Glaxo, An Angry Blogger And Free Speech
251 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // April 3rd, 2008 // 3:28 pm
Back in February, a UK resident named Bob Fiddaman posted a video on his site, which is known as Seroxat Sufferers. For those unaware, Seroxat is the trade name in the UK for the Paxil antidepressant and Fiddaman has regularly railed against the drugmaker over the pill and its various side effects, such as links to suicide and difficult withdrawal symptoms.
The four-minute video posted was, essentially, a pastiche that intersperses a photo of Alistair Benbow, Glaxo’s European head of psychiatry, with various written statements. Fiddaman juxtaposed statements from Glaxo and Benbow with conflicting statements from various documents to create a contrast that underscored charges that the drugmaker hid evidence from regulators, doctors and the public. Later, on his own site, Fiddaman also posted a remark that compared Benbow to a notorious dictator.
At that point, Glaxo’s attorneys wrote a letter demanding he remove the remark and the video because these implied Benbow had lied or was guilty of a cover-up and that it was all defamatory. Fiddaman apologized, removed the video and then posted the letter, but it continues to circulate. And a growing number of bloggers accuse Glaxo of stifling debate about a controversial drug that remains the subject of litigation.
“One is left wondering who has caused the greater offence, who owes the apology, and to whom that apology is owed,” wrote Aubrey Blumsohn on his Scientific Misconduct blog. “The scientific questions are overwhelming, and the intimidation of a questioning patient cannot be allowed to divert attention from the lack of any real answering.”
We contacted Glaxo and a spokeswoman wrote the drugmaker “accepts that the company and its products are subject to public debate. However, we cannot accept personal and baseless attacks on our employees.” In a conversation, she adds “the issue was the specific offensive reference to one Glaxo employee.” So is there a concerted effort to stifle blogs and the video? No, she says. Will Glaxo approach other sites to remove the video should it be posted. To her knowledge, she says, no such decision has been made.
Nathan
I wonder if Bob Fiddaman’s screen alias is “pg” or “Truthman”… Now the pieces are fitting together…
truthman30
No Nathan, I am not Bob Fiddaman and to the best of my knowledge neither is pg….
Matthew Holford
It’s an intriguing tale. It seems that GSK notices what patients are saying, all right. But it only responds when it believes (wrongly, I think, in this case, aside from the issue of copyright of images), that it is able to demonstrate that somebody has crossed the civil or criminal line.
I asked its lawyers if it was planning to agree to the release of the documents that the MHRA reviewed during its recently concluded investigation (the ones that caused the MHRA to decide that GSK had withheld SAE data, and caused it to question the Company’s morality publicly). I expect to be ignored. Unless, of course, my emotions get the better of me, and I make some kind of remark to the effect that Alistair Benbow is either corrupt or incompetent, at which point I’m confident that I will receive correspondence from the Bedford Massive’s lawyers.
Anyway, there is no foundation to A&G’s allegations, other than in the somewhat warped reality of Ali B, that is, and I regret to say the Law hasn’t been transgressed, just because a lawyer on a retainer says so (apart from anything else, it is not defamatory to name call - as such, I think Benbow is a fucking cunt). Although, I thought it was really sweet of GSK to stick up for Ali B, in the completely disinterested way that it did.
Matt
BOB FIDDAMAN
Thanks for this post.
It amazes me how firstly Alldeshaw & Goddard, GSK’s lawyers, contact a third party to ‘warn me’ that what I was doing was (in their eyes) wrong.
Then the author of this web page goes into conversation with a spokesperson from GSK.
I too have mailed Alldeshaw & Goddard, alas I have received no reply.
The apology was made to Benbow for likening him to Hitler. To date I do not know whether or not he has accepted my apology… and so it continues.
The video was taken down because it seems I infringed the copyright law or is it trademark?
The actual content of the video was, in essence, a debate. The defence being Alistair Benbow.
Benbow has been the mouthpiece for GSK regarding Seroxat so I had to use him as the subject. He is vocal so why not I?
The video has now been uploaded by various bloggers so Addleshaw & Goddards scheme to gag me has kind of backfired.
It will be interesting to see if GSK ask (warn) other bloggers to remove the video. I suspect they won’t which gives me the feeling of being victimised and singled out.
Fid
GSK Lawyers target Seroxat campaigner Bob Fiddaman - what next? « seroxat secrets…
[...] An Angry Blogger And Free Speech (Ed Silverman of Pharmalot and the Star-Ledger of New Jersey) [...]
www.worldpharmanews.net
Pharmalot » Glaxo, An Angry Blogger And Free Speech…
Back in February, a UK resident named Bob Fiddaman posted a video on his site, which is known as Seroxat Sufferers. For those unaware, Seroxat is the trade name in the UK for the Paxil antidepressant and Fiddaman has regularly railed against the drugma…
pg
Nathan said: “I wonder if Bob Fiddaman’s screen alias is “pg” or “Truthman”… Now the pieces are fitting together”
I’m not Fiddaman or Truthman and to the best of my knowledge they’re also two seperate individuals.
Using wild and inaccurate guesswork to purport that…”the pieces are fitting together” sounds ever so much like current pharma science though. :-|
pg
Rather like this paxil site actually:
http://www.paxilcr.com/how_paxilcr_works/how_paxilcr_works.html
“Scientific evidence SUGGESTS that depression and certain anxiety disorders <MAYy be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Paxil CR helps balance your brain’s chemistry. (See Important Safety Information about Paxil CR.)”
