The Daily Telegraph in the UK as well as The Daily Mail carried articles this week on a paper in the journal Ethical Human Psychology and Psychiatry by John Read and colleagues that was based on the work of AntidepAware.
For over a decade, AntidepAware has been cataloguing inquests in Britain where it appears likely the person was taking an antidepressant. The site gave John and colleagues access to the records. It’s a rich treasure trove of data on the drugs people have been taking and the article in Ethical HPP helps put this on the record.
AntidepAware and I have liaised closely for years, sharing frustrations at the reluctance of, or inability of the coronial system, to tide this flood of suicides.
One of the first inquests I was involved in, in 1999, was the death by suicide of Richard Wood from Llanelli in South Wales. It was evident to the coroner there, John Owen, and to me ,that Prozac had caused this death and Mr Owen wrote to the drugs regulator – the MHRA – but got no joy.
One of the most recent I was involved in, Samuel Morgan’s, was also in South Wales, and it was evident to the coroner, Gareth Phillips, that citalopram had caused the problem and he too wrote to the MHRA and got no joy.
Nearly 25 years later and there is no sign of movement – the MHRA may be even dug in deeper than they were in the last millenium.
There is no joy from politicians either, who seem to be waiting for MHRA to make a move – Morgan v Morgan.
The Read article highlights the stalemate. In not a single instance among the hundreds of cases has the coroner made it absolutely clear that s/he thinks the antidepressant caused the suicide. Britain has Open Verdicts, which to some in the outside world looks like a tacit admission of drug induced suicide – but it’s not.
The Mail and Telegraph articles take a sensible approach and have straplines mentioning that antidepressants can or might cause suicide.
Read and colleagues are a little more cautious saying that if the person committed suicide clearly the antidepressant wasn’t working – and in this sense could be said to have caused the suicide.
This framing of issues still blames the disease not the drug and leaves the door open to many doctors and huge chunks of the public to figure that the problem is our antidepressants are not strong enough. We need stronger drugs and in the meantime perhaps we need to get people on more drugs – not just one but several at the same time.
I was asked to review the Read article by EHPP. As someone who has participated in British and other inquests, this gave me an opportunity to add to the data.
I was able to explain something about why in the face of these hundreds of cases not a single coroner had come out and blamed the drug. Sure coronoers filed Regulation 28 Reports, which coroners do when there appears to be an issue that concerns the safety of others, but something is getting in the way of these Reports leading to any movement to make things safer.
The journal editor, Don Marks, creatively opted to publish my review, expanded into article format, alongside the Read paper. The full article Diagnosis, Verdict and Causality is here. The highlights follow.
Case A in the article combines the case of Roman Schmitt, the 16-year old son of Yoko Motohama and Vincent Schmitt who committed suicide on paroxetine. Romain’s case happened in France and is still in progress.
His case seques into a scene from the inquest of Yvonne Woodley in Britain, whose death on citalopram led to an inquest in 2010. Mr Cotter, the coroner called Dr.Muldoon, the medical affairs manager of Lundbeck in Britain and asked:
AC: I would like you to answer the next two questions either yes, no or I don’t know.
AC: Do you believe that citalopram can cause somebody who would not otherwise take their own life to do so?
AC: And is that what you think happened to Yvonne Woodley?
After that the family doctor, Dr Rosemary Smith is asked the same questions and initially answers the same way – Yes and No.
Dr Smith is flustered and slightly all over the place. She is pushed by the coroner:
AC: And if you believe Citalopram does make people take their own life-
RS: No actually. I think I’m going to say that, because we prescribed her Citalopram to hope to make her feel better. That was the whole point of her taking it as an antidepressant, to help her to feel better. This is the risk that is reported by BNF and NICE. That is not to say that we’re actually prescribing somebody something that is going to make them kill themselves. I think if we had not prescribed her anything what would be the conclusion then if she’d hung herself? That she hadn’t been treated?
Finally Dr Gabrielle Milner, a consultant psychiatrist, having heard Dr Muldoon answer that citalopram can cause people to committ suicide is asked the questions:
.AC: Let me ask the same questions. First do you believe that citalopram can make somebody who would not otherwise take their own life, do so?
GM: I don’t.
AC: You don’t believe it?
AC: So it follows from that that you don’t think that’s what happened to Yvonne?
