blogs created to prevent or detect a crime

This blog is brougt to you consistent with subsection 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act - i.e. blogs created to prevent or detect a crime

Tuesday, 31 January 2012

Experts want suicide risk warning on ADHD drug - Focalin, see FIDDAMAN counterpoint blog

GAITHERSBURG, Maryland (Reuters) - Children who take a common drug for attention deficit disorder should be warned about the risk of suicidal thoughts, U.S. pediatric health advisers said on Monday.

Several members of an advisory committee to the Food and Drug Administration asked the agency to change the label for Focalin, an attention deficit medicine made by Swiss drugmaker Novartis AG, to reflect this risk. The drug is approved for children aged 6 or older.

The FDA often follows the advice of its committees, although it is not required to.

The FDA said it received eight reports of suicidal thoughts for children or adolescents who took the drug over the past six years, and four of the cases appeared to be linked to the medicine. The link for the remaining cases was less clear.

"The suicidal ideation seems to be pretty serious," said Dr. Sheldon Kaplan, panel member and chief of infectious diseases at Texas Children's Hospital.

But the FDA said the risk of suicidal thoughts did not appear in clinical trials for Focalin, and the later reports were a tiny number compared to how many children used the drug.

"I'm somewhat puzzled by the focus of suicidal ideation," said Tom Laughren, head of the FDA's psychiatric products division, in response to the panel's recommendation.

"These drugs are very widely used. And what you're seeing here are a handful of reports that are difficult to interpret with regard to causality," he said.

The number of children diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) has skyrocketed in recent years, with the condition now affecting 3 to 5 percent of kids globally.

Children with ADHD are excessively restless, impulsive and easily distracted, and often have trouble at home and in school. There is no cure, but the symptoms can be kept in check by a combination of behavioral therapy and medication.

In the United States, some 2.7 million people have prescriptions for ADHD drugs including Novartis' Ritalin, Johnson & Johnson's Concerta, Shire's Adderall and Vyvanse and Eli Lilly's Strattera.

Some patient advocates say doctors and parents may be too quick to diagnose kids with the condition, and the drugs may cause side effects that can damage children's health.

The FDA said about 1.8 million children received prescriptions for Focalin or its generic versions from May 2005 to July 2011.

The label for Focalin already warns patients that they may have new psychotic or manic symptoms after taking the drug, but does not mention suicidal thoughts.

Out of other ADHD drugs, only Strattera's label mentions thoughts of suicide as a side effect, as part of a restrictive "black box" warning.

The FDA monitors reports of side effects from medicines after they've been approved in order to discover potential safety problems. For drugs that are used by children, the agency must hold regular advisory meetings to review their safety.

The advisory committee and FDA reviewers also recommended a change to Focalin's label to reflect the risk of anaphylaxis, an allergic reaction, and angioedema, a type of swelling beneath the skin.

Novartis said it is will make any necessary changes to Focalin's label after discussing them with the FDA.

"Novartis is committed to patient safety and will continue to work closely with the FDA as the agency completes its review," said Brandi Robinson, spokeswoman for the company.

(Reporting by Anna Yukhananov; Editing by Richard Chang)

Sunday, 29 January 2012

Fiddaman goes for a career change, could it be Pharmacokinetics Assessor - MHRA?

Recently added vacancies

Purpose of role:

The Licensing Division is responsible for the quality, safety and efficacy evaluation of all applications for medicinal products to be authorised for the UK through national and EU Community procedures. To reflect the importance of pharmacokinetic data in the evaluation of clinical safety and efficacy and the increasing use of pharmacometrics in drug development we have a new post for a pharmacokineticist in the Division to integrate knowledge of pharmacokinetics into the assessment of safety and efficacy.

Key responsibilities:

Your scientific and professional expertise in pharmacokinetics will be vital in this challenging role, as you will work alongside clinical pharmacologists, clinicians and biostatisticians to evaluate the efficacy and clinical safety of a range of products including the latest new drugs, generic drugs and clinical trial products. You will provide advice on pharmacokinetic issues to colleagues within the Division and will review pharmacokinetic aspects of clinical trial data, preparing reports and recommendations which are highly influential in bringing new medicines to the market. You will need to interact with colleagues in other European regulatory agencies, the European Medicines Agency and to present your considerations to UK and European multi-disciplinary advisory committees. You will also be involved in the development of new regulatory guidelines and the provision of scientific advice on drug development programmes.

read more -

Mr. Fiddaman goes for a career change. Time for something new.

Mr. Fiddaman goes for a career change. Time for something new.

Saturday, 28 January 2012

Fiddaman " day off cold turkey ... to go to rock concert " - The Evidence is Clear

about Gary Null, host to Evil Lin Pringle - poisoned by his own quack vitamin potions

Null owns Gary Null & Associates, a company which markets dietary supplements, as well as a health-food store in New York City.[15] In 2010, Null claimed that he was sickened and nearly killed by his own dietary supplements.[1][3][2] He filed suit against a contractor involved in producing the supplement, "Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal", claiming that the supplement contained 1,000 times the labeled dose of Vitamin D and that it had led to the hospitalizations of 6 consumers poisoned by excessive doses of the vitamin.[1] Null reportedly suffered severe pain and kidney damage from "Gary Null's Ultimate Power Meal", but continued consuming the supplement in the belief that it would relieve his symptoms.[1]

The New York Post noted that Null's near-death experience with his own supplement brand was "not exactly a ringing endorsement."[1] The Los Angeles Times wrote that Null's experience "should give pause to anyone lured by the extravagant claims of many supplements makers", and noted that it was common for dietary supplements to contain doses "wildly different than those indicated on their label" as a result of weak regulation.[3] Null's attorney cast the alleged vitamin poisoning as an isolated incident, saying: "We don't want anything to affect the physical well-being of anyone or the reputation of the company."[2]

Fiddaman girl Evelyn Pringle guest on Gary Null show podcast - listen from 49 min in

Guest Evelyn Pringle is an award-winning investigative journalist focused on exposing corruption in government and in American corporations. Over the past 8 years, she has written numerous exposes on the psycho-pharmaceutical complex with a focus on the government and drug-maker cartel that has a mission to over-medicate children. In 2009 she aided Senator Grassley's office in compiling data on TeenScreen and the pharmaceutical front organizations pushing for the drugging of US children

Thursday, 26 January 2012

Tuesday, 24 January 2012

Community Psychology UK Network (CPUK), - dump seroxat USER group - Duckett a dead end like FIDDAMAN

Dr Paul Duckett - idiot claims SEROXAT remains one of the world’s best selling prescription drugs -

Seroxat: A story about Politicians, Pharmacological Corporations, Academics and other corrupt b*****ds

Speaker: Dr Paul Duckett

Manchester Metropolitan University

Date: 20 October 2011 (Thursday - note change of day for this seminar only)

Venue to be confirmed

This seminar is being hosted jointly by the Centre for Applied Psychological Research and the Centre for Health and Social Care Research

This seminar will describe the work of the Seroxat and SSRI User Group in the UK. GlaxoSmithKline, a multinational pharmaceutical corporation, manufactures and markets the drug Paroxetine - a Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) used in the treatment of, inter alia, ‘depression’ and ‘anxiety disorders’. The drug is marketed under the brand names ‘Seroxat’ in the UK and ‘Paxil’ in Australia and the USA. The Seroxat and SSRI User Group believe there is now considerable evidence to suggest that Paroxetine is clinically ineffective and potentially toxic for adults as well as children, yet Paroxetine remains one of the world’s best selling prescription drugs. I will describe how the UK political system, the medical profession, and the university sector have colluded with the pharmaceutical industry to promote GSK shareholder profits at the expense of public health

Paul Duckett fails to mention the obvious scientology links to Fiddaman & seroxat USER group litigation - why, whats he got to hide?