So Paxil CR helps balance what MIGHT be caused by a chemical imbalance, but they have no idea because its only a SUGGESTION. so not exactly EVIDENCE really, not to anyone thinking scientifically at least.
Basically, as thats their ’science’ given away in the first paragraph, then you know the rest of it is a bit like the statement:
“I wonder if Bob Fiddaman’s screen alias is “pg” or “Truthman”… Now the pieces are fitting together”
ie, unbelievable unscientific garbage.
“
Laurie
Until someone goes through, or watches someone go through withdrawal, you just don’t realize the devastation it can cause. Anger..yup, people are VERY angry about not being informed. GSK is just going to have to deal with their lack of complete disclosure on Paxil’s effects. With thousands of reports of horrendous withdrawal, GSK continues to deny the problem even today.
I don’t have alot of sympathy for Benbow having his feelings hurt.
pg
Messed up the html here, sorry:
“Scientific evidence SUGGESTS that depression and certain anxiety disorders MAY be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Paxil CR helps balance your brain’s chemistry. (See Important Safety Information about Paxil CR.)…”
Scientific “EVIDENCE” only “SUGGESTS” a cause?
After all those years of research? AND despite that research failing to prove anything of the sort, they make $$$ millions by saying that they have a drug that puts right the “SUGGESTED” possible cause?
Unbelievable how they’ve managed to get away with such a $$$Billions-making scam so successfully.
pg
Hi Laurie, the horrific thing about it all is that its not just ONE drug - its so many of them. SSRIs, SNRIs, (atypical antidepressants - the SSRI/SNIR terminology is just a PR tactic to make them sound ‘interestingly different’) antipsychotics and the rest.
Its unbelievable what they have gotten away with in the last couple of decades. Just awful.
Stephany
http://bipolarsoupkitchen-stephany.blogspot.com/2008/04/this-usa-blog-supports-bob-fiddaman-gsk.html
Nathan
I’ll be at a medicinial chemistry meeting next week. There is a 4 hour session devoted to “Depression - Beyond SSRIs”. It will be interesting to see what the next generation of antidepressants will bring. There’s a lot of stuff coming through the pipeline. I hope you won’t discount the potential of future drugs just because the existing drugs are so bad. We aren’t sitting on our butts watching the money roll in — we’re working hard on the next generation of antidepressants.
(I say “we” very loosely — I actually work on an inflammation department. But I enjoy following CNS drugs quite a bit — they are incredibly challenging due to the fact that meaningful animal models are almost nonexistant.)
pg
Did Benbow know what he was promoting? Do the other Key Opinion Leaders re other drugs know what they are promoting?
I would say yes. Thats why KOL’s are so well paid. Paid well to lie. Lies in the media, lies up against opposition. Lies when presented with the realities. If they don’t know then when faced with facts from the opposition, they have no right to be considered ‘experts’ and if they DO know, they’re hired as experts, then they’re GUILTY of gross misconduct, guilty of the deaths their lies have caused.
pg
Nathan: ” hope you won’t discount the potential of future drugs just because the existing drugs are so bad.”
Thats different (from what I’ve seen from you, Nathan) and I see you can see the existing drugs are bad. But they’re not going to get any better while they still trying to prove a “suggestion” that depression “may” be due to a chemical imbalance.
Its crap science, and the KOLs know it - but they also know it brings in the $$$s.
WHEN they start discovering their lost ethics, if they ever do, that is when they’ll start using SCIENCE. So far they haven’t shown any sign of doing so, and while the $ is the objective they won’t.
Pharma should make money IF AND WHEN they use it well. But so far they’re using it to make money at the expense of life. When they stop the fraud people like me will defend them. WHEN they stop the fraud. They haven’t even started to do so yet.
Former pharma Marketing Exec
This certainly is an interesting twist on having one’s voice heard!
The power of the internet, brings the power to the people.
We’ve had this discussion quite a bit here, but we have to ask again, what makes people think that the things they say publicly wont come back to haunt them?
You have to wonder if at some point someone thought the suicides could be hidden in the fact that the patients were depressed anyway? I mean, why hide it?
The right approach for anti depressants is to accept the reality that they do very little good in cases of mild depression. In cases of severe depression the risks might, might, be worth the potential side effects. But then again cases of severe depression are usually better managed and hopefully suicidal ideation would be picked up on in time to “rescue” the patient.
This would have been the right approach, but of course the sales would not have been very high. Additionally there is probably some underlying pharmacoeconomic model somewhere that shows how these patients can be treated with minimal medical intervention and care, thereby reducing the costs to the system. In the end, when you connect all the dots - and the dots always get connected - you can actually see the extent the management went to in order to cover up and deceive the very market they serve. The patients, their own scientific advisory board, their KOL’s. A complete show of disrespect for this important disease category.
Doesn’t it sound like I have just described the behavior of a psychopath? Who else would blatantly say they are putting the patient first, when in fact their actions have caused such harm.
I am grateful that I have always been able to work in a very ethical environment.
TRANSPARENCY!!!
Nathan
pg says:
“Thats different …and I see you can see the existing drugs are bad. But they’re not going to get any better while they still trying to prove a “suggestion” that depression “may” be due to a chemical imbalance.”
Here’s what I’m saying (and I’ve said before):
1) Existing drugs are insufficient. They aren’t part of some vast evil conspiracy.
2) I’ve been able to find no evidence that SSRIs lower suicide rates. Conversely, I’ve also been unable to find any credible evidence that they RAISE suicide rates.