Samuel Morgan’s case may illustrate why Dr Milner is contradicting the company line in this extraordinary way. Because these drugs come with a Black Box Warning, Chris Muldoon is pretty well legally obliged to state – yes these drugs can cause suicide.
Samuel Morgan is as close to a healthy volunteer as you can get in clinical practice. He has pretty well nothing wrong with him when he comes and asks for an SSRI
The doctor who reluctantly prescribes citalopram to Samuel, Richard Adams, appears to be a good doctor and decent man. In addition to the coroner’s Regulation 28 Report sent to MHRA, Dr Adams writes to the NICE Guideline apparatus suggesting to them that their Guidance on antidepressants doesn’t adequately cover the suicide risk and may need to be revisited. This seems to indicate he believes it is possible that the citalopram he prescribed caused this death.
Long before the inquest, I contacted Dr Adams, outlining some of the background details on citalopram and SSRIs:
I make it clear I am happy to talk to him and his colleagues about all this without him or them having to say a word. I also say if there are any problems, I will be happy to be an expert witness on his behalf.
Dr Adams had the grace to respond but told me that he has been advised by his medical protection insurer – medical defense union – the people who cover a doctors legal costs if somebody takes an action against them – not to talk to me.
At the inquest, Dr Adams says nothing. His medical defence lawyer does the talking and blames this terrible illness depression, painting it as the only possible cause of this sad death.
Having been a doctor called to an inquest, when a patient I had seen went on to commit suicide, I know that the advice from a Defence Union is to blame the illness not the drug. Why? Defence Unions are a business and saying the drug did it opens up the prospect of a legal action against the prescriber.
The insurance industry began life as an effort to help us take risks – like the risks of travelling. Giving us courage to do things has clearly been good for all sorts of other industries. In medicine, their business was to support doctors to take risks to help their patients. Now they will not let a doctor take the risk of conceding that a prescription drug might have caused a problem.
The right word from Dr Adams’ would not bring Samuel back from the dead but it would have brought some relief to his family, and might have saved lots of other lives.
What insurers are doing here is a serious problem, close to a scandal. When the coroner filed his Regulation 28 Report, the response from MHRA was – that Dr Adams’ had not blamed the drug and therefore they wouldn’t.
Things are even trickier for GlaxoSmithKline in Romain Schmitt’s case. GSK are taking great care to say they could not possibly comment on what happened to Romain on their drug. They are able to take this position because they have not made an effort to review the records and talk to the family who lived through Romain’s time on their drug.
The classic GSK tactic, given a first airing by Ian Hudson in the Tobin v SmithKline trial, has been to say that paroxetine causes no adverse effects at all. How is this possible – it happens because GSK take the position that if RCTs have not shown a statistically significant increase in suicidal events, there is no evidence for this. So no matter how evident it is that the drug in fact has caused the problem, tough – this just shows people can be fooled by appearances.
The crisis about teens committing suicide on antidepressants in 2004, with the later Black Box Warning made this argument a lot more difficult. GSK had a choice – agree the Warning was because the drug did cause suicide or argue it was because it didn’t work.
The fallback in a case like Romain’s is to argue it did not cause a suicide in this case, or that we cannot say it caused suicide in this case – something the company can do provided it doesn’t examine this case, even when invited to do so by the family.
GSK can always say its our view that the drug didn’t cause the problem in this case – but having an individual view is not science. Science requires a consensus view. This is where a jury trial can make all the difference.
What will the doctor who prescribed the drug in Romain’s this case say?
What will the medical insurers do?
I have written to the two leading medical insurers in Britain about this problem, inviting them to comment. They have not responded.
Having made these points, a coroner in Britain has just blamed the Astra-Zeneca vaccine for the death of Stephen Wright. How can this happen, given all the points above? Well in this case, it is likely no doctor prescribed it – at least not in a manner that will have required medical insurer input.
The coroner also took steps not to blame Astra-Zeneca. This death was something of an Act of God and the newspaper account stresses that these vaccines have saved millions of lives.
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
One of the most maddening things is, it’s the original illness coming back. You have to be a pretty dumb doctor to think that the person in front of you flapping around like a seagull with one leg with SSRI withdrawal was like this before they took the drug. Original illness – and the other one, feeling terrible off the drug, so obviously needs the drug – the Catch-22 falls right in to their lap.
I don’t think even GSK would have anticipated how well this would work out for say, Paroxetine.
