I’ve been a fan of Placido Domingo for 40 years or more. His role alongside Teresa Stratas in Zeffirelli’s La Traviata (if its emotion you want – one of the greatest movies ever made) can still bring tears to my eyes. I always liked his voice more than Pavarotti’s, Carreras, or others – and he looked much better as Alfredo. Pretty well everyone else suffered when I heard them in roles I’d previously heard done by him. Then there was his concert tour raising funds after a Mexican earthquake.
So, it came as a shock when news emerged recently of women claiming to have been sexually harassed by him. There are now 20 women in the frame. The claims centre on inappropriate touching or kissing and concerns about a climate in which women might fear their careers would be derailed if they rejected his advances.
Domingo’s response has been that “I strongly dispute recent allegations made about me, and I am concerned about a climate in which people are condemned without due process”. The overall response from his “team” has not been that nothing happened but that any events are being misrepresented or misinterpreted.
Domingo has already stepped down from or been dropped from a number of American positions but European opera houses have not yet followed suit.
The link to drugs came when a BBC interviewer quizzed one of the American journalists linked to the ongoing stories. Chasing the ongoingness, she put it to her print colleague – shouldn’t we presume innocence and wait till we know the facts before he is hounded off stage completely. She didn’t quite say what we have at the moment are anecdotes, don’t we need evidence.
Her interviewee took this point head on. (The following is a paraphrase). Look, she said, we didn’t run these stories without a lot of investigation and checking with lawyers. This isn’t hearsay. Women have put their names forward. They can be sued if what they are saying is false. Given the numbers of women who have come forward, something has unquestionably happened – enough to warrant opera houses and Domingo and everyone reviewing their position.
The key element here as noted in a RxISK post two years ago Stigma and Recovery soon after the Me Too movement began was women stepping into the light of day, overcoming their fear of being seen as a loser and the guilt or shame that lands on victims rather than perpetrators.
The “methodological” question is this. If one woman, putting her name in the frame, makes a claim about a Domingo, Weinstein or Leonard Cohen, is she to be believed? The lawyers and journalists will have done a lot of background work to assess the plausibility of the case. The more they uncover convincing stories of other women put in the same position, the more plausible the original claim becomes – except in circumstances where its well known “he” likes women and comes on to them – like Leonard Cohen.
When it’s one woman, the man can claim there is a motive or dismiss the claim in some other way. Quite aside from Brexit, the British establishment totally shot themselves in the foot some years back entertaining claims of a pedophile and murder ring within Westminster. Saint Tom Watson stood up in Parliament, and under cover of parliamentary privilege, claimed the police and others found the allegations credible. None of the powerful people in the frame were particularly sympathetic – not like Cohen or Domingo, more like Weinstein. But to someone who deals with claims like this regularly, it looked obviously fantastic, and should never have gotten anywhere at least not in the public domain.
In the case of one woman, whether we believe her or not likely depends on whether we have been in the same position or we like the “myth” of him we have been sold. Is there a way to get to a point beyond reflex sympathies, where we are justified in figuring the events likely happened so that rather than a group splitting down the middle in terms of their support for him or her, they will mostly side with her or him (there will always be some hold-outs).
Do we get there if two women put their name in the frame having been checked out thoroughly by the media? Or three? When does the weight of numbers become significant? What do we do with the hundreds of women who claim they never had anything but wonderful interactions with Domingo or Cohen?
What do we do when the climate changes so that child abuse is established as happening but we are then faced with women claiming abuse in childhood that could never have happened and it seems likely the claims are based on memories recovered in therapy? The recovered memory debacle may have become an epidemic primarily because it took place in private settings, rather than in the media spotlight or legal domain (although in some weird legal cases men did end up in jail on the basis of evidence later viewed as incredible). But it brings out a point that an acceptance that abuse happens, can lay the basis for even quite outlandish claims being entertained.
All of this mobilizes a deep misogyny, bringing into play stereotypes about women being manipulative and deceitful. So where, if anywhere, is the solid ground in all this?