This is a message in reply to Paul Cotterill's call for help with spending a Trust fund. I was going to send my message straight to Paul, but then I thought others on this list might need/want to hear about SUG.;%20charset=iso-8859-1&pending=

Paul, well done for speaking up at the board of trustees meeting. Remarkable how radical sympathisers are out there in the most unexpected places. Your posting made me think of SUG.

Seroxat User Group (SUG) ( are a small, largely underfunded (surviving on just a couple of hundred pounds a year from private donations) organisation that supports people who have experienced ill effects from taking Seroxat (an SSRI anti-depressant) and seeks to ensure people are provided with adequate information on all the possible effects of taking the drug before they receive their perscription. As well as offering support to Seroxat users/survivors, the group is simultaneously seeking to take legal action against the drug manufacturer (GlaxoSmithKline). The legal action concerns GlaxoSmithKline (GSK)'s witholding of clinical data that showed the company knew about Seroxat's toxic effects (including increased incidence of violent thoughts and behaviour towards self and others) and lack of clinical efficacy (performs no better than placebo in treating 'psychiatric conditions'). Moreoever, SUG are working to hold the government to account for not adequately protecting the public against GSK.

Some of you who are based in the UK may remember a couple of BBC Panorama programmes on GSK and Serxoat. For those who haven't seen the programmes, you can view a 6min YouTube synopsis at or access the whole documentary from a link on the SUG website [].

Thus, SUG are trying to take legal action against GSK both through taking out private citizen class action suits (which is difficult following the changes to Legal Aid in the UK that mean pro bono legal support is now much harder to obtain for those wanting to litigate against multi-national corporations) and through the government's Medicine and Health Care Products Regulatory Agency [MHRA] (which is difficult because MHRA have ties with the Department of Trade and Industry (now known as the Dept. for Business Enterprise and Regulatory Reform) whose remit is to ensure the UK is a good place for companies like GSK to do business. Indeed, the MHRA legal investigation into GSK (MHRA were in effect forced into conducting a legal investigation following successful legal action in the USofA taken against GSK over the withholding of clinical data on Seroxat [aka Paxil] ) has now been running for over four years. MHRA have told SUG that they will not publically disclose the nature of the investigation nor publically disclose when (if!) the investigation might reach a conclusion.

Considering the massively powerful corporation they are confronting (GSK), it is remarkable how SUG have survived for as long as they have. Indeed, perhaps it is because SUG are taking on such a powerful, highly litigious multi-national pharmaceutical corporation that it is virtually impossible for them to get funding or government support.

Paul, I wonder if the funding you mention could be used to help such hard to fund organisations that are seeking social justice through holding corporations and government to account for state-corporate created and supported crime and social harm (ie., such groups are hard to fund because they are confronting head-on very powerful organisations whose tentacles of patronage and influence run long and deep into our economic, political and judicial systems). I am not pleading a special case for the Seroxat User Group (actually, that's a lie, I actually am because because I really believe in this group and desparately want to find support for them) but I thought it might be useful for you when you are writing up your paper - i.e., gives a concrete example of a group that is radical by virtue of being beligerent in pursuing it's agenda for social justice in the face of being crushed by an extremely powerful multinational corporation (e.g., GSK's pre-tax profits for the second quarter of 2007 was 1.89 billion pounds). Moreover, it is a group that has been left largely unprotected by governmental institutions (that are supposed to provide its citizens with statutory protection against harm) perhaps because of the degree to which this group's call for social justice threatens the economic and political status quo (challenging government institutions that pursue an agenda concerned with expanding UK economic growth and interests at the expense of local and global social justice). In this regard, though those who organise SUG do not identify themselves as radicals, SUG's activities and aims are among the most radical and socially progressive I have come across in my short life as a critical and community psychologist.


Paul Duckett

Division of Psychology and Social Change

Manchester Metropolitan University


Phone +44 161 247 2552

Fax +44 161 247 6364

email: [log in to unmask]

Seroxat made man rob a bank ....ha ha ha Paxil USERS won't take responsibility for their life choices - FIDDAMAN

The lawyer for a man accused of a 2010 bank robbery plans to raise the defense at trial that Feliz Vega Jr.’s medication inhibited his ability to distinguish right from wrong.

In a status conference Monday that replaced the scheduled trial, Peter Johnson said he would be calling expert witnesses to prove Vega was mentally incompetent at the time of the robbery.

“What was working on him was negating any ability to form criminal intent,” said Johnson, referring to Vega’s anti-depressant drug Paxil.

But Assistant District Attorney Hank Syms waved away any claims of “involuntary intoxication,” telling Superior Court Sheryl Jolly he would object to any witness testimony that did not directly reflect on Vega’s state of mind when he entered the Bank of America at 1740 Gordon Highway on July 30, 2010.

He warned that he would be recommending the maximum sentence of four consecutive life sentences plus five years if Vega was convicted at trial in early February. Vega is charged with four counts of armed robbery and fleeing and attempting to elude.

Syms said that about a third of clients that make guilty pleas in court say they are on some form of medication. But Syms said this is the first time he’s heard this medication defense because most attorneys know better than to try it.

“What we have with this charade about ‘Paxil made him do it’ is the opposite of taking responsibility,” Syms said.

Syms said that Vega entered through the rear door of the bank about 5 p.m. wearing a ball cap, ski mask and batting gloves. He pointed a paintball gun at four tellers and told them to place cash in a multi-colored happy birthday bag, Syms said.

Vega escaped with almost $12,000 in cash, but one of the tellers had placed a satellite tracking device in the bag that led deputies to his location near Central Avenue. Vega led deputies on a high-speed chase for several blocks before crashing into a fence and a parked car on Starnes Street, Syms said.

Monday, 23 January 2012

NUMB DVD - Paxil [Seroxat] Documentary - director psychological dependence on the popular antidepressant Paxil - FIDDAMAN

Production Notes from Director/Producer Phil Lawrence

Numb is a frightening journey into my own very personal attempt to break free from my physical and psychological dependence on the popular antidepressant Paxil.

When I realized that I was approaching my 10th anniversary of taking the drug, I knew it was time for me to reassess what it meant to be me. I was struggling to accept the way my emotions had become so blunted over the years. I wasn’t sure if it was me, or if it was me on the drug – but I needed to find out.

In the beginning my plan was simple – stop taking it and see what happens. Turned out that was a really bad idea! After a quick search on the Internet, I realized it wasn’t going to be that easy – and that, in some cases, withdrawal from these drugs can be very difficult and even dangerous. My first reaction was anger – I felt betrayed - no one told me ten years ago that I would have a problem stopping the drug or that there were risks involved. I felt trapped.

I went into pre-production right away, calling experts and doctors, setting up interviews and scheduling travel. Within a month, I was standing in my bathroom, cutting my first pill in half. I had no idea where I was headed but I knew I needed to go there.

I always knew that someday I would make a feature film – I just had no idea that I would end up being the subject! I’ll have to admit, in the beginning, making Numb was extremely exciting. I was embarking on a journey that I had no idea how it would turn out. You can see how enthusiastic I am as I start cutting my dose. But as the days go by, you can really see the impact of the withdrawal - and how fast my mental and physical state deteriorates. As I was filming, I kept thinking that there was no way that I was going to let other people see me in this condition – but luckily, I kept the cameras rolling.