They have an almost iron-guard surrounding these SSRIs; psychologically protected, nothing to see here.
The drums have been banged to death.
The Astra-Zeneca Case referred to was on every news bulletin yesterday begun by The World at One who has now put two cases under the spotlight. Not in a million years will an SSRI be covered in the same way. It never has, it never will.
It seems extraordinary that the length of time these SSRIs have been on the market, and the reams of stories covered in press outlets and documentaries continues to make doctors mute.
“Since 1960, it has been known that antidepressants can trigger suicide. Since 1980, it has been known that SSRIs can trigger suicide in healthy volunteers in exactly the timeframe found in B’s case. For nearly two decades, antidepressants have come with warnings of suicide”
MISSD presented to @rcpsych annual meeting three years ago. They promised to update their #akathisia info and make it publicly available. We’re still waiting…
Peter and “Influence”
Why Doctors Can’t Diagnoses Drug Adverse Reactions
Back from #suicideprevention conference in Oxford, my friend Prof Keith Hawton the organiser. Annual event since 1993. Much has changed since then. More researchers coming through, more evidence, informed by what bereaved families & people in distress tell us.
“but have we reached a point where traditional medical diagnoses no longer count? And if that is the case for diagnoses, can the case for legal verdicts be far behind?
“We risk compromising the safety of all if we prohibit judgments about cause-and-effect based on an examination of specific case, in which the question is, did this drug cause that effect?
“The condition caused it” …
The construction of the ‘adverse events’ process doesn’t pass muster…
‘Death Certification (UK, May 2016)’
‘Medical scrutiny applicable to all deaths’
‘Significantly more than feedback is required’
Adverse events https://youtu.be/gpSz_Ipt5z8 via @YouTube
Tragic death after covid AZ vaccine.
#Depression pills are often given off-label to undepressed people. Dismissing #akathisia risks and @US_FDA & UK patient safety info can cause avoidable harm & iatrogenic deaths. Learn about medication-induced #suicide, delirium, psychosis & akathisia at http://MISSD.LearnUpon.com
Robert Howard@ProfRobHoward Apr 18
Some people who take their own lives are depressed and, unsurprisingly, taking antidepressants. This doesn’t mean that antidepressants increase the risk of suicide, so matter how much shameless antipsychiatry “researchers” would like this to be the case.
Antidepressant warning as experts say drugs may raise suicide risk https://mol.im/a/11985333 via @MailOnline
Dan Johnson@DanJohnsonAB Apr 20
The “condition caused it” argument would also mean no substance given to fight cancer could ever cause cancer, no use of antibiotics could ever make infection worse, no drugs taken to alleviate sadness could ever make you sad. Gambling could never cause poverty.
Well said. The “condition caused it” has been an industry-promoted gaslighting response to iatrogenic harm for far too long.
and it appears, the Government response…
It’s very wrong to be focusing on payments while ommiting the focus Mrs Wright herself puts on the indemnities insisted on by drug companies and willingly provided by regulators and governments which underlined their ability to mandate unproven vaccines. Which inevitably as with any drug/vaccine would lead to some adverse effects including deaths. . Mrs Wright also in an interview with GBNEWS highlighted that her interview with the BBC was heavily weighted to highlight that her husband was in favour of vaccines and that they had saved zillions of lives which sidelined those issues of indemnities, mandates and so on (see interview with Mrs Wright and Dan Wootton 19th April) (will try to get the ref )
Patients launch legal action against AstraZeneca over its covid-19 vaccine
BMJ 2023; 380 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.p725 (Published 28 March 2023)
Cite this as: BMJ 2023;380:p725
Dozens of patients and families are launching legal action against AstraZeneca over a rare side effect of its covid-19 vaccine.
Lawyers have sent the company pre-action protocol letters, the first step in a legal claim on behalf of around 75 claimants. Some have lost relatives and some have survived with catastrophic injuries following blood clots.
Many millions have had the vaccine without suffering complications but in 2021 the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency confirmed a possible link between the vaccine, known as Vaxzevria, and a rare condition involving blood clots along with abnormally low platelet levels. Those taking legal action have been diagnosed with vaccine induced thrombotic thrombocytopenia.
The claimants are pursuing a two pronged strategy: taking legal action under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 as well as claiming payment under the government run Vaccine Damage Payment Scheme. The scheme has paid out in several cases, but is limited to £120 000 per claim and applicants must prove severe disablement.1 Payment under the scheme does not preclude a claim for personal injury through the courts. Those taking action under the Consumer Protection Act must show that the vaccine was not as safe as the public were entitled to expect.