This is exactly the issue at stake with the adverse effects of drugs. One of us comes forward with stories about PSSD or PGAD and we are dismissed. See PSSD and Patient Experiences for the most comprehensive and chilling account of what can happen. Patients can be manipulative and deceitful you know.
Its difficult to get our names in the frame. Unlike the women who were always free to put their name in the frame, and have recently appreciated the power of doing so, if we report the problem on a drug to regulators they remove our name. We can’t get into a position able through cross-examination to demonstrate there is no other way to explain what is happening us other than the effect of some drug. We aren’t able to let others know – have anyone say Me Too.
But even if we could, a group of us together would remain a collection of anecdotes rather than a force to be reckoned with. The drug will be innocent until proven guilty. In this case, the court system is run by the companies producing the drug who claim that the only way to produce significant evidence is through controlled trials which only they have the resources to run – and whaddya know none of the trials done have shown this problem.
This is the case even though, if one thing is more certain than men thinking about sex with women (or men) its the fact that drugs are poisons.
There is a risk benefit overlap between men and drugs. Men seem set up to make advances and women to desire advances that they will choose between. Even if this system mostly works as planned, it is almost certain to produce problems at the margins. These problems can be managed by women speaking out, especially when they do so collectively.
In the same way, there is a potential benefit from the poisons we call drugs. Handled with some discrimination, bringing good out of the use of a poison can be magical but with a system like this its inevitable things will go wrong.
In contrast to Me Too, we used to be able to manage these problems but now we can’t. We’ve switched into Not Me Guv mode. While women look like they are getting somewhere handling men, both women and men are going backwards when it comes to handling drugs.
And the main reason for this is we have lost the ability to link our names to an event in the public domain – to stand up and say – fine I’m willing to be cross-examined and live with the verdict of a jury of average people (especially if I have a Portia to be my advocate).
The corporatocracy/androcacy has found ways to make it impossible for anyone to stand up and say “Here I stand I can do no other”. Impossible to nail theses to a cathedral door without being laughed at. Oh how the Pope could have done with controlled trials back in 1517.
Finding a way to make our individual experience count again is the central problem of the age – a way to ensure that if we report something happening on treatment we are not regarded as guilty until proven innocent. We are not victimized.
But people can be manipulative. Once the possibility a drug has caused a homicide or a crime comes on the radar, all sorts of people do claim the drug made them do it when it didn’t.
So in addition to being able to report an experience, judgement calls need to be made. We need to take a stand on our judgement calls about the best way to explain this event – he crossed a boundary or he didn’t and this drug wiped out a sex life or it didn’t. When we are unable to say he crossed a boundary or the drug has caused a serious problem we are living a lie imposed on us by someone else.
Copyright © Data Based Medicine Americas Ltd.
I think the last two words are most important – Someone Else
We are at the stage in this game, of thrones, when it is not just – some one else …
Through the historical development of SSRIs, in particular, ‘some one else’ has grown exponentially.
Now, its not just the doctors who fail to deliver but behind them the whole agency has become warped and twisted.
May be you can live with your gp or psychiatrist putting you in a life-threatening situation, which can take years to mentally process, that your trust went totally out of the window. When you then realise that its not just that handy little surgery, but legion upon legion of layers, then, that is colossally a form of mind-engineering …
Its not surprise, amazement, disbelief, it goes much deeper than that.
When the whole process has disintegrated to this sort of level, when accusations become fact in less time than it takes to hunt a weasel, when guilty takes the lead, when everything is blown-up and kangeroo-courts are seen as the norm, and you appear to be a little speck of dust in this gigantic wheel of fortune, you can be jettisoned -out.
The Seroxat scandal is a case in point.
Its through no fault of ours that when you have a clear case, that the way the nature of society has changed, that society pushes up often the least distinguished. It looks now that all this was settled a long time ago. The die has been cast right from the get-go.