Post-production was a long, difficult process. I wasn’t too excited about reliving the experience again and again in the edit suite – but I also knew that I couldn’t keep what I learned and experienced to myself. This was a story I had to tell – as personal and painful as it is – I had no other choice.

In the end, Numb took a great toll on me – it challenged my relationships, depleted my savings and threatened me physically and mentally – but I couldn’t be more proud of the work. As tough as the subject matter it is – and as difficult as it is to talk about – that’s exactly what we all need to do.

Saturday, 21 January 2012

more about Kabbani's PSSG & Scientology link to Seroxat litigation here - via SSRI Crusaders



distributed by Ramo Kabbani

Some alarming stories about side effects from wonder drug Prozac and related

anti-depressant drugs are now emerging


Drug dependency nearly ended Ramo Kabbani's life. But the drug she battled

was handed out by a qualified GP, is being taken by 40 million other people

and is still lauded as a 'wonder drug.'

On 16 February, she will celebrate her fifth 'clean' year and a full decade

has passed since her descent into an anti-depressant-poisoned hell. Not

that she has yet fully escaped.

"It's taken me a long time to put back on the weight that I lost, my weight

plummeted to five stone," she says.


"I also still have the seizures. I'd say it averages out at about nine in a

day although I have the odd day where I've not had any."

Ramo is chair of the UK Prozac Survivors Support Group (PSSG), founded in

March 198 to advise and help people prescribed antidepressants in the

Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor (SSRI) class. This is the class that

has seen some atrocious side effects.

For the majority of people taking Prozac and similar medications, the impact

of these drugs on their lives has been positive. But Ramo's experience

serves as a grim medical parable. Where the use of medicine hinges upon

theories of 'chemical imbalances', and where drug companies are not fully

open about their possible side effects, a minority of patients are at great


"I'm no longer battling with anxiety-depression, that's the ironic thing,"

she says. "I've developed seizures through being prescribed these drugs.

I've no longer got the problem for which these drugs were prescribed but I'm

still battling with the problems that the drugs caused."

In August 1991, Ramo's fiancé died suddenly, one month before their wedding.

"I was never offered any bereavement counselling or any alternativeŠI was

just put on tablets and it was downhill from there."

Some months later, while working at Manchester's Fountain Street Employment

Service, she broke down. A visit to the GP led to the instant prescription

of fluoxetine (Prozac). Initially, she was transfused by an unnatural

'high', a manic sense of exaltation. Six weeks later, Ramo crashed,

becoming actively suicidal and haunted by insomnia, anxiety and dread.

Over the next few years each worsening side effect was met with one

response: another prescribed drug. She made several suicide attempts.

"There was one particular one which to be honest, I can't believe how close

I'd come," she says. "Looking back, I can see that I was in a trance-like

state. What actually brought me back to reality was I had Spot my dog who

was a little puppy at the time and he literally jumped up at me as I stood

in front of the bathroom mirror with a knife against my throat, ready to

slit my throat. My first thought was not 'Oh my God! What am I doing?' It

was 'Oh my God! I can't do this in front of Spot."

Ramo recalls the various cocktails of alcohol and pills she would take in

overdose: Sometimes, I'd be unconscious for about a week. The only way I'd

know I'd been out of it was that I'd go into the newsagent, look at a

newspaper date and I'd go 'Oh my GodŠ'

"I'd even started looking into my own funeral arrangements. And this is

somebody who used to live life to the full. I'd never felt down. I thought

'depression' was a case of the Monday morning bluesŠ"


It was an angry encounter at the Royal Oldham Hospital in Manchester, with a

psychiatrist who was referred to as a neurologist (Ramo had previously

suffered 23 seizures in a day) that compelled her to research her own drug

therapy. Reading up on Prozac and other case studies set her towards

setting up the PSSG and weaning herself off drugs.

For millions of people, Prozac and its sister anti-depressants are very

helpful, releasing them from much psychic pain. But they are now being

handed out across GPs' desks, for everything from post-natal depression to

menopausal problems. Moreover, they are being marketed with a not fully

proven theory of 'chemical imbalance' that is based on the theory that

topping up the brain's supply of a chemical called serotonin will alleviate


Just as happened with the earlier so-called 'minor tranquillisers' of the

1960s, the benzodiazepines, including Atavan, Xanax and Miltown, a backlash

may now be imminent. In its own way, this could prove as unhelpful as the

current vaunting of SSRIs as 'miracle drugs', causing them to acquire an

unnecessarily sinister ring.

"It's going to be a replay of the benzodiazepine story." This is the

prediction of UCD -educated psychiatrist Dr David Healy, now based at the

University of Wales, Bangor. "Part of the problem with this will have been

caused by the pharmaceutical industry. The way they handle these things,

trying to deny there are problems means that when people get disenchanted,

they really do get very disenchanted and it's very hard for someone like me

who thinks that SSRIs can be useful to actually prescribe them. So they

move from a situation where they're being overused, to one where they're

being underusedŠ"


Certainly, the drug companies, previously hailed as the saviours of millions

of depressed people, are now feeling an increasingly chill wind blowing.

The high point so far came in June 2001, when the Glaxo Smith Kline company

had to give $6.4 million to the family of a man who had shot to death his

daughter and grandchildren before turning the gun on himself, while put on

Seroxat (paroxetine) for sleeping problems.

Cases like this, involving aggression or suicide are extremely rare.

However, Seroxat, whose sales match those of Prozac, now looks as though it

could emerge as potentially highly addictive for some people. Last year,

America's Food and Drug Administration (FDA) ordered Glaxo Smith Kline to

warn GPs that for some people, Seroxat packaged as 'Paxil' in the US) could

be as addictive as Valium.

Mark Harvey, a solicitor with the Cardiff firm Hugh James Ford Simey, has

something to say on the subject: "My feeling is GSK knew, and they

certainly know damn well now, their drug had the capacity to cause a lot of

harm to a small number of people. In particular in relation to coming off

it and they're not being honest to either prescribing doctors or patients."

Hugh James Ford Simey has already been contacted by over 120 people,

complaining of problems with Seroxat. They're coming in, says Mark Harvey,

at a rate of nearly three a week. In order to facilitate these people, the

firm is setting up a 'User Group' to form the focus for future litigation

against the drug companies. Many of these people have experienced 'cold

turkey-like symptoms while coming off the drug.

"I've seen an advert in the States. It actually says "Talk to your doctor

about non-habit forming Paxil," says Harvey. "That's outrageous, that's

clearly designed to catch patients and it deals with what they want to know,

which is if it's non-addictiveŠ"

Far from being a zealot against the use of drugs to treat psychological

distress, Dr Healy researched serotonin effects at Addenbrooke's Hospital in

Cambridge, after leaving Ireland.

But as the author of The Antidepressant Era (Harvard Press), he is candid

about the pitfalls of SSRIs, such as Prozac, Seroxat, Lustral and Cipramil.

"The estimates are that one in 20 of us gets so agitated on a SSRI that we

have to stop treatment," he says. "One in 100 of us going on a SSRI will

make a suicide attempt. One in 1,000 might commit suicide. There are other

hazards: probably 30-50% of us going on a SSRI will have problems trying to

withdraw. The withdrawal symptoms will be severe; for some people they may

continue for a year."