Peter Todd, a consultant solicitor with Scott-Moncrieff & Associates, one of two lawyers handling claims, told The BMJ that the complications included stroke, heart failure, and leg amputations. He said the technology involved in the AstraZeneca vaccine was “risky.”
Even though the legal claim is against AstraZeneca, the UK taxpayer will have to pay any compensation awarded, under a legal indemnity that the government gave the company early in the pandemic.
In response to a freedom of information request, NHS Business Services, which operates the vaccine damage scheme, revealed that by 6 March 2023 the scheme had received 4017 claims relating to a covid-19 vaccine. Of those which had been dealt with, 622 concerned the AstraZeneca vaccine, 348 the Pfizer, and 43 the Moderna vaccine. Of the 4017 claims, 334 were for a death.
Sarah Moore, a partner in the Hausfeld law firm, whose clients are also taking legal action, said the maximum £120 000 payment from the scheme was “nothing” in cases where the person who was injured or died was a breadwinner. “Many were parents and many were caregivers,” she said.
MPs, campaigners, and families also argue that the scheme takes too long to decide on payments. The number of administrative staff processing claims has recently been increased from four to 80.
Damages for individuals in the court action could be in the millions. Moore added, “We’ve been trying to get the government to reform their statutory scheme. We didn’t want to litigate but the government has forced us into a corner. The only way these families can get compensation is to fight the battle they didn’t want to fight.”
An AstraZeneca spokesperson said the company could not comment on ongoing legal matters, but added, “Patient safety is our highest priority and regulatory authorities have clear and stringent standards to ensure the safe use of all medicines, including vaccines. Our sympathy goes to anyone who has reported health problems.
“AstraZeneca and regulatory authorities carefully record and assess all reports of potential adverse events associated with use of Vaxzevria. From the body of evidence in clinical trials and real world data, Vaxzevria has continuously been shown to have an acceptable safety profile and regulators around the world state that the benefits of vaccination outweigh the risks of extremely rare potential side effects.”
Ref for GBNEWS interview
Dan Wootton Tonight | Wednesday 19th April
https://www.youtube.com › watch
2 days ago — ‘Proof in black & white’ AstraZeneca’s Covid vaccine caused my husband’s death | Charlotte Wright. GBNews. GBNews.
0:46 / 2:01:00
‘Act of God’ …
This is Money…
Investors urged to oust Astra boss Soriot as pharma giant is hit with raft of high-profile legal claims
By LUKE BARR FOR THE DAILY MAIL
PUBLISHED: 22:14, 20 April 2023 | UPDATED: 22:14, 20 April 2023
AstraZeneca investors are being urged to oust long-standing chief executive Pascal Soriot.
In a remarkable intervention ahead of next Thursday’s annual general meeting, shareholder advisory service Pirc called for his removal amid concerns over mounting legal battles.
Pirc said the sheer volume of claims ‘could financially or reputationally impact the company’. It added ‘it is not clear’ how Soriot has sought to safeguard the firm.
There is no single case highlighted by Pirc, but the pharma giant has recently been hit with a number of high-profile claims.
This includes an £800million dispute in the US over an old stomach acid drug, and claims from patients in the UK affected by its Covid jab.
Pirc described Soriot’s pay package as ‘highly excessive’ after he was handed £15.3million in 2022.
Soriot, 63, has become one of the UK’s best-known chief executives since taking the helm in 2012, during which time he has been paid almost £120million.
He has been credited with a turnaround that transformed its image. Shares have topped £120 thanks to a near-140 per cent rise in the past five years.
One analyst said: ‘Pascal is extremely well loved and seen as critical to the transformation of the company over the last ten years.’
Another said: ‘Realistically, the likelihood of this getting anywhere is slim.’
Last year only 0.07 per cent of the shareholders voted against Soriot’s appointment.
Astra declined to comment.
EXCLUSIVE: Gareth is no anti-vaxxer, but his wife’s death certificate says she died from the AstraZeneca vaccine.
And so, Gareth took a step which is the equivalent of lobbing a hand grenade into the vaccine debate. He launched legal action against pharmaceutical giant AstraZeneca, joining forces with another 75 families who have also lost loved-ones, or seen them severely disabled after having the vaccine.