This little article in 2002, was almost the beginning of the rumblings that something was up
We have come a long way since then, but, societal group-think has taken over and ‘someone else’ is constantly passing the buck to someone else and getting us – nowhere
The chemistry of happiness
Seroxat is set to overtake Prozac as the world’s favourite antidepressant. With 100m prescriptions in more than 100 countries, it is aggressively marketed as the addiction-free answer to our anxieties. But thousands of patients are now saying their dependence on the dream drug has all but destroyed their lives
Sun 28 Apr 2002
Are we back at square-one?
Has the Kangeroo-Court of present-day emotional-politicking done us no favours?
Thanks Dee Doherty, for this Prime Example …
The ‘Placido’ Effect …
It is shameful that widespread prescriber denial, and subsequent misdiagnosis of AKATHISIA continues over forty years since first reported during antidepressant drug development.
How can those committed to research consider they are engaged in “Science” if they fail to address this life-threatening and life-destroying, common SSRI/SNRI (and other prescription drug induced) – serious Adverse Drug Reaction – AKATHISIA?
Surely: Real SCIENCE is the pursuit of TRUTH. Not the terminology of denial?
Sir William Osler’s wisdom remains forgotten by those professionals who reject the opportunity to engage with and to learn from the on-line community; and who deny as anecdotes such a potentially valuable and scientifically, well informed evidence base.
AKATHISIA is not adequately acknowledged by “restlessness”.
Prescribers: “Listen to your patient. He is telling you the diagnosis”.
Dee Doherty @Deedoherty2 3h
Here is a response ‘Margaret’ received now 7 years ago. Comments also:
April, 5, 2012 | 7 Comments
Dee Doherty @Deedoherty2 17h
Prof David’s Healy’s warnings via the #BBC regarding #SSRI withdrawal, dependency & #akathisia aka Drug Induced #suicide, in 2001.
Why was action only taken 18yrs later, at Crisis level?
What happened to the #BBC & #TheGuardian?
AntiDepAware @AntiDepAware 26m
“If I had known what I do now, I would have steered well away from the antidepressants. The drugs have made an indelible mark on my life and cost me my career,” says @jf_moore.
BOB FIDDAMAN @Fiddaman 55m
I’m surprised there’s been no references in the media re the current UK Seroxat litigation. @GSK are contesting claims that Seroxat causes severe withdrawal. Thing is, GSK knew about this problem years ago, again, the media are not following this up.
BOB FIDDAMAN @Fiddaman 24m
Patient advocate, Dee Doherty, 43, Wexford, recently emailed Appleby and the correspondence is jaw-dropping.
Monday, October 28, 2019
UK Suicide Expert: Akathisia Can Make People Suicidal
Where Domingo recently did become antipathetic was when he became a leading proponent of “copyright reform” introducing it to the European Parliament – I don’t know whether he thinks he isn’t wealthy enough (~300m dollars according to the rich list) but it threatens both freedom speech and the access of ordinary people to musical culture of any kind. Thanks to Domingo (and others, but Domingo prominently) our ability to even talk about any of these matter may be greatly diminished and it seems likely he was acting on behalf of powerful corporate interests using famous musicians as their surrogates.
I have put my Domingo CDs to bed for the time-being. I once attended a performance of Otello with he, Margaret Price conducted by Carlos Kleiber. It is very sad.
The other allegations I find hard to believe.
I suppose it might be a kind of out of touchness with contemporary realities. His society is going to be made up of the super wealthy. The distances seem much greater than all those years ago.
20th September 2019 Department of Health and Social Care
Please be aware that there is a supply issue affecting fluoxetine 10mg, 30mg and 40mg capsules
due to manufacturing issues. Please see table below which summarises overall fluoxetine
Due to the long-term issues affecting fluoxetine 10mg, 30mg and 40mg capsules, we recommend
the following actions be undertaken:
• General Practitioners and prescribers should identify all patients currently prescribed
fluoxetine 10mg, 30mg and 40mg capsules
• Early contact should be made with the patient or patient’s parent/carer to determine if the
stocks at home will last until early November.