"It's hard to know how many. It may be only five percent who really have a

severe problem. But if 40 million have gone on Prozac and 100 million have

gone on a SSRI, five percent is five million people so it is a major


The relentless marketing has apparently repackaged not just the medicines,

but the condition they are used to treat. Depressed people lose serotonin

through 're-uptake' between the brain cells: take an SSRI and you get more

serotonin. But the biology of the brain is barely understood: serotonin

might not be the key to mood and the drugs may not even work by stimulating


Anti-depressants were invented in the mid 1950s and the majority of people

who these days get Prozac or Seroxat would have once been given minor

tranquillisers. Thus when SSRIs were launched, the companies' emphasis was

on 'depression' as a chemical deficiency to avoid association with the minor

tranquillisers, by then known to be addictive.


Limerick-based psychiatrist Dr Terry Lynch, author of the book Beyond

Prozac, is highly critical of the way a theory about depression has become

accepted wisdom. This he believes, reflects the doctors' relationship with

the drug companies.

"Certainly, I think psychiatrists and GPs to a certain degree need to feel

that they're the ones driving the whole thing. They're the ones with the

knowledge and the patient's job is to follow the doctor's advice," he says.

"I also think that the pharmaceutical companies are involved here because

over the past 50-60 years, medicine in general but maybe particularly

psychiatry has become very closely aligned to the pharmaceutical industry.

"Psychiatry has allowed itself to become very dependent on the industry for

funding of its meetings, of its research, of its ongoing education. I'm

guessing, but my sense is that the majority of psychiatric post-graduate

meetings are funded by drug companies and I think that that's unhealthy."

Among those people who have approached Hugh James Ford Simey regarding legal

action is Glenys (not her real name), a grandmother with no previous history

of depression. When she suffered her first panic attack, she was showing

symptoms that may well have been hormonal and associated with the menopause.

She did not meet the traditional diagnostic criteria for depression when

given Seroxat.

Previously, she had been given HRT, then Valium and Prozac; the Valium had

caused withdrawal problems, something that is a recognized risk. But Glenys

was not warned about problems coming off Seroxat. It seems she belongs in

the five percent Dr Healy warned would have severe withdrawal. Now off

Seroxat for 18 months, she has been told she may have to wait up to five

years for the physical and mental effects to clear.

"I have never had headaches really, until I started the menopause," she

says. "All I can say it's like it's crushing my head like an eggshell.

After the head, the face will burn, my body will shake and I'll get pins and

needles in my arms. It's just horrendous and the agitation is terribleŠ"

She plans to contribute to the 'Seroxat Users' Group' soon to be set up. In

the meantime, she waits for her problem to clear.

"I just feel it's taken part of my life away. I want to be normalŠI just

hope it hasn't done any permanent damage".

Contact the Prozac Survivors Group by e-mail at

Alternatively, their helpline number is 0044 161 682 3296

The Lawyer links Hugh James to Scientology via Prozac Survivors Group led by Rammo Kabani

Caroline Davies -

Cardiff firm Hugh James has been instructed to act for the Seroxat Users Group on its lobbying of the Department of Health. The group wants an investigation into the increasing number of reported illnesses connected with the antidepressant drug Seroxat, produced by pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline.

Partner Mark Harvey is leading the now 400-strong group. He won the instruction through a referral from niche health-related litigation firm Alexander Harris, which acts for the Prozac Users Group.

Harvey has a reputation in this field, having acted on the Roaccutane and Minocycline cases as well as the anti-arthritis drug Opren, which resulted in a successful settlement.

Not all of the group's participants are interested in taking action. Harvey said: "We're not saying the drug's bad; we're saying that not enough people have been warned of the potential symptoms." Some users found it difficult coming off the drug, but GlaxoSmithKline, which has yet to instruct lawyers, maintains that Seroxat is non-addictive.

Seroxat Litigation Notice - Litigation is "stayed" as Hugh James drops the case

Seroxat Litigation Notice

source -

The Lawyer 9th January 2012, published inaccurate information concerning the currently ‘stayed’ Seroxat litigation which is filed in the High Court of Justice, London.
In response to information having been disclosed to The Lawyer, a number of enquiries have been received concerning the status of the litigation.

In October, 2010 the solicitors then in charge of the case, considered there was insufficient evidence to proceed and advised the litigants to discontinue their claims. Approximately two thirds of the litigants followed this advice.

In the meantime, the experts in the case together with other specialists knowledgeable of the medical problems associated with Seroxat disagreed with the view of the legal team.

On 14th December 2010, evidence from representatives of the litigants, were heard at a
specially convened Legal Services Commission funding review. The outcome of this
meeting was an increase in the likely prospects of success for the litigation, above that
estimated by the solicitors who had led the Group Action. The Legal Services Commission then confirmed it would consider the opinions of the experts before its final determination of the funding certificate bearing in mind, the Group Action now comprised a smaller number of litigants.

The Legal Services Commission is currently considering the favourable opinion of new

Counsel and statements from the experts delivered by a newly instructed legal team; its
response is awaited.

The Seroxat Users’ Group will keep litigants updated by this website or enquiries may be made by email to:

Dated 20.01.12

Friday, 20 January 2012

EMA Calls for Withdrawal of Certain Anxiety Medications - FIDDAMAN counterpoint blog ** Exclusive

EMA Calls for Withdrawal of Certain Anxiety Medications

January 20, 2012 — The European Medicines Agency (EMA) is recommending suspension throughout the European Union (EU) of all medicines containing meprobamate, a key ingredient in some anxiolytic medications.

The Agency’s Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) has concluded that the benefits of meprobamate do not outweigh its risks and that all marketing authorizations for oral medicines containing meprobamate be suspended throughout the EU.

A carbamate deriviative, meprobamate is used primarily to treat anxiety disorders, but according to the EMA, it is also used for migraine, digestive disorders, muscle tension or cramps, as well as insominia. It is marketed under the name Equanil and other trade names.

The EMA review of the meprobamate-containing medications was undertaken because of a July 2011 announcement by France's regulatory agency that it intended to suspend marketing authorizations of these agents because of "serious side effects."

After reviewing all available safety and efficacy data of the medications, including data from published studies, postmarketing surveillance, and poison control centers, the CHMP concluded that "there was a risk of serious and potentially fatal side effects, such as coma, in patients taking meprobamate-containing medicines under normal conditions of use. The Committee considered that these risks were increased due to the danger of unintentional overdose because of the small difference between the treating dose and the dose that can harm patient, including elderly people."

The CHMP also noted that there is a risk of addiction that can lead to "serious and sometimes fatal side effects" if patients stop the medication abruptly.

The final word on whether these medications are ultimately to be banned in Europe will be determined by the European Commission.

To avoid the risk of severe withdrawal symptoms and to ensure that prescribers have enough time to determine the most appropriate treatments for individual patients, the Committee has recommended that the withdrawal of the medicines from the market be carried out gradually, within 15 months of the European Committee decision.

In the meantime, the EMA recommends the following:

•Doctors should not start new patients on meprobamate-containing medicines.

•Doctors should review the treatment of patients currently taking meprobamate-containing medicines with a view to switching them to alternative treatments, in line with national recommendations for the condition being treated.

•Prescribers should be aware that the availability of meprobamate-containing medicines will decrease as the withdrawal from the market takes place according to national time frames.

FIDDAMAN irrational jealousy of boat owners - could the Bryce yacht be an Illusion?

FIDDAMAN confirms Hugh James solicitors said "insufficient evidence to proceed" against GSK Seroxat

In October, 2010 the solicitors in charge of the case considered there was insufficient evidence to proceed and advised the litigants to discontinue their claims. Approximately two thirds of the litigants followed this advice. I, along with others, decided to continue the case, despite being told that we may be liable for costs.