Lawyers say the payouts, should the action be successful, could reach seven-figure sums.
Who will foot the bill? Not AstraZeneca. Under a legal indemnity that the Government gave the company early in the pandemic (because of the need to roll out the vaccine fast), the UK taxpayer will have to pay any compensation awarded.
Gareth finds this astonishing.
‘The idea that a drug company can be immune from any legal responsibility is staggering, but even if they are, what about moral responsibility?’
A report on MHRA’s Regulation of the Covid-19 vaccines
Blood clotting: On 10 March 2021, a fatal case of a rare type of stroke (cerebral venous sinus thrombosis) occurred in a person in Denmark, 10 shortly after their first AstraZeneca vaccine. Around 720,000 vaccines had been dispensed in Denmark at that time. The following day, the Danish Health Authority suspended the vaccine, pending a detailed analysis, and several other European countries followed suit. The patient was found to have a rare condition, Vaccine-Induced Thrombotic Thrombocytopaenia (VITT), which is an autoimmune condition. The Danish Ministry sent a letter to every person who had received AZ in the previous 14 days, telling them what symptoms to look out for and when to contact their doctor. By that date, over 24 million vaccinations had been given in the UK while the MHRA and JCVI still insisted it was safe. One month later, MHRA acknowledged the link between AZ vaccines and VITT, but described it as extremely rare and advised that benefits greatly outweighed risks, 11 stating, “The MHRA is not recommending age restrictions in COVID-19 Vaccine AstraZeneca vaccine use”.
The UK paused doses for under 30s on the recommendation of the JCVI, and two months after Denmark’s decision they withdrew it for under 40s, 12 by which time further needless deaths in the UK had occurred. Even then, it was the JCVI rather than MHRA that recommended alternatives for this age group (note even JCVI did not recommend a full suspension). 13 The condition is now listed on the manufacturer’s patient information leaflets, but no modification was made to the conditional marketing authorisation which is still in existence for age 16 upwards.
At the beginning of March 2021, nine weeks after the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine rollout began, national regulators in Austria, Denmark, Norway, Iceland and Germany, started to report a potential link between blood clots and the Covid-19 vaccines. Denmark suspended use of the AstraZeneca Covid-19 vaccine on 11 March 2021, after they had vaccinated 734,000 people. Other countries rapidly followed suit. 38 The MHRA said 39 on 11 March that it could see no evidence of the linkage, despite associated Yellow Card reports as early as 7 February, and did not publish safety advice until 7 April 2021. 40 By then, 24 million people had been vaccinated in the UK without MHRA’s pharmacovigilance system detecting a problem.
Why is Yellow Card data on the AZ vaccine no longer published?
What about moral responsibility, he asks.
An ‘Act of God’ suits AZ, MHRA, Government, Etc.
The ‘Acts of Gods’, however, on the other hand, as the title suggests, in plain black and white, brings us back
Will Medical Insurers Stop Killing People – from Antidepressants, saved millions of lives…
7. As a result of the Notification of Death Regulations a senior coroner should
expect to receive notification of deaths in the following circumstances:
(a)the registered medical practitioner suspects that that the person’s death was
(i)poisoning, including by an otherwise benign substance;
(ii)exposure to or contact with a toxic substance;
(iii)the use of a medicinal product, controlled drug or psychoactive
That the death was not originally reported to the coroner is reminiscent of what may become known as the Pfizer Refrain:
“In the opinion of the investigator, there was no reasonable possibility that the xxxx was related to the study intervention, concomitant medications, or clinical trial procedures, but rather it was related to suspected underlying disease. Pfizer concurred with the investigator’s causality assessment.”
‘Remains opaque’ …
Senator Ron Johnson Retweeted
The Epoch Times
“The process by which HHS evaluates these claims or even advertises the existence of this compensation program remains opaque.”
@SenRonJohnson is demanding answers from US officials on compensation to people who were injured by #COVID19 vaccines.
EXCLUSIVE: Senator Demands Answers From Government on COVID-19 Vaccine Injury Compensation
A U.S. senator is demanding answers from U.S. officials on compensation to people who were injured by COVID-19 vaccines.
Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.), ranking member of the Senate’s Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations, asked for key details on the U.S. compensation scheme, including how much each person who has been compensated requested.