• If the patient has sufficient supplies to last them until early November, then no further action
is required. These patients should not be issued with a repeat prescription during this
• For patients who do not have sufficient supplies for the duration of the expected out of stock
period, prescribers should consider the following:
Current prescription Suggested alternatives:
Fluoxetine 10mg capsules Fluoxetine 10mg tablets
Fluoxetine 20mg/5ml oral solution*
Unlicensed fluoxetine 10mg capsules (see further info below)
Fluoxetine 30mg capsules Fluoxetine 10mg tablets + fluoxetine 20mg capsules
Fluoxetine 20mg/5ml oral solution*
Fluoxetine 40mg capsules Fluoxetine 20mg capsules
Form MA Holder Stock Availability
10mg capsules Morningside Unavailable until end of October 2019
10mg capsules Advanz Unavailable until early December 2019
30mg capsules Advanz Unavailable until early November 2019
In Pulse Med Mag 3/10 re shortages of fluoxetine and other drugs …..another update – they’re coming thick and fast now…..
Professor Azeem Majeed, head of primary care at Imperial College London, said he believed the SSP would not increase GP workload.
He said: ‘The SSP for fluoxetine will be helpful for patients and primary care teams.
‘This will mean fewer patients are sent back to their general practice to get a new prescription, making it easier for patients to get an alternative formulation of citalopram, and reducing the workload of GPs and practice teams. It’s something that should be considered for other drugs that are also currently in short supply
Health secretary Matt Hancock said: ‘Helping the NHS is a priority for this Government and people should be fully reassured that we will always act to ensure that there is an adequate supply of the medicine you need.’
READERS’ COMMENTS (1)
YoungGP | GP Partner/Principal03 Oct 2019 2:39pm
‘The problem involves fluoxetine and the Prof is banging on about citalopram.
Good grief, if you can’t even get that right what chance have we got.’
A few more from Pulse
They seem to have heard what David H has been saying…..
READERS’ COMMENTS (5)
YoungGP | GP Partner/Principal03 Oct 2019 2:39pm
The problem involves fluoxetine and the Prof is banging on about citalopram.
Good grief, if you can’t even get that right what chance have we got.
Angus Podgorny | GP Partner/Principal04 Oct 2019 8:27am
Pharmacists granted power to change profit margins without consulting GPs.
Grinding Premolars | GP Partner/Principal04 Oct 2019 9:52am
Why not just give them the power to prescribe too, and we can pack up the show altogether. We are not wanted.
And respect to –
Emeritus Hospital Consultant. | Hospital Doctor04 Oct 2019 3:09pm
Will the pharmacists warn these patients and their parents, loved one’s – flat mates to watch for the increasing agitation, restlessness, and changes in emotions, feelings and behaviour that are the diagnostic features of AKATHISIA which may result from changing the dose of fluoxetine, and indeed all SSRIs/SNRIs?
They cannot be assured that dose changes “won’t have any adverse effects”.
For decades women knew that it would be unwise to step forward with accusations of inappropriate conduct because if the man responsible was well known, it was a given that nobody would take her seriously and worse, would blame her. This only changed when women en masse gained enough credibility and power that they could expose what everybody already knew or ought to have known: that men in powerful positions have long been able to exploit women.
The difference with drugs is that the media, all the organizations supposedly supporting mental health, doctors and government are in thrall to pharma money. The media needs the advertising revenue. The organizations need the grants and the conference sponsorships. Doctors enjoy perks supplied by pharma reps. Governments, supposedly responsible for citizen health, are also concerned about the economy and jobs and thus pharma companies need to be protected. Perdue is (soon to be was) bigger than all the individual cases of opioid deaths and ruined lives. Without government protection, the company could never have got away with so much destruction, so long. Opioids have been outed but sadly many other drugs that are costing society on balance, have not. And will not be, any time soon.
This is an excellent blog with many relevant points. I agree with you, Julie: more women previously remained silent because they correctly perceived they would not be believed and some women choose to weigh the pros and cons and ultimately decide speaking up isn’t personally worth the effort. But this is changing in part because of the MeToo movement. Today more women feel empowered to publicly share sexual harassment experiences and related abuses–abuses which are often made possible by power imbalances.
