’t get anyone to witness her completed form to obtain MAiD, a volunteer at Dr. Wiebe’s clinic signed it.
He said because his wife did not have a doctor who would provide a second MAiD assessment, Wiebe arranged for another doctor to do it.
CBC reached out to Wiebe, but she declined to comment.
Harriet Vogt says
October 31, 2024 at 11:49 pm
I just found myself idly typing – ‘why is Wes Streeting such a ******* idiot?’ into the search bar (possibly not the only person to be doing this) and up came this fabulous piece by Kathleen Stock.
https://unherd.com/2024/10/wes-streeting-wants-to-experiment-on-you/
What I hadn’t realised – slow on the uptake – is that Eli Lilly are actually putting money into the coffers of UK Inc to pay for the privilege of what is effectively a national test market of Mounjaro – and its ability to deliver us from fatness unto neoliberal productive functionality. (Apparently it’s undershot its ‘bullish’ sales’ projections and the stock’s a bit wobbly so this seems like a smart idea):
‘The five-year experiment is part of a £279 million deal struck with Lilly, the world’s biggest drug company, and aims to determine whether giving weight-loss injections to the obese will boost the economy. It will have two prongs. On one side, the NHS will identify potential participants for its trial on the basis of obesity, plus some combination of “hypertension, sleep apnea, cardiovascular disorders and unhealthy levels of … cholesterol”. It will then dose them with Mounjaro, Lilly’s competitor to Novo Nordisk’s Wegovy (better known as Ozempic). Meanwhile academics at the University of Manchester will be collecting data about the effects of the drug on “health-related quality of life and changes in participants’ employment status and sick days from work”. Accustomed as we are to seeing the nation’s relatively poor health as a terrible financial burden, effectively Streeting is urging us to flip the script and see it as a possible goldmine.’
I particularly loved this moment in KS’s piece – hasn’t she risen like a phoenix since escaping my old university, that used to be radically open-minded and is now just a wokerati fascist establishment – or another scared little business that fails to protect its academics and their freedom to think and speak for themselves:
‘In Streeting’s imagination, perhaps, biotech companies will start flocking to our shores, lured by the juicy prospect of exclusive access to a centralised pool of patients. Lazarus-like, the NHS will eventually stagger out of the tomb, throwing off its bandages. The economy will boom, replete with newly svelte and mentally balanced workers. Government ministers will dance nimbly in celebration to the sounds of Taylor Swift .’
The Wesbot is alarming for all of us concerned about society’s pharmacological destruction. He’s a sort of ‘painting by numbers’ instrumentalist – got a weight problem, drug it, got a waiting list problem, double the number of appointments. How? – send in the trusts who seem to know and they’ll sort it. In fact, diagnostic hubs do help speed up throughput – we’ re talking mass production here. which for some routine interventions like cataract surgery is fairly appropriate – but where are you going to get the staff, Wes? No answer – not in his software programme.
The Wesbot manifests zero awareness of drug harms. He’s ordered another review:
‘Patient safety at heart of government’s plans for healthcare reform as Health and Social Care Secretary orders action to improve regulator performance’
https://www.gov.uk/government/news/government-pledges-further-action-to-strengthen-patient-safety
And the organisations included are:
CQC
National Guardian’s Office
Healthwatch
Health Services Safety Investigations Body
Patient Safety Commissioner
NHS Resolution (quality and safety functions only)
Fair enough, the CQC does need an overhaul – as the Dash review confirmed. And he does need to try and get his seemingly flow chart head around the respective roles of these overlapping organisations – several of which are focussed on ‘after the event’ harms – not risk prevention.
What is particularly striking is the absence of the MHRA and NICE – arguably the pivotal organisations that should be driving patient safety in medicines and medical devices. But I fully expect that Wes sees them as profit centres – as they appear to see themselves. https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/653be2e9d10f35000d9a6b0f/3948_MHRA_Annual_Report_2023_A4_PRINT-271023.pdf
I was under the impression, originally, that the Patient Safety Commissioner was going to be the voice of harmed patients. Apparently she is aware of far more than she can handle, with a tellingly small department. If I were her, I’d be making a bid for far greater power in the Wesbot review. But who knows – plenty for you, David Alton et al and patient advocacy groups do to push the MHRA to focus on more than defensive, ‘risk-to-self’ comms.
You mentioned about 8 organisations involved in drug safety and still they ignore the people harmed by their drugs. Un-bloody believable!
All this new genetic testing won’t help people like me either or any of us already harmed but it will help make a lot of people rich.
Life is a scam and we are just merely strawmen for many organisations. They dont care about drug safety that’s why we are ignored. We really are just lab rats to them.
My faith in everything is gone.
In matters of Healthcare, there are two individuals who are striking in their ‘prayers’, who, above all, put Health above politics.
‘children’s health, chronic illness’
‘the doctors wouldn’t talk about it, the pediatricians wouldn’t talk about it, the scientists, the government officials’
SenRonJohnson:
“When @RobertKennedyJr called me up as he was contemplating making this move…[which] has cost him dearly, personally…my first comment was: ‘Bobby, this is an answer to my prayers.’ Not only because he’ll be given the chance to focus on what he’s been championing now for decades, children’s health, chronic illness, but I think even more importantly, for our nation, he is setting an example for how you set your political differences aside and focus on an area of agreement to tackle a difficult problem and demonstrate to America, this is exactly how you heal and unify a horribly divided nation.”
I’m at the @RescueRepublic event in Washington DC today talking to folks about the event and what they’re advocating for.
RFK Jr:
“Since 2005, I spent 30 minutes praying every day when I get out of bed … I asked God, for 19 years, to put me in a position where I could END the chronic disease epidemic.” “I saw this happening and I began writing about it, and the media rose up and silenced me in 2005. Nobody would talk about it, the doctors wouldn’t talk about it, the pediatricians wouldn’t talk about it, the scientists, the government officials, and people warned me: if you keep talking about this, you’re gonna destroy your career.”
“If you work for the FDA and are part of this corrupt system, I have two messages for you: 1. Preserve your records,” Kennedy continued, “and 2. Pack your bags.”
Meg Tirrell, CNN
In the UK, there only seems to be a slavish dedication to mediocrity, some of which borders on show-biz subjugation.