A meeting with the Legal Services Commission's Special Committee Review Panel was convened and a barrister and claimant in the Seroxat litigation, along with myself and others, presented evidence as to why we felt the funding should be continued. At no point was the funding discontinued, the meeting with the Legal Services Comission was to decide whether or not it should be.

extract from -

read in full here -



source google preview - available here


An article, written by Katy Dowell, appeared on on January 9 2012 that made reference to the current UK Seroxat litigation. Because of legalities I cannot discuss certain aspects of proceedings as they are at a delicate stage at this moment in time.

I can, however, state that the article is based on supposition and, is in fact, wrong.

Katy Dowell writes that a source [lawyer] close to the case informed her that legal aid has been withdrawn from the case. This is untrue.

The public funding certificate [previously known as legal aid] has never been removed from this case.

In October, 2010 the solicitors in charge of the case considered there was insufficient evidence to proceed and advised the litigants to discontinue their claims. Approximately two thirds of the litigants followed this advice. I, along with others, decided to continue the case, despite being told that we may be liable for costs.

A meeting with the Legal Services Commission's Special Committee Review Panel was convened and a barrister and claimant in the Seroxat litigation, along with myself and others, presented evidence as to why we felt the funding should be continued. At no point was the funding discontinued, the meeting with the Legal Services Comission was to decide whether or not it should be.

The Legal Services Commission's Committee considered there was merit in the case, increased the given assessment of prospects of success and agreed that a full review of the evidence should occur.

We are now at the stage where we have presented the Legal Services Commission with evidences to extend further the funding for the Seroxat litigation and we are currently awaiting their decision.

The Seroxat Users’ Group will keep litigants updated and can also be contacted via email

It would be unethical of me at this stage to comment further on matters related to the Seroxat litigation. I have already been contacted by the media and have told them that I cannot comment. My stance still remains the same.

A statement will appear on the Seroxat User Group page in due course.

The editor of The Lawyer has been contacted but, as yet, has not responded

RISPERDAL - Texas sought $1billion but settled for $158 million - but how much did Alan Jones get FIDDAMAN?

Johnson & Johnson has settled for $158m (£102m) over allegations that a subsidiary defrauded a state healtcare programme in the US state of Texas.

The company is accused of illegal marketing and kickbacks to boost Risperdal, an anti-psychotic drug.

Judges in other states have also ordered the subsidiary, Janssen, to pay millions for similar accusations, but those cases are still under appeal.

The company said it was "committed to ethical business practices".

The state of Texas had been seeking up to $1bn in the suit.

According to court records, the company was accused of targeting "every level" of the Texas Medicaid programme.

Medicaid is a government-backed US public heath programme for low-income citizens.

Continue reading the main story

Start Quote

This industry will not change its behaviour until executives are prosecuted”

End Quote

Allen Jones

Texas suit whistle-blower

Texas' Risperdal case was filed by whistle-blower Allen Jones, who alleged the company made false or misleading statements about the drug's safety and effectiveness when compared to other drugs.

Mr Jones, a former employee of the Pennsylvania Inspector General's office, said he learned of Johnson & Johnson's actions in Texas while investigating similar claims in his home state.

The state of Texas joined the suit in 2006.

'Subverted science'

The subsidiary, Janssen Pharmaceutics Inc, said in a statement that the company was "committed to ethical business practices, and has policies in place to ensure its products are only promoted for their FDA-approved indications".

Allen Jones, who will receive part of the settlement, told reporters that while the payment was enough punishment, "this industry will not change its behaviour until executives are prosecuted, until executives actually go to jail for the frauds they perpetrate".

"They trashed the Johnson & Johnson credo and they misused Texas and, I believe, well-meaning officials, to further their marketing aims," Mr Jones said.

"They subverted science and they induced others to betray the people they were supposed to be taking care of. To me that is reprehensible."

Last year, a South Carolina judge ruled Johnson & Johnson must pay a $327m penalty after a jury found it guilty of similar charges. In 2010, a Louisiana jury found the company violated that state's Medicaid fraud act and awarded it $258m in damages.

The company is appealing against the Louisiana verdict and has said it will appeal the South Carolina verdict as well.

Arguments in the Texas trial had already begun on 10 January. At the start of the trial, lawyers for the New Jersey-based health care giant insisted the company did nothing improper in marketing the drug.

Wednesday, 18 January 2012

500 person UK Seroxat litigation collapses due to funding - 125 rump look for new lawyer - FIDDAMAN blog

Funding also became an issue in the Seroxat Group Litigation Order (GLO). More than 500 claimants joined the GLO against pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline UK, alleging to have suffered withdrawal ­effects when reducing, discontinuing or attempting to discontinue use of the antidepressant Seroxat. It was ­alleged that such suffering amounted to personal injury.

According to a lawyer close to the case the claimant numbers have fallen dramatically as a result of the withdrawal of legal aid. This was made particularly contentious ­because the firm used to represent the claimants, Cardiff-headquartered Hugh James, revised down the considered success of the case, forming the basis for the withdrawal of state funding.

It is understood that 125 claimants will continue to pursue the action but that they will be looking for a new law firm to represent them. Meanwhile, a group of the remaining claimants are appealing the Legal Services ­Commission’s decision to cancel the legal aid.

source -

Tuesday, 17 January 2012

James L Harper - TRB Scotland uses Narconon Scotland address

James L Harper - TRB Scotland uses Narconon Scotland address

"The Road Back" - James L Harper sets up business @ Narconon Scotland Peebleshire

they seem to be using the old narconon building in scotland


Individual inquires and media inquires, please use form below

or call us at + 44 01968 660736 from 2pm to 5 pm week days GMT

Individual inquires and media inquires


Narconon Scotland

Drug Prevention & Education Services

The Whitehouse

Main Street

West Linton


EH46 7EA


Phone: 01968 660736

Fax: 01968 661894

Narconon International - Narconon Centers in the United Kingdom

David Mckenzie Director - Narconon Scotland

Narconon Scotland

Status: Standard

Officers: 4

Companies House: View official record

Level Business: Accounts and updated information

Wikipedia abstract: Coming soon OpenCorporates: View details

Wikipedia entry: Coming soon

Company site:

Who's Lobbying:

Openly Local Suppliers:


Current and former appointments

Showing all 4 appointments.

Date Appointee Position Date Source

2002-11-11 William Mark Gibson Director Appointment document

2002-06-19 Eve Mcauley Secretary Appointment document

2002-06-19 David Mckenzie Director Appointment document

2002-06-17 Alexander Douglas Moffat Secretary Incorporation document


Mr & Mrs David McKenzie Planning Applications - White House, Main Street, West Linton

Planning Applications - White House, Main Street, West Linton

a)Planning Applications

i)08/00385/LBC: Citygate, Old Manor House, Main Street, West Linton. Replacement windows (retrospective). Not supportive: inappropriate design.

ii)08/00386/FUL: Citygate, Old Manor House, Main Street, West Linton. Replacement windows (retrospective). Not supportive: inappropriate design.

iii)08/00448/FUL: Mr & Mrs David McKenzie, White House, Main Street, West Linton. Change of use, alterations and extension to form dwellinghouse from tea room. Not supportive: inappropriate design.

iv)08/00506/FUL: Mr J Coyle, North Slipperfield Farm, Golf Course Road, Medwyn Road, West Linton. Erection of agricultural building. Support. Note: The

David Mckenzie - Scientology Service Completions - FIDDAMAN blog exposing TRB Scotland

David Mckenzie - Scientology Service Completions

TAS : Scientology Statistics : Individual Completions : D : David Mckenzie



Note: Preliminary analysis suggests that about 60% of people who try Scientology do only a single course or service, that 80% of new members become inactive within 2 years, and that 65% of those who reach the level of Clear become inactive within a year after doing so. The older a list, the more likely that a person listed on it is no longer involved in Scientology.