In regards to the drug connection, there is power in numbers. Times are changing and I believe the Me Too movement has had a positive impact on the prescribed harm movement. As more people speak up about adverse drug experiences, others who read it are increasingly comfortable saying, “That happened to me, too. And I’m not delusional despite that my doc said otherwise.”
I remain hopeful that the pharma-fueled opioid epidemic is slowly helping to expose the intricate, systemically-tangled web that runs the well-oiled dangerous machine called “healthcare.” As average citizens better understand how the opioid crisis was intentionally created by willing and diverse participants, perhaps it won’t be a huge leap of faith for them to realize the same machinery created similar epidemics with different drugs.
Just because you don’t say NO, it does not mean you say yes.
I was unable to say NO to the Catholic Priest, and Catholic Teacher that kissed me with their wet mouths and put their hands on me ( Age 8 and 10 )
I could not fight or engage in flight I just froze. Did they take my non-verbal compliance as a form of consent?
How did I know that if I told life would get difficult for me.
Many people in vulnerable positions find fight or flight difficult. Freeze
seems to be easier even if it means at one level the person gets away with it. If the Predator is a Domingo or Cohen why would you be believed?. They have something millions of women desire, so why would anyone think they could intend harm to women…Men like that could assume their ‘Wares’ are irresistible especially if whole industries rely on their talents/performances…for an income.
Since the days of Dr Kildare,Drs and medical professionals have been romanticised and idealised, and above all seen to do no harm.
Who really has the power in the consultation room? if you are feeling emotionally overwhelmed you are vulnerable. Who really has the responsibility to ensure informed consent is present ? Who should be saying NO, depression pills, benzos, pregabalin etc won’t necessarily help,
How dare they assume just because I don’t say NO to their ‘Wares’ I actually consent to what they are foisting on me.
It was in 2015 in the online community, that I finally realised that thousands were actually saying ‘me too’ ( Stuck on neurotoxins suffering serious adverse affects,and struggling hugely with no help, to withdrawal safely from these drugs ) No amount of sexual harassment in the last 3 decades comes close to affecting my sexual and emotional well being as the adverse side effects of Sertraline and Effexor.
Check out Zeffirelli He made some of my favourite films. It’s not possible to view them inthe same way any longer..or view them at all Those who appointed him to positions of power over other peoples’ lives must have known what a hypocritical scumbag he was..not for being homosexual but the sheer god like double standards which could seriously impact others’ lives.
In 1996, he was awarded an honorary degree for services to the arts by the University of Kent at a graduation ceremony held in Canterbury Cathedral. In 1999, he received the Crystal Globe award for outstanding artistic contribution to world cinema at the Karlovy Vary International Film Festival. In November 2004, he was awarded an honorary knighthood by the United Kingdom.
Zeffirelli received criticism from religious groups for what they call the blasphemous representation of biblical figures in his films. Contrariwise, Zeffirelli roused accusations of antisemitism for describing Martin Scorsese’s The Last Temptation of Christ as a product of “that Jewish cultural scum of Los Angeles which is always spoiling for a chance to attack the Christian world.”
Zeffirelli was a highly conservative Roman Catholic, and served two terms in the Italian senate as a member of Silvio Berlusconi’s centre-right Forza Italia party. He was criticized by members of the gay community for publicly backing the Roman Catholic Church’s position on homosexuality and by others for support of the church’s position on abortion, which extended to calling for capital punishment for women who had terminated a pregnancy.
He roused controversy again when he told a newspaper in 2006 that he had not suffered any harm from sexual abuse by a priest as a child.
In 1996, Zeffirelli came out as gay, but thereafter preferred to be discreet about his personal life. Zeffirelli said that he considered himself “homosexual” rather than gay, as he felt the term “gay” was less elegant. Zeffirelli adopted two adult sons, men with whom he had lived and who worked for him for years, managing his affairs.
Allegations of sexual advances
Director Bruce Robinson claimed to have been the target of unwanted sexual advances by Zeffirelli during the filming of Romeo and Juliet, in which Robinson played Benvolio. Robinson says that he based the lecherous character of Uncle Monty in the film Withnail and I on Zeffirelli.