3) The drugs clearly work in some patients — but they also cause severe side effects in others.
4) No matter how you want to say it, depression IS caused by some sort of chemical imbalance. Your brain is a mass of neurons that are constantly sending chemical messages back and forth with one another. When something goes wrong up there, it is due to some sort of a chemical signaling pathway gone awry. You’ve said again and again that this isn’t true, that depression is caused by combinations of experience. You are absolutely right — those EXPERIENCES are translated into chemical signals in your brain. What do you think your brain is? Is it some spiritual energy center? No! It’s a mass of neurons and neurotransmitters interspersed with blood vessels floating in cerebrospinal fluid. You can treat your brain with drug just like you can treat your liver with drugs — the only difference is that we don’t know as much about the brain.
Nathan
FPME says:
“I am grateful that I have always been able to work in a very ethical environment.”
I am also grateful that I have always been able to work in a very ethical environment in my 7 years in the pharmaceutical industry. I work for an industry that has saved millions and millions of lives. We have kept babies from getting sick, delayed the onset of dementia in the elderly, and given cancer patients precious extra months with their family. We do this through the use of honest and transparent science. Not everyone agrees with the science done — even as scientists we disagree with one another. That doesn’t make us unethical. Marketing people (like you supposedly used to be) do occasionally oversell our products. But remember — a pharmaceutical company is unable to prescribe a drug to anyone. Only a treating physician can do that. I hope that the “righteous anger” that you portray also extends to them.
Matthew Holford
Former pharma Marketing Exec wrote:
“…In the end, when you connect all the dots - and the dots always get connected - you can actually see the extent the management went to in order to cover up and deceive the very market they serve. The patients, their own scientific advisory board, their KOL’s…”
Yes, and yet, despite this evident and flagrant abuse of trust, it seems that no significant effort is being made to remedy the deficiencies of the system that permitted it to happen, in the first place. There will be a bit of superficial tweaking, obviously, but there will be no attempt to change the culture of secrecy and blind eye.
There is no argument, here: the drug doesn’t work in any but the tiniest proportion of depressed people. And it’s dangerous. The Company knew both these things, but continued to press the drug on an unwitting public. The only thing that saves GSK from a very public humiliation in the criminal courts, is, I suspect “the public interest,” as perceived.
That is, I imagine, the damage to the UK economy (loss of jobs - and people are already being laid off in Eire, where the drug is manufactured), and, more pointedly, loss of public confidence in a lie that should never have been peddled, when there is no alternative treatment that people are willing to consider, are the things that will be used as justification for doing nothing meaningful, at all. Meanwhile, people such as Bob Fiddaman will continue to receive shitty letters from halfwit lawyers on behalf of mealy-mouthed jobsworths.
Shit sticks. The things that GSK (and its regulators), would have to do in order to restore public trust are unconscionable for people with the mindset that these people have. It would mean that they have to admit that they were wrong - and they’ve positioned themselves such that that is not a possibility.
Matt
Aubrey Blumsohn
Nathan
I wonder whether there is a language problem around the meaning of the words “honest and transparent science” you have used. Perhaps you would be so kind as to make brief comment on the following two examples which I have chosen so that we can better understand the sense in which you use those words. It may be for example that you use the word transparency in a quite different sense to that in which others receive the word. Such linguistic problems are common in debates of this sort.
a href=”http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/memory-hole-21-october-vioxx-and.html” target=”_blank”>Example 1
This is an inflammation example for you since you say that is your forte
http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.com/2007/10/memory-hole-21-october-vioxx-and.html
Example 2:
When you are done with that, please take a look at the Glenmullan report, and let me know whether you regard the a) recoding and miscoding of data in trials, and b) the selective mis-publication of trials (such that prescribers cannot know what they are prescribing) as being part of the legitimate scientific method. It may be a view that such actions are appropriate.
I suppose that will help to understand whether this is a problem of
a) linguistics,
b) a simple difference between the level at which the bar of honesty or transparency is set
c) something else
The first rule of serious intellectual discourse is that you must actually read what you criticise or support.
I am sure that following your responses the discussion will continue with greater insight.
Best wishes
Aubrey
HorusCat
Nathan,
Hey buddy! I’m not getting in the middle of this one. Been there, done that. Can you figure out a way to contact me privately?
HC
HorusCat
Nathan is an example of the kind of people who work in pharma. He is not evil and calculating. He is honest and well-intentioned, and he is doing important work. Pharma has, does and will continue to extend life, save lives and make the quality of life better for millions of people.
Enjoy your meeting, Nathan. I hope it is somewhere warm and that the food is good. Convention food usually bites.
Nathan
Aubry,
I’m not going to argue the minutia of individual cases of scientific fraud and misconduct. The cases you sited may well be perfectly true. Those cases do happen from time to time, and will continue to happen on occasion — no matter what reforms and control measures are implemented. There are dishonest people in every occupation — including science and medicine. However, the process of the science is conducted in the open. The in-vitro studies, in-vivo studies, validation studies, selectivity studies, and clinical trial data are all published in peer-reviewed journals for the vast majority of medications. That is what I mean by “honest and transparent”.
Here’s a few points:
1) Cases of misconduct and fraud are isolated and rare. They gain such publicity due to the fact that they happen so rarely.
2) People make mistakes. Companies make mistakes. Our legal system largely prevents us from admitting those mistakes and offering true apologies. That is true in every industry, not just pharmaceuticals.
