10% of adults 'on antidepressants'
(UKPA) – 1 hour ago
One in 10 adults in Scotland are thought to be on antidepressants, according to official figures.
The volume of prescribed medicines increased by 7.6% in a year, from 4.01 million items in 2008-9 to 4.31 million items in 2009-10.
Statistics published by health service data collection body ISD Scotland showed the total has increased from 2.77 million 10 years ago. The Scottish Government had set a target to stop the rise by 2009-10 and prepare the ground for a 10% reduction in future years.
Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iVd65iHHnE6sv_8WY6MMzrV9QqdA?docId=N0264411292936818082A
Tuesday, 21 December 2010
Kelly Patricia O Meara can't even spell Andy Vickery's name - so why would you believe anything else this "journalist" claims
http://www.prozactruth.com/article_british_ban_spur_fda.htm
Andy Vickory of the Houston law firm of Vickory and Waldner has spent nearly a decade representing families who believe they have been harmed by SSRIs. He was the lead attorney in a landmark decision in the 2001 case of Donald Schell, a retired oil-rig worker who had taken Paxil for just two days when he shot and killed his wife, daughter and granddaughter before turning the gun on himself. The jury in the Schell case found that Paxil, made by GlaxoSmithKline, "can cause some individuals to commit suicide and/or homicide" and awarded the surviving family members $8 million in damages.
Vickory tells Insight, "I'm pleased with the decision in the U.K., but I don't see anything coming from the FDA. I think they're going to stall. I've devoted the last eight or 10 years of my life to this issue and no telling how many years of my life trying to make every effort to understand these issues so ordinary people can understand what's at stake. And now I've been told by the FDA that I'll get just three minutes before the committee. There's not a whole hell of a lot you can say in three minutes about such an important issue."
Although Vickory is hopeful about the United Kingdom's decision on the SSRIs, he is openly confused about the panel's decision on Prozac. "It is astonishing," says Vickory, "that the U.K. didn't ban Prozac. There was an article in the British Journal of Psychiatry about a large-scale study - some 2,770 or so patients - on SSRIs. And what they found was that fluoxetine [Prozac] has the highest risk of deliberate self-harm. The study shows that if you take Prozac you are 6.6 times more likely deliberately to harm yourself. So why in the face of that data the U.K. would ban all other SSRIs but not Prozac is astounding. The answer for public consumption is that none of the other drugs being considered by the U.K. even showed any efficacy. My response to the British would be, 'Okay, if that's your decision, since you know it also triggers suicide in some, at least make the manufacturer put a warning label on it.'"
Andy Vickory of the Houston law firm of Vickory and Waldner has spent nearly a decade representing families who believe they have been harmed by SSRIs. He was the lead attorney in a landmark decision in the 2001 case of Donald Schell, a retired oil-rig worker who had taken Paxil for just two days when he shot and killed his wife, daughter and granddaughter before turning the gun on himself. The jury in the Schell case found that Paxil, made by GlaxoSmithKline, "can cause some individuals to commit suicide and/or homicide" and awarded the surviving family members $8 million in damages.
Vickory tells Insight, "I'm pleased with the decision in the U.K., but I don't see anything coming from the FDA. I think they're going to stall. I've devoted the last eight or 10 years of my life to this issue and no telling how many years of my life trying to make every effort to understand these issues so ordinary people can understand what's at stake. And now I've been told by the FDA that I'll get just three minutes before the committee. There's not a whole hell of a lot you can say in three minutes about such an important issue."
Although Vickory is hopeful about the United Kingdom's decision on the SSRIs, he is openly confused about the panel's decision on Prozac. "It is astonishing," says Vickory, "that the U.K. didn't ban Prozac. There was an article in the British Journal of Psychiatry about a large-scale study - some 2,770 or so patients - on SSRIs. And what they found was that fluoxetine [Prozac] has the highest risk of deliberate self-harm. The study shows that if you take Prozac you are 6.6 times more likely deliberately to harm yourself. So why in the face of that data the U.K. would ban all other SSRIs but not Prozac is astounding. The answer for public consumption is that none of the other drugs being considered by the U.K. even showed any efficacy. My response to the British would be, 'Okay, if that's your decision, since you know it also triggers suicide in some, at least make the manufacturer put a warning label on it.'"