In 2018, actor Johnathon Schaech alleged that Zeffirelli sexually assaulted him during the filming of Storia di una capinera. Zeffirelli’s son Giuseppe “Pippo” issued a statement at the time denying the allegation.
Zeffirelli died at his home in Rome on 15 June 2019, at the age of 96.News
Is it so diffrent to the way those appointed to the GMC are allowing a scumbag GP to get away with this –
Consultant who viewed images of child sexual abuse receives suspended sentence
BMJ 2019; 367 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l5817 (Published 01 October
A consultant anaesthetist who said he turned to viewing images of child sexual abuse to combat stress from working in an intensive care unit has been sentenced to six months in prison, suspended for two years.
Richard Johnson, 54, had been collecting images of children being sexually abused for eight years when his offending was discovered by police after he mistakenly uploaded an image on to the social media website Pinterest.
West Yorkshire police found that he had more than 54 000 sexual images of children on four computer devices, of which 335 were category A, the most extreme category. Of the category A images, 69 were videos.
He pleaded guilty at Bradford Crown Court to 10 offences of possessing indecent images of children between 31 March 2009 and 27 July 2017.
When interviewed by police, he admitted “a major problem” with pornography, which he said he viewed on a daily basis. He added, “I used it almost as a stress buster, not necessarily in a sexual manner but using it to get a buzz and excitement.
“I used it to release the stress and anxiety I suffered from. It was escalating out of hand. I knew it was a problem. Sadly, I couldn’t stop it. That’s why I viewed it as an addiction.”
His counsel, Gerald Hendron, told the court that Johnson had admitted the offences at the earliest opportunity and confessed to his wife, friends, and work colleagues. He sought help, informed professional bodies, and resigned from his job as a consultant with Calderdale and Huddersfield NHS Foundation Trust.
Hendron said Johnson had voluntarily attended courses with the Lucy Faithfull Foundation, a charity dedicated to preventing child abuse. He was “wracked with remorse” and was “deeply and thoroughly ashamed of what he did.” He had “been under tremendous work pressure and over time he had used pornography as a release and it became more and more extreme.”
The judge, Recorder Jeremy Hill-Baker, heard that Johnson had helped build hospitals in Uganda, Peru, and Nepal, and had been a scout leader along with his wife. Hill-Baker told Johnson, “The offence of possessing indecent images of children may be regarded by some as a victimless crime. That is a completely wrong approach.
“Each and every image is of a real human child being abused and if there was not the demand for images of that kind it is likely there would be less real abuse. You are an intelligent man with a high level of professional qualifications and that in itself does not protect you from the lawful consequences of your criminal behaviour.”
Hill-Baker said Johnson’s early guilty plea and previous exemplary character meant that six months was the correct sentence. But ordering immediate custody would achieve nothing other than a headline.
He was sentenced to six months imprisonment, suspended for two years, and ordered to complete 250 hours of community service. He must sign the sex offenders register and will be the subject of a sexual harm prevention order for five years.
David Birkenhead, medical director of the trust, said Johnson had been excluded from work and the General Medical Council alerted as soon as the matter was reported to the trust. A trust investigation had found no evidence of misconduct or misuse of IT equipment within the workplace, he added.
Many of us are under constant stress but we don’t wank over child pornography to relieve ourselves
This comment is slightly off topic but, I feel, so relevant in many ways. Did anyone see the interview with a young medical student on Breakfast this morning? I am still furious over what the poor girl described!
She is a 4th. year medical student, here in the UK. She is partially deaf and has very little sight. She speaks very confidently and comes across as an extremely empathetic person – just the type that we’d all like to see sitting in their surgery/ consultation room ready to support us. The situation that I found so infuriating was when she described how she has been treated since becoming a medical student. Other students are supportive, patients ( when she meets them periodically) are also very happy to be seen by her – her problems have come FROM THE EXPERIENCED DOCTORS. She gave two examples, both of male doctors, who, on realising her ‘disabilities’ became very nasty. One had said “no one will want to be helped by someone who cannot hear or see them properly” and the other had muttered “you’re not going anywhere near any of my patients”!