3) Some of those mistakes are due to greed. However, from my reading, most of those mistakes are due to simple misjudgment of the facts at hand. Science isn’t static — our opinions and judgments change as the facts change.
4) There is no large scale fraud, cover-up, or conspiracy within the pharmaceutical industry.
Nancy
Yeah right Nathan.
The minutae don’t matter only the broad assertions of “no problem - no large scale fraud”.
How many hundreds of minutae do you need (in the GSK SSRI trials alone)
Have you read the Glenmullen report? That is obvious evidence of large scale fraud, but you don’t classify it as such in your science.
Answer the question!
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…Those cases do happen from time to time, and will continue to happen on occasion — no matter what reforms and control measures are implemented. There are dishonest people in every occupation — including science and medicine. However, the process of the science is conducted in the open…”
I oughtn’t really to butt in on a discussion, but really Nathan, that is arrant nonsense! The cloak of secrecy that has been drawn across the industry is a thing to behold. Try to penetrate that protective covering, and one soon discovers what the industry is about. Good Lord - the MHRA won’t even explain in generic terms how it assesses drugs! How, then, is one supposed to understand how it is that Benbow can make the public statements that he has, given the documentary evidence that exists that indicates that his employer has known for many, many years that what he was saying was not borne out by its own trials results? If you can indicate to me how it is that I may ask these questions of Benbow and his employers, then I will grant you that science is being conducted in the open. Otherwise, please don’t insult my intelligence.
As for this being and isolated example, in common with the ones that Aubrey put forward… Again, I have to contradict you. The Worshipful Company’s very business plan ensures that this is not true: there are too many examples of this sort of thing for it to be anything other than common practice. Vioxx, Avandia, the SSRIs, Risperdal, Seroquel, Zyprexa, and so on, ad nauseum. And as long as regulators rubber stamp manufacturers’ opinions of their own drugs, this sort of thing will continue to happen, because there isn’t enough science happening to ensure that it doesn’t.
Matt
BOB FIDDAMAN
Nathan,
Do yourself a favour and read the two links Aubrey showed you.
“Cases of misconduct and fraud are isolated and rare”
Maybe so but misconduct and fraud for this particular industry (Pharma) comes at a cost of human life. It should not be glossed over.
“People make mistakes. Companies make mistakes. Our legal system largely prevents us from admitting those mistakes and offering true apologies. That is true in every industry, not just pharmaceuticals.”
Mistakes are fine. Lies and cover-up are not.
“Some of those mistakes are due to greed. However, from my reading, most of those mistakes are due to simple misjudgment of the facts at hand. Science isn’t static — our opinions and judgments change as the facts change.”
Misjudgment? I disagree Nathan. This isn’t about misjudgment more about misguidance. Pharma give the peer reviewers the positive results. This is NOT a misjudgment.
“There is no large scale fraud, cover-up, or conspiracy within the pharmaceutical industry.”
Pigs can’t fly but one just flew past my window.
I don’t mean to sound flippant Nathan but can you convince me that Pharma have nothing to hide?
With respect
Bob Fiddaman
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
“Depression is caused by some sort of chemical imbalance”,…Please provide me with the science to back up that claim.
Nathan
Matthew says: “And as long as regulators rubber stamp manufacturers’ opinions of their own drugs, this sort of thing will continue to happen, because there isn’t enough science happening to ensure that it doesn’t”
Rubber stamping? Is that was you call the FDA’s continual rejection and “approvable” letters that delay and deny approval of our drugs??? There is no government agency the rubber stamps our products — we are scrutinized and critisized more than any other industry out there. I find it amazing sometimes that we get any drugs approved at all!!
Nancy
I don’t usually like ad-hominem attacks.
But shame on you Nathan.
A little logic and attention to the actual facts would be a good idea. Answer the actual questions or shut up.
Nathan
Lisa,
What exactly do you think goes on up in that brain of yours? It’s a mass of neurons, neurotransmitters, blood vessels, and CSF fluid. Are you asking for the science to back that up? That’s gradeschool science Lisa. What else do you think is up there? Our bodies are giant chemical factories — we are made of chemicals. When something goes wrong, it IS chemical in nature — no matter what the organ. Problems that are chemical in nature can be solved by chemicals. If you believe depression is spiritual in nature, then chemicals will be of no use of course. Visit a priest or talk to God. But that’s the realm of church — not of medical doctors and scientists.
Nathan
Nancy,
I’m not going to shut up. I’ve worked in this industry for 7 years. I’ve been nothing but honest and filled with good intent for the patients we are looking out for. I’ve worked with countless hard-working and honest individuals. I’m speaking from first-hand experience that what we publish in peer-reviewed journals is, to the best of our abilities, honest and complete. I’m not attacking anyone here. I’m defending the honest and hardworking people that I spend 5 days a week with. Unlike what you folks would like to believe, dishonesty and fraud are not rampant in this industry. The industry employs tens of thousands of scientists. There are bad apples in every lot. We have them here too. But they are few and far between. Your assertions otherwise are despicable and reproachable.
As I’ve said many times on this website, we have no incentive to be dishonest. It would ruin my career. If my project succeeds, I make virtually no money from it. I don’t have an incentive for dishonesty. The same holds true for the vast majority of scientists here.
Nancy
I’m out of here.
Who wants to argue with someone who thinks fraud and lies don’t matter, or who changes the topic when asked about actual events. Nathan is an anonymous industry paid troll.
Bye.
Jane
Again Nathan, answer the questions that have been presented.