CCHR Weisman lied about UK under 18's Seroxat ban - Bruce Wiseman
extract from
(Will British Ban Spur FDA to Act? By Kelly Patricia O Meara
Insight on the News - Features Issue: 03/16/04)
(( interestingly enough Kelly Patricia O Meara can't even spell Bruce Wiseman's name correctly))
"The U.K.," Weisman insists, "did the right thing, and now it is time for the FDA to step up to the plate. It's too late for thousands of kids who are dead who got slapped with these bogus labels and were drugged, but it's not too late for the FDA to do what it's supposed to do, which is protect people and the public health. But to get to the heart of the problem they've got to confront the diagnoses and look at the fact that there are 8 million kids on these drugs and here is the evidence of suicide and violence that is occurring. I'd turn the scientific telescope onto the DSM and find out how it is that psychiatrists can come to a committee and squabble over a diagnosis and then literally vote on a diagnosis for which they now can be reimbursed and the treatment for that diagnosis is drugs, which now have been banned for children because not only are they not effective but they actually cause harm."
http://www.prozactruth.com/article_british_ban_spur_fda.htm
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and
social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit
(Will British Ban Spur FDA to Act? By Kelly Patricia O Meara
Insight on the News - Features Issue: 03/16/04)
(( interestingly enough Kelly Patricia O Meara can't even spell Bruce Wiseman's name correctly))
"The U.K.," Weisman insists, "did the right thing, and now it is time for the FDA to step up to the plate. It's too late for thousands of kids who are dead who got slapped with these bogus labels and were drugged, but it's not too late for the FDA to do what it's supposed to do, which is protect people and the public health. But to get to the heart of the problem they've got to confront the diagnoses and look at the fact that there are 8 million kids on these drugs and here is the evidence of suicide and violence that is occurring. I'd turn the scientific telescope onto the DSM and find out how it is that psychiatrists can come to a committee and squabble over a diagnosis and then literally vote on a diagnosis for which they now can be reimbursed and the treatment for that diagnosis is drugs, which now have been banned for children because not only are they not effective but they actually cause harm."
http://www.prozactruth.com/article_british_ban_spur_fda.htm
FAIR USE NOTICE: This may contain copyrighted (C ) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and
social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit
Dr Benbow said Seroxat (under 18's) effective for social anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder, but not for depression
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jun/11/sciencenews.medicineandhealth
According to Alastair Benbow, Glaxo's head of European psychiatry, the trials on a total of 1,697 under-18s found that the drug was effective for social anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder, but not for depression.
He said the company had submitted the analysis of the nine trials to the MHRA as a matter of routine. It had not supplied the results of each trial as it finished. "We provide information as a package," he said.
what the MHRA said - http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con019508.pdf
According to Alastair Benbow, Glaxo's head of European psychiatry, the trials on a total of 1,697 under-18s found that the drug was effective for social anxiety disorder and obsessive compulsive disorder, but not for depression.
He said the company had submitted the analysis of the nine trials to the MHRA as a matter of routine. It had not supplied the results of each trial as it finished. "We provide information as a package," he said.
what the MHRA said - http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con019508.pdf
Sarah Boseley - get your facts straight if you are going to be believed
http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2003/jun/11/sciencenews.medicineandhealth
Sarah Boseley, health editor
The Guardian, Wednesday 11 June 2003
"The future of Britain's best-selling antidepressant drug, Seroxat, and the rest of the class which includes Prozac, was in question last night after drug regulators banned its use in under-18s "
& the TRUTH is
Sarah Boseley, health editor
"The future of Britain's best-selling antidepressant drug, Seroxat, and the rest of the class which includes Prozac, was in question last night after drug regulators banned its use in under-18s "
& the TRUTH is
Fiddaman is CCHR shill - read his words - The Evidence is clear
Fiddaman is CCHR shill - read his words - Am I a Commissioner for CCHR? No, but I sure would like to be
http://ehealthforum.com/blogs/fiddy/dead-wrong-the-documentary-a-review-b12417.html
" If you are a parent, or indeed if you are thinking of starting a family, then you owe it to yourselves, to your children, to your future children, to watch this documentary from the stable of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. [CCHR] ...."
http://ehealthforum.com/blogs/fiddy/dead-wrong-the-documentary-a-review-b12417.html
" If you are a parent, or indeed if you are thinking of starting a family, then you owe it to yourselves, to your children, to your future children, to watch this documentary from the stable of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights. [CCHR] ...."