The government recently paid three people who were injured by the vaccines, marking the first time payments were rendered for the COVID vaccines. But the highest payout was just $2,019.
Johnson is also asking whether the government has advertised the Countermeasures Injury Compensation Program (CICP), the only venue for federal compensation; whether officials expect an increase in claims in light of how many injury reports have been logged with the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System, and how much money injured people are eligible for under the program.
The Republican outlined the requested information in a letter to Xavier Becerra, the secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), and Carole Johnson, the administrator of the Health and Resources Administration (HRSA).
HHS and HRSA did not respond to requests for comment.
“Although the government appears to be providing very limited compensation to individuals who have filed COVID-19 vaccine injury claims, the process by which HHS evaluates these claims or even advertises the existence of this compensation program remains opaque,” Johnson told The Epoch Times in an emailed statement.
“HHS owes the American people a complete explanation of its administration of the compensation program for individuals who have suffered COVID-19 vaccine injuries,” he added.
An office inside HHS, HRSA administers the CICP. The program covers the COVID-19 vaccines because the Trump administration early in the COVID-19 pandemic made a declaration under the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness Act that shields manufacturers and others, such as vaccine administrators, from liability. The Biden administration has extended the declaration.
All people who are or believe they were injured by a COVID-19 vaccine or another countermeasure can apply to the CICP for compensation for unreimbursed medical expenses and lost employment income. People whose family members died from an injury can ask for survivor benefits.
According to the HRSA, a person must prove a “causal connection” between a vaccine and a serious injury or death. The connection must be supported by “compelling, reliable, valid, medical and scientific evidence.”
As of April 1, 11,425 COVID-19 applications have been filed, many for alleged vaccine injuries. Just 22 have been deemed eligible for compensation, and no compensation had been given until recently. Another 684 have been denied.
While a similar program, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, has judges decide on injury cases, the CICP features HRSA administrators deciding on applications.
Dr. Augusto Germán Roux Retweeted
Surprise early release of my music video! I was too excited to wait. I put my heart into this and want the world to see it. Every sale goes to the vaccine injured
until 6/2/2023 – Please hear my message, and spread it like a wildfire.
A ‘New’ Song…
I am so pleased to see the work of AntidepAware in the spotlight, having provided very many examples of cases for the paper by John Read and his colleagues. The number of cases covered by Mr Antidepaware is absolutely amazing – all done without looking for any praise for the work covered; done simply to awaken the general public to the possibility of prescribed drugs being the reason for so many deaths, plus the fact that coroners seem blind to this possibility. Mr A has carried out this work after his retirement from his chosen career. He could have put his feet up and taken it easy – instead he’s followed reports from coroners’ courts throughout the land which must take many hours of his time.
This week, for our zoom meeting, we had the company of another fantastic man. This one is Mr. BeatingBenzos. He is another one who has retired from his chosen career. He, also, could have chosen to take it easy and enjoy a few cruises! Instead, he’s chosen to support thousands of people worldwide who have problems with their benzo prescriptions. We were all absolutely amazed at the amount of detailed work that Mr B has undertaken to make withdrawing from these drugs a possibility for those who didn’t know where to turn for support. One sad fact that Mr B shared with us was that he didn’t really have any idea how many people had successfully withdrawn using his support as noone ever returned to the website to express their gratitude and success. The only ones who return are those who are still struggling – and there are plenty of those.
This brings me to something that saddens me. It is the reluctance of people to spare just a few minutes to call in and say how things are going for them once they feel that they no longer need our group’s support. The truth is that although they feel that they no longer need us – we desperately need them. Hope for those still really struggling cannot come from me, who has never been unlucky enough to have taken any of these drugs – it has to come from those who have successfully got themselves out of the darkest times and are now recovering. Recovery comes in tiny steps – but when you are in the darkness of your worst times it seems an impossibility that things will ever change. Just seeing the difference, in those who used to be in similar circumstances, can lift the mood of a group.
Mr A, Mr B and so many others work in the hope that, one day, the truths as we see them will ring true for very many in our communities. The wish of all who give of their time in this way is that one day those who fight so hard against us, will at least meet us half way so that we can have constructive conversations to brighten the lives of all in our country who, at present, believe that their saviour is in a prescription for a pill.