Please read About These Lists for more information.


David Mckenzie in Scientology's Published Service Completion Lists

The following 4 individual completions for David Mckenzie appear in official Scientology publications:

David Mckenzie PURIFICATION RUNDOWN PROCEDURE Auditor UK 304 2003-06-01

David Mckenzie PURIFICATION RUNDOWN PROCEDURE Auditor UK 309 2003-06-01

David Mckenzie PTS/SP Course Auditor UK 327 2005-11-01

David Mckenzie PTS/SP Course Auditor UK 328 2005-12-01

Note: The dates listed above are the approximate publication dates of the magazines, which may be weeks or months later than the actual date the service was completed.


David Mckenzie in Scientology's Publications

The following 1 mentions of David Mckenzie appear in official Scientology publications:

David & Eve McKenzie Patrons Impact 114 2006-09-01

Note: The dates listed above are the approximate publication dates of the magazines, which may be weeks or months later than the actual date the service was completed.


David Mckenzie and the Clear List

No entries were found in my Scientology Statistics Project Clear List database for this person.


David Mckenzie and Scientologist Online Sites

David Mckenzie has a Scientologist Online cookie-cutter web site:

David McKenzie - Scientologist Online site


David Mckenzie and WISE Directories

WISE, the World Institute of Scientology Enterprises, publishes directories listing their members.

My database does not list this person in the most recent WISE directories.


The information on this page comes from my Scientology Statistics database. While I attempt to be as accurate as possible, errors or inaccuracies may be introduced by the source material, the transcription process, or database bugs. If you discover an error or problem, please let me know by writing to


Does hormone replacement therapy cause breast cancer - don't let FIDDAMAN & lawyers ruin your life

Does hormone replacement therapy cause breast cancer? An application of causal principles to three studies

Part 4. The Million Women Study


Background Based principally on findings in three studies, the collaborative reanalysis (CR), the Women's Health Initiative (WHI) and the Million Women Study (MWS), it is claimed that hormone replacement therapy (HRT) with estrogen plus progestogen (E+P) is now an established cause of breast cancer; the CR and MWS investigators claim that unopposed estrogen therapy (ET) also increases the risk, but to a lesser degree than does E+P. The authors have previously reviewed the findings in the CR and WHI (Parts 1–3).

Objective To evaluate the evidence for causality in the MWS.

Methods Using generally accepted causal criteria, in this article (Part 4) the authors evaluate the findings in the MWS for E+P and for ET.

Results Despite the massive size of the MWS the findings for E+P and for ET did not adequately satisfy the criteria of time order, information bias, detection bias, confounding, statistical stability and strength of association, duration-response, internal consistency, external consistency or biological plausibility. Had detection bias resulted in the identification in women aged 50–55 years of 0.3 additional cases of breast cancer in ET users per 1000 per year, or 1.2 in E+P users, it would have nullified the apparent risks reported.

Conclusion HRT may or may not increase the risk of breast cancer, but the MWS did not establish that it does.

HRT breast cancer alert that led to thousands of women abandoning treatment was 'based on bad research'

HRT breast cancer alert that led to thousands of women abandoning treatment was 'based on bad research'

By Jenny Hope

British research which linked HRT to breast cancer and led to hundreds of thousands of women abandoning the treatment was ‘unreliable and defective’, says a damning review.

The Million Women Study was biased and flawed, the review warns.

Read more:

"citalopram toxicity" - disorder of metabolism - dangerous low body weight - don't let FIDDAMAN fool you

Tragedy of five stone doctor’s daughter

Published on Friday 13 January 2012 11:27

A PROMISING medical student who battled with an eating disorder died when her severely-emaciated body failed to cope with anti-depressants prescribed by her GP mother, a Leeds inquest has heard.

Katie Lumb, 23, was just 5st 8lbs when she died from a toxic build-up of the drugs after asking her mother, a GP, to treat her as a private patient in April last year.

Dr Susan Lumb told the inquest at Leeds Coroner’s Court: “I wasn’t the right person to treat her, I know that. I tried to get across to her but she would not listen.

“I was very much aware that when her mood was low, her appetite went down and she would lose weight.

“I thought it was possible that if her mood lifted, she would eat.”

Her parents had first noticed she had lost a significant amount of weight when she returned to the family home in Sheffield for Christmas in 2008, but she hid the full extent of her anorexia-like condition.

In October 2009 she went to see her GP and was immediately admitted to hospital.

At her lowest ebb, Katie’s weight fell to 4st 9lbs, doctors feared for her life and she spent two months in Leeds General Infirmary being fed through a tube.

When she was fit to be discharged she was referred as an outpatient to the Yorkshire Centre for Eating Disorders at Seacroft Hospital in Leeds.

After she was discharged, Katie, a Leeds University student, failed to keep her outpatient appointments and only attended two out of 12 appointments.

She was eventually dismissed as a patient and throughout 2010 she assured her parents that she was getting help, but by early 2011 she appeared to be suffering from severe anxiety.

She was eventually prescribed the anti-depressant drug citalopram by her mother after she begged for help, but refused to see other professionals.

Tragically, a few weeks later she collapsed three times at her student home but refused all attempts by worried flatmate Miriam Walden to seek medical attention.

Ms Walden told the inquest she had insisted Katie at least call the NHS Direct hotline, but later discovered she had only pretended to make the call.

Katie was discovered dead in the bedroom of her shared student house in Leeds, the following day.

Recording a narrative verdict, West Yorkshire coroner David Hinchliff said: “A post mortem examination shows the cause of death to be citalopram toxicity.

“This was caused by a disorder of metabolism and impaired kidney function, relating to her dangerous low body weight which would have caused a build-up of the drug within her system to a fatal level.

“Her degree of emaciation and malnutrition has contributed to this by causing changes in the beating mechanism of her heart.”

Friday, 13 January 2012

CCHR Canada misrepresents article in Belfast Telegraph .....FIDDAMAN cult lies exposed

bogus claim above -

"An Irish reporter actually gets the facts right and has the guts to write it. We need more of these "

right -
Misrepresented Belfast Telegraph article written by CCHR crackpot Brian Daniels

source -

Thursday, 12 January 2012

Lundbeck Limited - Clopixol Conc Injection - recall cracked ampules - FIDDAMAN blog

Dear Healthcare Professional,

Lundbeck Limited

Clopixol Conc Injection (500mg/ml)

(zuclopenthixol decanoate 500mg/ml injection)

PL 00458/0060

Batch number Expiry date Pack size First distributed

2277494 April 2015 5 x 1ml 4 August 2011

2281683 April 2015 5 x 1ml 20 September 2011

Lundbeck Limited has just informed us that they are recalling the above batches. This is because there have been a small number of reports of cracked ampoules associated with the bulk batch from which these batches are packed and there are concerns that sterility assurance cannot be guaranteed.

All remaining stock of these batches should be quarantined and returned to Alliance Healthcare for credit. We understand that there is sufficient stock from other batches available to replenish recalled stock. For enquiries relating to stock return please call Alliance Healthcare.

For medical information enquiries, please call 07785 293179 over the Christmas period. From 3 January 2012 please contact 01908 638972

Recipients of this Drug Alert should bring it to the attention of relevant contacts by copy of this letter. Primary care trusts are asked to forward this to relevant clinics, general practitioners and community pharmacist.