As she explained, she knows her limits – she would not dream of trying to become a surgeon, for example! She went on to say that, due to her disabilities, she feels that by carefully LISTENING TO PATIENTS plus referring to her own EXPERIENCES, she can often look beyond the obvious to underlying reasons why a patient presents with certain symptoms. WOW!!! Wouldn’t we all form an orderly queue just to spend 7 minutes in her clinic/surgery? What an asset she would be to any general practice here in the UK. I fear that we may well find that she will leave for the USA though – she didn’t suggest so, but said that she found the US doctors far more accepting of her difficulties and went out of their way to support her in every possible way.
So, the NHS is in trouble; we urgently need more staff; more youngsters need to be encouraged to train as doctors ……… to be treated in this disgraceful way unless they are ‘perfect’ in the eyes of their seniors? I don’t think so!
Next time we feel let down by the system, let’s just take a moment to remember how some of their ‘top people’ treat their own younger versions of themselves. Is there any wonder that they treat us like something that stuck to their shoes on their way to the surgery?
This young student, just like us, is NOT about to give up on her journey any time soon. She WILL complete her course and WILL reach her goal and, I’m pretty sure, WILL BE HIGHLY REGARDED by patients for many years to come. We’ll all wish her the very best of luck for we know that, unless she’s far more lucky than we are, her journey will probably be over many hurdles from a variety of sources.
Michael P. Hengartner, PhD @HengartnerMP 7h
All who claim this study proves AD are safe misunderstand that no evidence of convincing effect doesn‘t imply convincing evidence of no effect. To claim AD are safe you need to provide convincing evidence that AD don‘t cause harm. This is not the case here
John Read @ReadReadj
John Read Retweeted Science Media Ctr UK
Yet again the so-called ‘Science Media Centre’ shows itself to be nothing more than a bunch of ideologues defending biological psychiatry at all costs, while posturing as an independent commentator.
October 2, 2019
expert reaction to study on association of antidepressant use with adverse health outcomes
Commonly-prescribed antidepressant does NOT raise the risk of suicide in children and teenagers as scientists find ‘no convincing evidence’ of a link following years of mixed results
Selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors have a suicide warning in the US
Scientists initially found ‘evidence’ linking the drugs to suicide in young people
Then adjusted for these patients tending to be more at risk of suicide anyway
By Alexandra Thompson Senior Health Reporter For Mailonline
Published: 16:46, 2 October 2019 | Updated: 17:31, 2 October 2019
‘This very large review of evidence is reassuring in that it confirms antidepressants are generally safe and indicates they protect from suicide in adults.
‘Umbrellas’ are dangerous implements, that blow with the wind, and can lose their protective properties, in less than two weeks …
Sheltering with, MISSD and Katinka …
With psychiatry seemingly divided over such fundamental matters of evidence and validity, the Hippocratic oath must doubtless reassume priority. Its overwhelming concern is for patient well-being and safety: “First, do no harm.”
Christopher Lane Ph.D.
Antidepressants and Major Depressive Disorder
New studies show minimal improvement over placebo but continued risk of harm.
Posted Oct 07, 2019
Here, then, is the core dilemma facing researchers, physicians, and their patients: Both articles constitute significant recent reviews of SSRI antidepressants. They appear just days apart in journals bearing equal prestige and authority on either side of the Atlantic.
The JAMA Psychiatry review authors, declaring multiple conflicts of interest, state that adverse effects are “putative” and that “antidepressant use appears to be safe for the treatment of psychiatric disorders.”
The review with which we began, from experts reporting no competing interests in the journal’s British counterpart, reaches close to the opposite conclusion: “Antidepressants should not be used for adults with major depressive disorder before valid evidence has shown that the potential beneficial effects outweigh the harmful effects.”
1 Comment for this article
October 9, 2019
No evidence that antidepressants are safe and some cause for concern
Michael Hengartner, PhD | Zurich University of Applied Sciences, Switzerland
Dragioti et al conclude that antidepressant use appears to be safe (1). We believe that this confidence in the safety profile of antidepressants is unwarranted. Although they found little convincing evidence of harm outcomes in their review, this in no way implies that they found convincing evidence that antidepressants are safe.