You continually try to convience us that everyones problems are because of chemical imbalances but yet you still have not presented any evidence this is in fact the case. You have been asked for your opinion regarding one specific report, not whether or not a chemical imbalance is at play here.
S
“4) No matter how you want to say it, depression IS caused by some sort of chemical imbalance. Your brain is a mass of neurons that are constantly sending chemical messages back and forth with one another. When something goes wrong up there, it is due to some sort of a chemical signaling pathway gone awry.”
Ah, yes. Looks like happiness would then be a chemical imbalance as well, no?
Nancy
I thought I would come in one last time having said goodby - because this is quite amusing.
a) I am told that “Your assertions otherwise are despicable and reproachable.”
Actually I made no assertions at all except that Nathan was avoiding the actual questions. That is according to Nathan despicable and reproachable.
b) Nathan now says “Nancy, I’m not going to shut up”.
Actually I didn’t ask this person to shut up. I suggested that he answer the question or shut up.
If you want to be a really good industry troll Nathan, a lesson in logic and meaningful debate would not go amiss. You were too easily rattled and revealed your true self.
Finally, Bye
Nathan
Jane, why should I answer the question posed? I didn’t get into this arguement to offer an opinion on a specific case. Frankly, I’m probably not even qualified to offer an opinion. I got into this debate by pointing out that we (as an industry) are pursuing drugs that will hopefully be far more effective in treating depression than SSRIs. I never claimed to be an expert in scientific fraud. I never stated that fraud didn’t take place. I’m simply stating that it isn’t rampant and that most of us in the industry are honest and well-intentioned scientists.
As for the chemical imbalance issue, I’ll again point to some grade school science: I’m no expert in this field. However, I am well aware that we ARE made of chemicals. Nothing more. All physical ailments in life are chemical in nature — this includes mental ailments. Problems in life are either spiritual or physical. God treats the former and scientists treat the latter.
Nathan
Absolutely — happiness is a chemical balance. Not necessarily an “imbalance”, but it could be. Caffiene alters my brain chemistry to make me happy — that’s for sure.
Nancy
“Frankly, I’m probably not even qualified to offer an opinion.”
Exactly, you said it yourself
Over and out
Nathan
Nancy, I’m qualified to offer an opinion on the general honesty, integrity, and intentions of the scientists who work in this industry. That’s what I’m defending here. As I keep saying, I really have no interest in a specific case of scientific fraud. Keep coming back though — I enjoyed it.
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“Rubber stamping? Is that was you call the FDA’s continual rejection and “approvable” letters that delay and deny approval of our drugs???..”
I feel terribly for your industry, that you are unable to race your new products into production as quickly as you would like, so that you can factor them in to your cashflows. Sorry, that should read “so that you can assist people in doing more, living longer and feeling better”.
I know nothing of the FDA’s procedures, but I’m pretty clear on the MHRA’s, which I imagine are similar. Regrettably, the MHRA Chairman has already dropped your industry in it, on that score. He told a recent Parliamentary investigation into the influence of the Worshipful Company that “trust” underpinned the relationship. Given what it had discovered elsewhere, the Health Select Committee inferred that this extended to assessment. I cross-questioned the MHRA on this point, and was flannelled, stonewalled, and eventually told that I was vexatious and to piss off, basically.
The whole thing’s a sham, Nathan - a great, big con. That’s my opinion, and there’s nothing that I have to hand that disproves that. More to the point, the MHRA appears unwilling, or, more likely, unable to disprove that.
Matt
Laurie
“What exactly do you think goes on up in that brain of yours? It’s a mass of neurons, neurotransmitters, blood vessels, and CSF fluid. ”
True. It’s a poorly understood collection of functions that make us human. If it was a concrete process, then I wouldn’t have a problem with the assertation that “depression is caused by a chemical imbalance”. But it’s not a concrete process. A highly functioning human being has a homeostasis of these processes. A “depressed” person has not achieved that homeostatic state. The question is ….what is out of whack that is creating the pathology of depression? A big unknown. So randomly altering neurotransmitters is far from concrete treatment of a condition with an unknown cause.
This applies to every function in the body. We used to treat diabetes without knowing what the blood sugar was. Far from a optimal way to treat, as evidenced by the deaths due to hypo and hyper glycemia. The same situation applies to those being “treated” for depression with ssri’s. We are altering neurochemistry without knowing what “normal” is. This is far from a specific treatment with a specific cause. Giving a 13 year old, 80 pound child the same dose of a drug as a 250 pound 50 year old man, highlights the disfunction of the treatment.
So while I agree that we are a organism functioning due to a “bunch of neurons”, altering those neurons functions without a known normal is a crapshoot….which we have found out.
Depression is a real problem, but we are far from determining it’s cause, and the random altering of brain chemistry can have good, and bad results. If someone feels better on a drug, good for them. But denying a bad reaction of that same drug in an individual is dangerous and unethical. That’s the key point…this treatment process is not cut and dried…and neither are the patient responses, but sadly those who’s experience has not been positive are ignored and left on their own to deal with the ramifications of that drug use.
truthman30
happiness is a chemical balance Nathan? …
Man you are so silly..
You should read some of the Dalai Lamas work ..
Nathan
Thanks for your comments Laurie — I agree with the vast majority of what you said.