"Am I a Commissioner for CCHR? No, but I sure would like to be. They are at the forefront of raising awareness about this fraudulent industry and if that means someone labelling me a Scientologist then that is a very small price to pay for someone else's ignorance"
Monday, 20 December 2010
Seroxat Panorama = BBC Propaganda - what real people say about distortion of the truth
Right now, BBC1 and Panorama are running an opinion piece against
Paroxetine ('Seroxat' 'Paxil'). It's very destructive stuff:
GlaxoSmithKline publicity material voiced-over in sombre tones about
the mood changes in the first few weeks of use... as I write, there's
tear-jerking propaganda footage about some young man (North-of-England
scenes, books on the bedroom shelf, sad tones describing his ambition
to be a musician) all leading up to the dreadful evil of
antidepressants and the tragedy of a young life lost.
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/56648ce8d1c32d22/96b278dc9e886023?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Shelley+Jofre
Doubtless we'll see some pro-forma statement by GSK - lit to make them
look like the villains the viewers now know them to be - bracketed by
interviews with heroic defenders of the public against the evils of
Big Business.
Paroxetine's overprescribed. Some of that's due to GSK promoting the
drug for profit.
It's an SSRI - that means it'll take weeks to work, and it'll have
horrible side effects. Among other problems, the patient will be
emotionally vulnerable. Cruelly, the initial lifting of depression may
give them sufficient deciosion-making ability and resolve to kill
themselves.
Sometimes the side effects are too severe to continue.
It's beneficial, but rarely effects a complete 'cure' on its own:
advanced countries prescribe antidepressants alongside therapy. Many
GP's in England don't.
Sometimes it doesn't work at all, no matter what you do.
Some people are cured of depression, or helped through an episode of
it, with the help of Paroxetine. A disease serious enough to justify
using a drug with terrible side effects - far worse than any
Paroxtine's - because people die with this disease. Others wish they
could. Many lose decades of a life to the disease and never have the
things that smug propagandists with TV production budgets take for
granted.
Some of the truth will make it into the programme. Some of it won't.
Some things that might, in a court of law, be defensible as 'true'
will be presented so as to lie by distorting public perceptions.
Maybe there was a time when TV documentaries were about the
presentation of fact: that time is now gone. Journalism is about
stories, and about presenting a case - one particular point of view -
and occasionally some words of disagreement to give 'balance'. Facts
and footage are accessories to the story and serve to reinforce the
message to the viewer.
If Paxil - or antidepressants in general - becomes harder to obtain,
some of us will die. Remember that, when you encounter people whose
perception of the truth has been distorted by the BBC tonight. One of
them might be your GP. Another might be a lay member of the local NHS
trust. Others will be people you thought you trusted with the
knowledge that you were on a medication: now they know, because they
heard it on the BBC, that you are pill-popping to feed an imaginary
illness, grasping at the excuse of an invented condition and the false
salvation invented by Glaxo's advertising copywriters.
Lotus
Paroxetine ('Seroxat' 'Paxil'). It's very destructive stuff:
GlaxoSmithKline publicity material voiced-over in sombre tones about
the mood changes in the first few weeks of use... as I write, there's
tear-jerking propaganda footage about some young man (North-of-England
scenes, books on the bedroom shelf, sad tones describing his ambition
to be a musician) all leading up to the dreadful evil of
antidepressants and the tragedy of a young life lost.
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/56648ce8d1c32d22/96b278dc9e886023?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Shelley+Jofre
Doubtless we'll see some pro-forma statement by GSK - lit to make them
look like the villains the viewers now know them to be - bracketed by
interviews with heroic defenders of the public against the evils of
Big Business.
Paroxetine's overprescribed. Some of that's due to GSK promoting the
drug for profit.
It's an SSRI - that means it'll take weeks to work, and it'll have
horrible side effects. Among other problems, the patient will be
emotionally vulnerable. Cruelly, the initial lifting of depression may
give them sufficient deciosion-making ability and resolve to kill
themselves.
Sometimes the side effects are too severe to continue.
It's beneficial, but rarely effects a complete 'cure' on its own:
advanced countries prescribe antidepressants alongside therapy. Many
GP's in England don't.