Sexual dysfunction – the most prevalent adverse event caused by antidepressant use, was not included in their review but has been convincingly documented in placebo-controlled trials (2) and sexual dysfunction can even remain long after the drug was stopped (3).
Withdrawal reactions from antidepressants were also excluded, despite their relatively high incidence in long-term users and that they can be severe and long-lasting, as has been demonstrated in both placebo-controlled trials and observational studies (4).
Dragioti et al found no convincing evidence that antidepressants protect against suicide in adults, but selectively emphasise this favourable outcome in their discussion instead of the various highly suggestive adverse outcomes
confounding by indication ….
BOB FIDDAMAN Retweeted
Baum Hedlund Law @baumhedlund 9h
Adverse Drug Effects and #Suicide “We need to have meaningful public conversations about adverse drug effects and mental health. Lives can be saved when people are well informed.” Wendy Dolin, MISSD https://www.nbc29.com/story/41166867/world-mental-health-day-adverse-drug-effects-and-suicide … @MISSDFoundation
#Akathisia used to be a word known only to #pharma & prescribers. But the volume of mail MISSD receives every week reflects the public’s increasing awareness of akathisia. We invite more #suicide & #mentalhealth organizations to join us in spreading the word across the globe.
2:33 pm – 10 Oct 2019
Court hears claims GSK ‘directed and controlled’ HSE over swine flu vaccine
Updated / Wednesday, 9 Oct 2019 14:13
It is claimed that GSK had a liability to Aoife Bennett under the Defective Products Act of 1991
By Vivienne Traynor RTÉ Courts Reporter
The High Court has heard claims that vaccine makers GlaxoSmithKline “directed and controlled” the Health Service Executive during the procurement process for the Pandemrix vaccine ten years ago.
“It lets the cat out of the bag that GSK expected litigation.”
Mother would not have allowed vaccine use with prior knowledge, court hears
Updated / Thursday, 17 Oct 2019 21:29
He said it was not something “found on the side of the road”. When Ms Bennett replied that it had still given more than 1,000 children narcolepsy, he said this was a matter of dispute.
And as long as we consider the do’s and don’ts in our approach to counter Big Pharma, as long as we try to ‘be the better man’ about it, we won’t accomplish anything.
Big Pharma relies on ‘doubt’, and are fully allowed to do so.
If you speak openly about how there are 2 sides of every penny, Big Pharma will just pick their side and be fine with it.
You can say: drugs have risks, they say drugs have benefits.
Just like women and men can say, ‘he sexually assaulted me….. she is manipulative’
As long as we allow them to use their approach of ‘RCT say this cannot be drug induced’, when infact RCT’s aren’t even close to be able to determine what is drug induced or not, they have their side covered.
Show people the long list of shortcomings of an RCT, over and over again if necessary, so doctors and judges can’t fall back on evidence from RCT.
Just as we all expect mistreated women to be listened too, even if there is the odd chance she is manipulative, so should people also listen to victims of drug induced behaviour or harm.
Excellent points. Many parallels and yes scarier than the random false accusation is “living a lie imposed on us by someone else.” Life is always murky. I heard about Placido and of course Weinstein. I hadn’t heard about Leonard Cohen. I liked his music. “Sure is a scary time for men.” https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=N34hehRgw9g
Add to the debate: celebrities of all sorts encounter ‘groupies’ from time to time.
Even far from ‘filth, drugs and rock and roll’.
Politicians, lawyers, actors and so on.
We all know it, with fame comes all sorts of strange behaviour.
Men should treat women with the highest of respect, but there are so many pitfalls that we accept despite #metoo
I don’t care much for opera, but Leonard Cohen made very beautiful peotic songs.
Did he overstep the line with women, most likely.
Did he encounter women who willingly threw themselves in his arms, very likely.
song quote: -” whatever makes a soldier sad, will make a killer smile….”