However, I’ll point out that we treat conditions all the time without a complete understanding of the underlying science. There are blockbuster drugs out there that work well for which we don’t understand the mechanism. We have almost no understanding of why cancer drugs work miracles in some patients and complete fail in others. We (as an industry) should be more vocal about the unknowns and the risks inherent in treatment of diseases — especially CNS diseases. However, we should continue to try, in spite of our poor understanding. No — we don’t know why altering brain chemistry fails to work in many (or most) cases. However, it strongly appears to work in some cases. We shouldn’t just throw our hands into the air and say “we failed!” That seems to be the attitude of pg, truthman, Matthew H., and others. The brain is just too complicated — so lets give up. That’s not my attitude and I hope that isn’t the general public’s attitude.
Bruce
First of all, thanks to Ed for this forum. I think we all appreciate the discussion.
Nathan, I appreciate the fact that you believe you need to stand up for an industry that I have worked in for 20 years, but sometimes you come off as drinking the kool aid. The industry has issues that it needs to honestly address and so far, there has not been any leadership shown in this area.
BTW, you should see the original corporate video. The music is the same, so I wonder how Bob got that?
Laurie
“We (as an industry) should be more vocal about the unknowns and the risks inherent in treatment of diseases — especially CNS diseases. ”
Exactly!! Look, I don’t demonize pharma..far from it. As a nurse I see the amazing things that drugs can do. In this case the blatant simplization of a massively complex process is not good for anyone. Patients should know that the use of this category of drugs is trial and error, AND recognize that error for what it truly is, a drug/withdrawal reaction, not a patient failure.
truthman30
:” seems to be the attitude of pg, truthman, Matthew H., and others. The brain is just too complicated — so lets give up. That’s not my attitude and I hope that isn’t the general public’s attitude” Says Nathan..
Nathan , I don’t know how many times I have explained to you why Drugs will never “cure” or “heal” problems related to the “human condition” ..
The problem with scientists of your ilk , is that while you genuinely believe that you are doing what you do for the benefit of mankind, you are actually completely misguided and really quite deluded…
The CNS (SSRI, Anti-psychotic) drugs are highly lucrative, whether they work or not is not the issue for the pharma companies. If they can be marketed as “effective” and then that’s all that matters.
Psychiatric medications are useless and will always be useless..
Tricking the brain into a false sense of wellbeing while ignoring underlying issues will always fail…
Stop tinkering with peoples brain chemistry .
It is completely arrogant of you to continue to push that agenda..
Particularly since you seem to have no understanding of the “human and condition” ..
But more importantly you seem to have no understanding of the “illnesses” you are trying to treat..
You boil everything down to brain chemistry, with no scientific proof of this and you continue to ignore the socio- economic factors for these illnesses..
Until you realize why these illnesses manifest, you really have no place trying to treat them
Although, the least you could do is the following..
If you insist on pushing your pills , please make sure you do adequate clinical trials and publish the negative studies..
And please try and make drugs which don’t make the patient worse..
The SSRI’s are horrible drugs..
And i wouldn’t even poison a rat with them..
Former pharma Marketing Exec
Nathan,
You have your work cut out for you here, bu I just want to make some clarifications on what you said to me:
Nathan:” 7 years in the pharmaceutical industry. I work for an industry that has saved millions and millions of lives. We have kept babies from getting sick, delayed the onset of dementia in the elderly, and given cancer patients precious extra months with their family. We do this through the use of honest and transparent science.”
Response: I agree, I did not say now, or ever that this doesn’t happen. When I comment on this site, I am commenting on the incidences reported here. Which, to my knowledge, are factual bona fide instances of misrepresentations of data and clinical work.
Nathan: “Not everyone agrees with the science done — even as scientists we disagree with one another. That doesn’t make us unethical. Marketing people (like you supposedly used to be) do occasionally oversell our products. But remember — a pharmaceutical company is unable to prescribe a drug to anyone. Only a treating physician can do that. I hope that the “righteous anger” that you portray also extends to them.
response: As I have said on every occasion I have had, the problem is with marketing! We are the ones driving this insanity. The anti depression pill works well in severe depression. The marketing department came up with all the plots and schemes about how to sell it to a bigger market. We can’t blame the scientist for it. What I can blame them for is not protesting enough and going along with it. Now, this comment applies only to those situations where the science clearly indicates that the drug should not be as broadly marketed as it is. In other words, what is the problem with the system where it overrides the science? That is what has to be fixed.
So, I hope that also answers you final questions. Yes, I do think it is despicable that doctors “cave in” as well. I have said time and time again: if you are bringing a case to trial regarding data that has been misrepresented, then the primary investigators and all members of the study team must also be brought to court. This is the only way this can be stopped.
If I didn’t care about the industry, I wouldn’t waste my time commenting…
Self righteous…No, this comes with over 18 years in the business and seeing many things. The “Former” in my moniker gives me a chance to make the changes. Or as Gandhi said “We must be the change we wish to see in this world”..
BE THE CHANGE!
Nathan
pg says: “Psychiatric medications are useless and will always be useless..”
God must have divinely inspired this belief in you. However, He has not inspired such a belief in me. Your statement is one completely of faith. You cannot predict the future any more than I can. If you want to throw your hands in the air and give up — so be it. But it is nonsensical and frankly, unethical, of you to try and stop the development of important medications that treat debilitating and horrible mental diseases.
truthman30
Nathan
pg says: “Psychiatric medications are useless and will always be useless..”