Yours faithfully

Alison Bunce

Pharmaceutical Assessor, DMRC

MHRA Distribution (further recipients by cascade): Regional Contacts for NHS Trusts and provider units

Chief pharmacists: England, Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland

Prison Health Policy Unit (DH)

Chief Pharmacists: Jersey, Guernsey, Alderney, Sark, Isle of Man, Gibraltar

Special Hospitals

Healthcare Commission for distribution to Independent Health Care Establishments

Primary Care Trusts (England)

Download documents:

Class 2 Drug Alert (Action within 48 hours): Lundbeck Limited - Clopixol Conc Injection (500mg/ml) - EL (11)A/33 (161Kb)

Government defeated - rob the poor to pay the rich ...a different form of morality

Lords inflict triple welfare bill defeat on governmentCampaigners win House of Lords votes on Employment and Support Allowance

reddit this Comments (105)

Patrick Wintour and Rajeev Syal The Guardian, Thursday 12 January 2012 Article history

The House of Lords inflicted three defeats on the government over its welfare reform bill. Photograph: Tim Graham/Getty Images

The government's plans to reform welfare were badly hit on Wednesday when it suffered three defeats in the House of Lords on proposed benefit cuts.

Plans to means-test employment and support allowance (ESA) payments for disabled people after only a year were rejected by peers.

The means test would have applied to cancer patients and stroke survivors, and was denounced by Lord Patel, a crossbencher and former president of the Royal College of Obstetricians, as an immoral attack on the sick, the vulnerable and the poor. "If we are going to rob the poor to pay the rich, then we enter into a different form of morality," Patel said.

The government was defeated by 224 votes to 186, even though Lord Freud, the welfare minister, claimed that the cost of the amendment would be £1.6bn spread over five years.

The other defeats were over plans to time-limit ESA for those undergoing cancer treatment, and to restrict access to ESA for young people with disabilities or illness.

The defeats do not augur well for the government's chances in future votes in the Lords on the bill, which includes housing benefit caps. The bill is at report stage before returning to the Commons.

Some peers warned the Lords they should not vote down the measure to restrict ESA payments to a year since the cost of doing so would be so high and MPs would be certain to reverse the result. Patel, backed by the shadow welfare minister, Lord McKenzie, proposed that the government's plan to time-limit contributory ESA to a year should be extended to two years. At that point, irrespective of how much someone has paid into the system, a means test set at an income of £16,000 would start to apply, leading to annual cuts in benefit of £94 a week.

Freud countered that the 365-day time limit was not arbitrary and was similar to limits imposed in France, Ireland and Spain, and struck a "reasonable balance between the needs of sick, disabled people claiming benefit and those who have to contribute towards the cost".

He said one year was the right balance between restricting costs and allowing people to adapt to their changed circumstances and was double the time allowed for contributory jobseekers' allowance.

With a few exceptions, the Liberal Democrats voted with the government as they generally have throughout the divisions in the Lords on the welfare bill, but their support was overwhelmed by a big turnout from Labour and crossbenchers. The Labour peerage is armed with welfare experts including Lady Lister and Lady Hollis.

Crossbenchers have also been furiously lobbied by disability campaigners arguing that they should not be made to suffer for the economic crisis.

Many Liberal Democrats have been uncomfortable voting with the government, but feel forced to do so if they are to abide by their coalition commitment to bring the deficit under control.

In a report out on Thursday, the Commons public accounts committee finds that fundamental changes to the benefits system, including the introduction of a new means-tested universal credit to replace some existing means-tested benefits, may fail without the formation of a new body.

Margaret Hodge, the chair of the committee, said that the government must learn from past experience and co-ordinate benefits more effectively.

"At present, there are nine central government departments and 152 local authorities administering 30 different means-tested benefits, yet there is no one body responsible for co-ordinating means-testing across government," she said.

"There needs to be a single body responsible for overseeing the interaction between different benefits, means-tested or not, and ensuring consistency and value for money."

A DWP spokesman said: "This report highlights exactly why we need universal credit. It has been designed across departments with the benefits and challenges raised by the PAC in mind.

"It will mean more people getting the money they are entitled to whilst reducing complexity and fraud in the system."

Wednesday, 11 January 2012

Government suffers Lords defeats over welfare cuts ....FIDDAMAN blog

Government suffers Lords defeats over welfare cuts

Sweet Baby Girl Dies After Vaccination and Parents Being Gagged - about Harold Buttram American loon

Harold Buttram

Advisor for the Medical Voices Vaccine Information Center, the kind of center you really should run away from as fast as you can if you have a medical condition (the center also promotes our previous loon, Rashid Buttar). Buttram is a notoriously vile anti-vaccine crank, conspiracy theorist and promoter of dubious practices and alternative medicine. A sympathetic presentation is here. He is also a member of the infamous Association of American Physicians and Scientists, which publishes Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons (discussed here)

and uses Andy Schlafly as legal representative.

Dr. Buttram is perhaps most infamous for claiming that the shaken baby syndrome is really due to vaccine injury rather than physical trauma and has published articles in his Association’s journal and elsewhere defending that claim. As a consequence he was personally responsible for almost getting baby murderer Alan Yurko off the hook (another witness for the defense was Mohammed Al-Bayati). As if the facts don’t prove his lunacy, Dr. Buttram also has his own page on That should settle it.

Diagnosis: Unintentionally evil loon of the kind that is all too common. Needs to be stopped, but even if he is there’s ten more to take his place.

Monday, 9 January 2012

SCIENTOLOGIST outs himself on Atypical_Antipsychotic group - Ken Kramer


Just felt like saying that. :) New theme song too: Diana Ross "I'm coming out" Crank it UP! Lyrics: Music:

Feels pretty good since I've taken the leash and restraints off!

I’m also the creator and maintainer of which is being completely revamped.

Stay tuned for that!

I own DataSearch, Inc., a public records research and retrieval company. I'm married to Trish O'Hara who

recently has decided to call herself Trish O'Kramer (informally) - so that's a big accomplishment too! :)

I am also the moderator of this news group. So if you have any beefs - or fantastic ideas - Write to me:


Watch out! Kramer is unleashed!

Follow me on Twitter: @PsychSearch Facebook: PsychSearch

Ken Kramer


Sunday, 8 January 2012

Jimmy Saville child sex claims investigated by the BBC days after star's death... but programme was axed - FIDDAMAN blog

Jimmy Saville child sex claims investigated by the BBC days after star's death... but programme was axed

Read more:

Legal thuggery, antivaccine edition: Andrew Wakefield sues Brian Deer, the BMJ, and Fiona Godlee

Legal thuggery, antivaccine edition: Andrew Wakefield sues Brian Deer, the BMJ, and Fiona Godlee

Category: Antivaccination lunacy • Autism • Medicine

Posted on: January 5, 2012 12:00 AM, by Orac

If there's one thing that a crank, quack, pseudoscientist, or anti-vaccine propagandist doesn't like, it's having the light of day shined upon his activities. In fact, so much do they hate it that they have a distressing tendency to respond to science-based criticism not with science-based rebuttals (mainly because they can't given that they don't have any science to support them) but rather with legal threats. Sometimes these legal threats progress beyond just threats and into legal action, usually libel suits designed not to be compensated for damage to reputation but rather to intimidate and silence. We've seen it before many, many times, directed against journalists, bloggers, and scientists as varied as Simon Singh, Paul Offit, Amy Wallace, Andy Lewis, and others. Sometimes these efforts reach downright comical excesses, as it did when PR flack Marc Stephens threatened bloggers on behalf of the Burzynski Clinic, but they're only comical to observers. If you happen to be on the receiving end of these legal threats, you have little choice but to take them at least a little seriously, and, like all bloggers, I am not immune to at least a mild degree of worry that some day some crank will decide to take a legal shot at me, too. Fortunately, I live in the U.S., where libel laws make suing much less hospitable, thanks to the First Amendment.