Sometimes it doesn't work at all, no matter what you do.
Some people are cured of depression, or helped through an episode of
it, with the help of Paroxetine. A disease serious enough to justify
using a drug with terrible side effects - far worse than any
Paroxtine's - because people die with this disease. Others wish they
could. Many lose decades of a life to the disease and never have the
things that smug propagandists with TV production budgets take for
granted.
Some of the truth will make it into the programme. Some of it won't.
Some things that might, in a court of law, be defensible as 'true'
will be presented so as to lie by distorting public perceptions.
Maybe there was a time when TV documentaries were about the
presentation of fact: that time is now gone. Journalism is about
stories, and about presenting a case - one particular point of view -
and occasionally some words of disagreement to give 'balance'. Facts
and footage are accessories to the story and serve to reinforce the
message to the viewer.
If Paxil - or antidepressants in general - becomes harder to obtain,
some of us will die. Remember that, when you encounter people whose
perception of the truth has been distorted by the BBC tonight. One of
them might be your GP. Another might be a lay member of the local NHS
trust. Others will be people you thought you trusted with the
knowledge that you were on a medication: now they know, because they
heard it on the BBC, that you are pill-popping to feed an imaginary
illness, grasping at the excuse of an invented condition and the false
salvation invented by Glaxo's advertising copywriters.
Lotus
Shelley Jofre's interview with GSK was particularly poor
Being a huge fan of BBC's impartial reporting, I was pretty disappointed
with last night's Parorama. It was completely one sided. Shelley Jofre's
interview with GSK was particularly poor. Not only was she wrong to quote
from Oxford Dictionary for a medical term "addiction", there appeared to be
a blurring between causation and coincidences. Coincidences does not connote
causation! It is evident in all medical literature that there will be
withdrawal symptoms when coming off SSRIs. Can anyone here honestly say that
they did not know about withdrawal symptons of SSRIs?
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/56648ce8d1c32d22/96b278dc9e886023?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Shelley+Jofre
with last night's Parorama. It was completely one sided. Shelley Jofre's
interview with GSK was particularly poor. Not only was she wrong to quote
from Oxford Dictionary for a medical term "addiction", there appeared to be
a blurring between causation and coincidences. Coincidences does not connote
causation! It is evident in all medical literature that there will be
withdrawal symptoms when coming off SSRIs. Can anyone here honestly say that
they did not know about withdrawal symptons of SSRIs?
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/56648ce8d1c32d22/96b278dc9e886023?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Shelley+Jofre
BBC (Seroxat) is a dirty whore - willing to sell herself to the highest bidder
https://groups.google.com/group/uk.politics.misc/browse_thread/thread/56648ce8d1c32d22/96b278dc9e886023?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=Shelley+Jofre
The clinical researcher that the BBC interviewed assidiously
avoided mentioning the names of the other SSRIs that he had
researched even though he had found that those rival drugs had
similar profiles of adverse reactions. That to me spoke volumes.
I too known nothing about paroxetine, although I understand that
the side-effects of each SSRI are virtually indistinguishable.
Maybe the BBC, in broadcasting this vehemently anti-Seroxat programme,
was doing it as a service for Eli Lilly, the manufacturers of Prozac,
the main rival to Seroxat?
In damaging Seroxat, by explicitly attributing all these problems
specifically to it and not its rival drugs, was intended to increase
prescriptions for Prozac et al...
I don't think anyone as of late disputes that the BBC is a dirty whore -
willing to sell herself to the highest bidder and it is with that
in mind that I suspect, admittedly without any proof, that the BBC's
highest bidders this time around could well be GlaxoSmithKline's rival
companies....
Shelley Jofre - inaccurate unprofessional & misleading Seroxat sensationalist
source
http://news.bbc.co.uk/nol/shared/spl/hi/programmes/panorama/transcripts/takenontrust.txt
NB: THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING
Transcribed by 1-Stop Express, 3 Southwick Mews, London W2 1JG
Sunday, 19 December 2010
Sarah Venn (barrister) claimed Seroxat banned for children & wanted ban extended to adults - but was she telling the TRUTH?