“God must have divinely inspired this belief in you. However, He has not inspired such a belief in me. Your statement is one completely of faith. You cannot predict the future any more than I can. If you want to throw your hands in the air and give up — so be it. But it is nonsensical and frankly, unethical, of you to try and stop the development of important medications that treat debilitating and horrible mental diseases. Says Nathan.. ”
Actually Nathan, I said that.. Not pg …, you misquoted ..
And No Nathan, god did not inspire any belief in me, I use my own mind and I am not religious ..
While we are on the subject of GOD though, do you think you have a divine right to be PLAYING GOD with peoples minds, brains , lives and personalities?..
It seems that it is ego which is your driving force..
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
“Mental Diseases”,… Im sure you meant to say disorder. Unless of course their has been newly approved medical diagnostic testing to determine that a disease is present,..like syphillis.
Nathan
Lisa — that’s a good point. There are biochemical tests being developed for schizophrenia. If we can come up with a biochemical marker for mental disease then it will make testing drugs and testing various medical hypotheses much easier. In the meantime we’ll have to use a more crude system. A doctor can diagnose a broken leg without an x-ray, you know. We don’t always need a biochemical marker in order to know when something has gone awry.
Truthman (and pg), I apologize for misquoting you. I’m glad you used your own mind to come up with your opinions. I used my own mind for form my opinion. Please do not impose your opinions on myself or on others. You are free to not take any medication you want. There are very few people in society who are forcibly administered psychiatric medication. Most choose to do so freely. I hope that they remain free to do so.
pg
Nathan, you said: “pg says: “Psychiatric medications are useless and will always be useless..”
I didn’t actually say that, someone else did, about 2 or 3 comments above yours.
Did you get to read the Glenmullen Report that Aubrey Blumsohn mentioned? There’s a link about it at:
http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2008/02/gsk-needs-to-respond-re-paxil-suicide.html
“The New Scientist reports (below) that unsealed court documents–including an expert report by Harvard psychiatrist, Joseph Glenmullen, MD–reveal that GlaxoSmithKline knew as early as 1989 that there was an 8-fold increased risk of suicide for patients taking Paxil. Yet, the company did not acknowledge the risk to the public until 2006…”
Matthew Holford
Nathan wrote:
“…We shouldn’t just throw our hands into the air and say “we failed!” That seems to be the attitude of pg, truthman, Matthew H., and others. The brain is just too complicated — so lets give up…”
Au contraire, Nathan. I asked you once before, on a different thread, what depression was, and you made no attempt to answer.
We know that the placebo effect is real, and we know that neuroplasticity is real. Perhaps if we understood these things a little better, then we would understand mental illness better. I doubt that even the most cunningly concocted chemical formula is capable of remedying a lifetime of being told that one is less valuable than others, though.
Do you know, the most intelligent person that I have ever met said to me, a propos nothing “I’ve been to the moon, you know”. That’s where you and I differ, Nathan: when somebody says something that is outside my experience, I’m thrilled by the discovery. What I don’t do is tell them that they are talking crap. Unless they tell me that first, of course.
Matt
truthman30
“In the meantime we’ll have to use a more crude system” Says Nathan
So Nathan, you admit yourself that your drug methods and diagnostic systems are CRUDE? .. Tell that to the hundreds of thousands of people destroyed from these Crude meds..
“Please do not impose your opinions on myself or on others. You are free to not take any medication you want. There are very few people in society who are forcibly administered psychiatric medication. Most choose to do so freely. I hope that they remain free to do so” Says Nathan
I am not imposing my opinions, I am voicing them ..
And anyway ..it is pharma who imposes its devious and deceitful opinions through Key opinion leaders (Pharma whores) and fraudulent marketing and advertising…
And there is a substantial number of people who are forced these meds , coercion is the same as force ..
When people are not given a choice but to take meds then how is that fair?..
When people are not told about the side effects until after the damage is done, is that fair? ..
You are so deluded Nathan, Either that or you are a pharma Troll..
Or both..
pg
Truthman, apologies re repeating what you said, but when I started that (my last) comment, your post before mine wasn’t there and I’d not quite finished posting the extract from the link when a friend called. A bit rude to go straight to the pc and finish it so left it about probably 15 minutes or so, then apologised that I had to just finish it off and posted it.
Just got back here and can see you (plus Lisa and Nathan) had commented in the short time gap I’d left my comment on hold.
truthman30
No worries pg, always good to have you around anyway..
:)
pg
Thanks Truthman, same goes for you. :-)
pg
I’m really tired, but also rather concerned by this attempt to allay the fears of expectant mothers which seems to be an attempt to ‘disprove’ established scientific evidence that the chemicals in antidepressants harm the unborn child and maybe I’m wrong, BUT this is how I see this particular group at the moment:
http://www.cnw.ca/fr/releases/archive/April2008/01/c9372.html
DATED 1st April 2008.
“Use of antidepressant drug paroxetine in early pregnancy does not increase risk of cardiovascular birth defects
TORONTO, April 1 /CNW/ - No association has been found between the use of the antidepressant paroxetine in the first trimester of pregnancy and an increased risk of heart defects in exposed infants according to a study conducted by researchers at The Motherisk Program of The Hospital for Sick Children (SickKids), and the University of Toronto.Their findings are published online today in the American Journal of Psychiatry….”