Would it be worth contacting Peter Todd . re above comment on thebmj article ‘Lawyers have sent the company pre-action protocol letters, the first step in a legal claim on behalf of around 75 claimants. Some have lost relatives and some have survived with catastrophic injuries following blood clots
.Peter Todd – Consultant solicitor – Scott-Moncrieff & …
https://uk.linkedin.com › ptodd
London, England, United Kingdom · Consultant solicitor · Scott-Moncrieff & Associates Ltd
Experienced litigator in civil dispute resolution Specialties: Special expertise in catastrophic injury |
Learn more about Peter Todd’s work experience, …
He is taking on A Z on behalf of people harmed and bereaved .Peter Todd, a consultant solicitor with Scott-Moncrieff & Associates, one of two lawyers handling claims,
Also i nvolved with –
INQUEST Lawyers Group
The INQUEST Lawyers Group (ILG) is a national pool of lawyers who are willing and able to provide preparation and legal representation for bereaved families. The group is integral to our work, providing specialist legal and advice to many families going through the inquest process and contributing to our work on coronial reform. Membership is open to all lawyers who predominantly represent bereaved families and share INQUEST’s objectives and values. Find out to join here.
The ILG exists to support the work of INQUEST and further its objectives, and as part of this provides support, expertise and a well established network to lawyers involved in relevant cases.
Maybe his commitment would transfer to psych drugs?
Peter Todd can be e-mailed at PTodd@scomo.com.
Prof Norman Fenton’s @profnfenton excellent video about the shortcomings of the MHRAgovuk
The government is to reverse its stance on the safety of a swine flu vaccine given to 6 million people in Britain and accept that on rare occasions the jab can trigger the devastating sleep disorder narcolepsy.
Seroxat Litigation: Judgment for GSK
The Court noted that the Claimants’ approach to opening their case at trial, contrary to previous court rulings, was “truly startling” (para 26). There was “more than an air of unreality” to the Claimants’ position at the hearing given their “consistent position” during the litigation that the case should proceed to trial and the Claimants would win: by arguing that GSK should be deprived of its costs by virtue of the weakness of their own case, the Claimants were trying to “have their cake and eat it” …
This is a good piece about establishing a potential causal role of drugs in suicides. RCTs can be misused to overrule evidence from case reports where negative drug-effects were plausibly involved in the suicide. Very relevant when discussing “anecdotes”
Dr Joanna Moncrieff
Interesting piece from @DrDavidHealy on the difficulties of establishing causality in drug-induced injury cases
Replying to @shvogt
The denial is so political. It’s like, no, no, no, there is no effect of drinking alcohol and driving. It’s the brakes. It’s all about the brakes.
Antidepressants- A Public Health Problem of Epidemic Proportions There has long been a grave concern among advocates that adverse reactions are greatly underestimated by the public, the medical profession, and the regulatory authorities.
Have a look down the site…Enter…
“Our Hour of Need” – June Raine
“Finger on the Pulse” – June Raine
“The Rather Elegant Model” – June Raine
Prof Norman Fenton
For those who still have any doubt about whether the MHRA are fit for purpose, I analysed a recent speech by the CEO June Raine about their approach to safety and it shows they are ignoring most of the safety issues with the covid vaccines. My video is linked here
Prof Norman Fenton
I’ve also posted a substack article about it:
Dr Zoe Harcombe, PhD
The MHRA is not fit for purpose. @profnfenton
Ultimately, in November 2021 I wrote to the CEO of the MHRA, June Raine, asking her point blank:
‘Can you explain why the MHRA permitted the use of adenovirus in Covid vaccines bearing in mind that it was known to be associated with clots?’
I did not hear back for a long while, and then on 22 February 2022 I received the following acknowledgement from someone signing himself “Peter”:
They knew therefore the risk to patients on which they continued to roll out the product was likely in the region of ten times worse than stated in their published reports, while fatalities were also reported at a much higher rate than for Pfizer and again might be ten times worse according to their own rule of thumb.
The issue of how far the British regulator which is an agency of UK Department of Health and Social Care and is 100% funded by the industry, works for the public rather than the industry is more than ever moot, and this instance is complicated by the fact that the Secretary of State for Health and Social Care – at the time the controversial World Economic Forum advocate Matt Hancock – was also a sponsor of the development of the product.
Raine accepts it as her mission to promote the new technology which the government, MHRA, WHO, Gates etc are hugely invested BUT THAT IS NOT THE JOB OF A REGULATOR. The proposition that the technology is inherently benign is a devious act of faith to say the least.