Thursday 26 June 2003
extract
Sarah Venn, chairperson of the Seroxat Users' Group, believes that the drug should be banned for adults too until research has proved its safety.
source -
http://www.communitycare.co.uk/Articles/2003/06/26/41202/Users-call-for-antidepressant-ban-to-be-extended-to-new-adult.htm
but was she telling the TRUTH?
Seroxat triumphalist liar Mark Harvey claimed Seroxat was banned for minors
"
....during the year the Users Group and I have orchestrated the campaign against the drug and we have obtained the following victories:-
a) The institution of a Government review into Seroxat; (this has already worked one triumph, a press and public announcement of the dangers of the drug with suicide and the ban of its prescription to minors)
"
Where did he say it ?
and the TRUTH is
but just dont expect to get it from Hugh James
Saturday, 18 December 2010
Seroxat Litigation - CSM report-‘Suicidal Behaviour in association with SSRI’ 2004
Seroxat Litigation - CSM report-‘Suicidal Behaviour in association with SSRI’ 2004
http://t.co/9MWXvRO
http://t.co/9MWXvRO
Friday, 17 December 2010
Seroxat activists accuse MHRA of poisoning patients - "Well, fuck you"
...while the Worshipful Company is busy poisoning (no,
I don't think that that's too emotive a term) the most vulnerable people available to it, we are being told stoically by all concerned that our health and wellbeing is all that anybody cares about.
Well, fuck you.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/es-foi/documents/foidisclosure/con025748.pdf
I don't think that that's too emotive a term) the most vulnerable people available to it, we are being told stoically by all concerned that our health and wellbeing is all that anybody cares about.
Well, fuck you.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/es-foi/documents/foidisclosure/con025748.pdf
Thalidomide victims' payout fury - 'take it or leave it' says minister
Thalidomide victims' payout fury
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Thalidomide victims have accused Health Minister Mary Harney of a 'take it or leave it' attitude
Thalidomide victims have accused Health Minister Mary Harney of a "take it or leave it" attitude to a two million euro compensation deal.
The minister told survivors they have until the end of the year to accept the money or it would go back into state coffers.
But Finola Cassidy, spokeswoman for the Irish Thalidomide Association, said they were annoyed at Ms Harney's attitude.
"We're bitterly disappointed at the same 'take it or leave it' manner and approach that was foisted on our parents when we were 12-year-old children, and has been foisted twice now in this last year by Minister Harney," she said.
Included in the deal is the one-off 62,500 euro payment costing the Government two million euro; a further annual individual payment of up to 3,680 euro for the worst affected; individual assessments for special care packages; a senior Health Service Executive manager to liaise with survivors; and an appeal process to ensure transport needs are met.
A Department of Health statement said the Minister felt it "important to advise the group that in the event of the Government's offer of two million euro in ex-gratia payments not being taken up, the monies would have to revert to the exchequer by the end of the year."
The statement said the offer was being made in good faith and that accepting it would not preclude the Thalidomide Association from entering into negotiations with any future government, nor would it affect its legal strategy.
Ms Cassidy said the Association will issue legal proceedings against the Government on Friday.
Thursday, 16 December 2010
Thalidomide victims have accused Health Minister Mary Harney of a 'take it or leave it' attitude
Thalidomide victims have accused Health Minister Mary Harney of a "take it or leave it" attitude to a two million euro compensation deal.
The minister told survivors they have until the end of the year to accept the money or it would go back into state coffers.
But Finola Cassidy, spokeswoman for the Irish Thalidomide Association, said they were annoyed at Ms Harney's attitude.
"We're bitterly disappointed at the same 'take it or leave it' manner and approach that was foisted on our parents when we were 12-year-old children, and has been foisted twice now in this last year by Minister Harney," she said.
Included in the deal is the one-off 62,500 euro payment costing the Government two million euro; a further annual individual payment of up to 3,680 euro for the worst affected; individual assessments for special care packages; a senior Health Service Executive manager to liaise with survivors; and an appeal process to ensure transport needs are met.
A Department of Health statement said the Minister felt it "important to advise the group that in the event of the Government's offer of two million euro in ex-gratia payments not being taken up, the monies would have to revert to the exchequer by the end of the year."
The statement said the offer was being made in good faith and that accepting it would not preclude the Thalidomide Association from entering into negotiations with any future government, nor would it affect its legal strategy.
Ms Cassidy said the Association will issue legal proceedings against the Government on Friday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)