It looks as though an anti-vaccine crank is at it again.

Apparently not satisfied with having taken a run at Brian Deer and lost, even in the libel-friendly venue of the UK, disgraced anti-vaccine "brave maverick doctor" Andrew Wakefield has apparently filed a libel suit against Brian Deer on January 3. A PDF of the complaint can be found here. Apparently, Wakefield is very, very unhappy at the most recent series published by Brian Deer in BMJ almost exactly a year ago today in which Deer characterized Wakefield's research as "Piltdown medicine." He explained why, too, in an article entitled How the case against the MMR vaccine was fixed, while BMJ editor Fiona Godlee piled on with an accompanying editorial entitled Wakefield's article linking MMR vaccine to autism was fraudulent. As is usual for Deer's work, the articles were well-researched and well-referenced. Clearly, they had an effect, too, continuing Wakefield's slide from "brave maverick doctor" that the media liked to trot out as a "vaccine skeptic" whenever doing stories about vaccines to a pathetic crank who could only score invitations to speak at antivaccine conferences. Not surprisingly, Wakefield's admirers immediately started a counterattack.

And the antivaccine movement is still smarting from Deer's dismantling of the entire basis of its hero's stature. Indeed, just one month ago, the Boy Wonder of the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism went after Anderson Cooper's writer/producer eleven months after an interview he did with Wakefield around the time Brian Deer's story came out last January. It's another example of the one trick of AoA's one trick pony, in which its Boy Wonder goes all Kevin Bacon "six degrees of separation" on Anderson Cooper's producer in order to find a tenuous--fantastical, even--apparent conflict of interest. Throughout it all, J.B. Handley's happy home for antivaccine propagandists published post after post after post attacking Brian Deer, Fiona Godlee, and the BMJ. It's become an obsession with AoA's bloggers and the antivaccine crankosphere.

So what is in Wakefield's complaint against Brian Deer? Well, it's the usual stuff, in particular claiming that the content of the BMJ articles by Deer and BMJ editors was not only just false but knowingly false, stating:

The Defamatory Statements were and are false and written and published with actual malice and intended to cause damage to Dr. Wakefield's reputation and work as a researcher, academic, and physician and to permanently impair his reptation and his livelihood.

Wakefield's attorney even has the audacity to play the "pharma shill" gambit:

Interestingly, at the time of the editorials and the Deer article were Published, the Defendents failed to disclose the fact that the BMJ received significant revenue from the very vaccine manufacturers whose products need further investigation. It was only monthslater, after the issue was raised by others, that the BMJ posted the following: "The BMJ should have declared competing interests in relation to this editorial by Fiona Godlee and colleagues. The BMJ Group receives advertising and sponsorship revenue from vaccine manufacturer, and specifically from Merck and GSK, which both manufacture MMR vaccines."

Yes, indeed. Wakefield's attorneys are actually trying to argue that the BMJ libeled Wakefield to protect its big pharma sugar daddy, the vaccine manufacturers. Seriously, his lawyer, William M. Parrish, should know better. Or maybe he doesn't. He doesn't list libel as one of his areas of specialty, which are listed as intellectual property disputes (e.g., trade secret, trademark, trade name, trade dress, copyright and patent disputes) business torts (e.g., unfair competition, deceptive trade practices, tortious interference with actual and prospective contracts and/or business relationships, fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, unfair advertising practices, etc.) and breach of contract claims. Yet here he is, suing for libel.

I find it very amusing that Dr. Wakefield claims his "professional reputation" was damaged by Deer's most recent article The reason, of course, is that Dr. Wakefield's reputation was destroyed by his having done and publicized his bad science, by his having intentionally consorted with the antivaccine movement and continued (in my opinion) to crank out bad science in the service of smearing the MMR with the claim that it causes autism. Wakefield destroyed his own reputation by doing fraudulent science. That happened years before Brian Deer ever wrote that BMJ article a year ago. Wakefield had already been found guilty by the General Medical Council of "serious professional misconduct," which included acting in ways not in the clinical interests of disabled children. Shortly after that, he was struck off the medical register, and fired from Thoughtful House. All of this happened many months before Brian Deer wrote his article.

To but it bluntly, Andrew Wakefield no longer had any professional reputation to be trashed. This will be a major problem for him in any libel action, because one has to prove damage to one's reputation to be successful in a libel suit.

All that leaves to me is one question: Why? And Why now? Not being a lawyer, I can only speculate based on what I know about the Wakefield case. Mr. Parrish must know that his client is incredibly unlikely to win this action. After all, Wakefield has already been tried and found guilty of misconduct by the British GMC and suing Brian Deer for libel, even in the plaintiff-friendly UK, backfired on him spectacularly. There's little reason to expect that, given how well Deer has put all his ducks in a row in his reporting time and time again, Wakefield will do better in a U.S. court, where the bar for proving libel is much higher than in the UK. So, again, why is he doing this now? Let me speculate a moment. My guess is that the purpose of this libel action is to punish Brian Deer. More importantly, I'd also bet that it's designed to give Andrew Wakefield a soapbox and a means of putting himself back into the public spotlight again, the spotlight from which he's faded so much since one year ago. Again, he'll be the "persecuted brave maverick doctor," but this time he'll be perceived as fighting back. I just hope he knows that Texas has a new anti-SLAPP law. Wakefield had better be careful.

In fact, this whole lawsuit strikes me as incredibly ill-advised, as it opens Wakefield up to discovery. Of course, it might well be that part of the motivation for the lawsuit is to subject Brian Deer, the BMJ, and Fiona Godlee to discovery, and I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see bits of information from discovery show up on the antivaccine crank blog Age of Autism; that is, if the case gets that far. If I were part of the antivaccine bloggerati at AoA, I might be worried now, because, given AoA's campaign to discredit Brian Deer, particularly over the last year, it's likely to be in the defense's crosshairs. Communications between Wakefield and any AoA blogger might be subject to discovery. Any financial transaction between Generation Rescue and Andrew Wakefield could also be subject to discovery. Wakefield might think that because Deer, Godlee, and the BMJ are in the UK that they won't engage in a full and vigorous defense to the extent of going whole hog (sorry, the lawsuit's in Texas; I couldn't resist) on discovery. Is Wakefield sure he wants to risk that? BMJ is part of a large company, and publishing companies tend not to take kindly to libel actions. Of course, even if the Generation Rescue/AoA/Wakefield connection isn't a worry, everything else is. After all, everything about the Lancet paper would definitely be subject to discovery, and there's no question about its relevance to the lawsuit.

Whatever Wakefield's motivation, this move reeks of desperation. After all, if this was such obvious libel, why did Wakefield wait nearly a full year after the publication of Deer's BMJ articles until filing this lawsuit? In taking this action, Wakefield is both demonstrating the characteristics of a crank (the need to silence using the courts rather than to refute using science) and showing just how far he's fallen. In any case, I highly doubt Brian Deer has anything to worry about, other than the irritation this might cause and whether the company providing his libel insurance will go all wobbly on him. After all, the truth is an absolute defense against libel.