Looking at the record of ‘MOTHERISK’ this comes up (amongst other things):
http://www.sogc.org/jogc/abstracts/full/200608_DrugsinPregnancy_1.pdf
“MOTHERISK ROUNDS
Ruminative Worrying During Pregnancy:
A Case Series
Adrienne Einarson, RN,1 Vivien K. Burt, MD, PhD,2 Delia Patroi, MD,3 Bev Young, MD4
1The Motherisk Program, The Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto ON
2 The Women’s Life Center of The Semel Institute for Neuroscience and Human Behaviour, Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles CA
3Alexian Brothers Behavioral Health Hospital, Hoffman Estates IL
4Clinical Director, Perinatal Mental Health, Department of Psychiatry, Mount Sinai Hospital, Toronto ON…
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
The women whose stories are told in this case report have provided signed permission for its publication.
Dr Vivien Burt is a consultant to Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline and is on the speakers and advisory boards of Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Forest...”
How, just HOW can so many people, websites, etc, be so CRUEL to INFLICT THIS TRAGEDY ON OTHER HUMAN BEINGS by spreading information from people with conflicts of interest this way? Its just AWFUL.
Apologies to everyone if I’ve got it wrong, but I if I haven’t - just what kind of people will run websites and spread information that will knowingly use misinfo to deny earlier evidence and so kill babies?
pg
Should have put in bold the link from MOTHERUSK to show what I meant?
“MOTHERISK ROUNDS
Ruminative Worrying During Pregnancy:
A Case Series
Adrienne Einarson, RN,1 Vivien K. Burt, MD,…
Dr Vivien Burt is a consultant to Eli Lilly and GlaxoSmithKline and is on the speakers and advisory boards of Eli Lilly, GlaxoSmithKline, Bristol-Myers Squibb, AstraZeneca, Pfizer, and Forest…”
What happened to human society that they can kill the infants of their own species so easily for their own means? I just don’t understand. We are the planets most intelligent? And the planet’s biggest predator? AND we kill our own?
Sounds like the beginning of the end for a species somehow, because we didn’t know when to stop predatory behaviour?
pg
HOW CAN ADULT HUMAN BEINGS DO THAT TO UNBORN HUMAN CHILDREN?
Can anyone explain to me how the intentional destruction of unborn infants of our species for the financial good of a few individuals happens to be due to some scientific concern for the health/survival of our species?
Anyone?
Nathan?
Anyone else?
Nathan
pg,
If you get that upset over pregnant women taking SSRIs, I hope you get even more upset over legalize abortions.
Laurie
“If you get that upset over pregnant women taking SSRIs, I hope you get even more upset over legalize abortions.”
Wow, that’s a HUGE stretch, even for you Nathan. But in case you really believe this I’ll point out the obvious.
Abortion has a known result and is done with fully informed consent.
Ssri use during pregancy(at least using the Toronto study) is safe and will not harm your child..even with FDA warnings that contradict this doctor provided information. Far from informed consent, or even accurate information.
another video commentary on bob fiddaman and GlaxoSmithKline « Missisyphus’s Weblog
[...] An Angry Blogger And Free Speech (Ed Silverman of Pharmalot and the Star-Ledger of New Jersey) [...]
Nathan
Laurie,
That’s not a huge jump. Here are pg’s statements:
“What happened to human society that they can kill the infants of their own species so easily for their own means?”
“We are the planets most intelligent? And the planet’s biggest predator? AND we kill our own?”
It sounds like he’s talking about abortion to me. Oh well. I guess he’s talking about covering up the fact that SSRI’s can damage a fetus? If so, why is so upset at the killing? It seems like he should be more upset about the lying. It’s hard to follow pg’s logic sometimes… Then again, I guess it’s hard for him to follow my logic sometimes.
A. Non Mouse
Hey. This isn’t about Benbow. This is about them watching for any legal infringement so they can shut down any effective voice keeping negative information about GSK and Paxil/Seroxat in the air.
They can’t legally do anything until someone steps over the line. They have pharmaph*cks combing all these blogs and comments, just looking for legal. Benbow probably didn’t even hear about this, maybe hasn’t yet. He’s not the point.
This is not about Benbow. It’s about silencing. Monbiot wrote about this in 2002 in the Guardian, when he outed Monsanto doing this with trolls on all the antiagro boards.
The blogger who started this, who posted the video; this is your time. Roll with it. Feel honoured. You’re taking all those who can’t do what you’ve done along with you.
Stand tall.
Galileo
This comments section made me laugh out loud. Sorry Nathan, looks like you got swarmed by some right wing anti-science trolls!! You’re a good sport for trying to actually explain that yes, brain disorders like depression are due to a chemical imbalance. Next time, though, I wouldn’t bother - these guys don’t want to hear the real truth.
BOB FIDDAMAN
Bruce wrote:
BTW, you should see the original corporate video. The music is the same, so I wonder how Bob got that?
I saw their own corporate video on youtube some time ago. The song is very powerful. My video was basically a rebuttal of what GSK stood/stand for. It was entirely up to the viewer to make his/her own decision.
Same goes for a new video of mine. This time there is no rebuttal - just quotes from GSK personnel.
Watch the video then click on the 4 links below.
http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2008/04/new-fiddaman-video.html
Matthew Holford
Galileo wrote:
“This comments section made me laugh out loud. Sorry Nathan, looks like you got swarmed by some right wing anti-science trolls!!.”
“These guys don’t want to hear the truth”? I’m struck by the irony of that. The Worshipful Company has positioned itself such that it will not listen to anybody who chooses to complain about the way that it conducts its business - what that business is is anybody’s guess, seeing as the veil of secrecy is very nearly complete (right up to the point where it presents its science to patients, that is).
Perhaps you can provide me with a detailed account of the assessment process? If not, then I would be careful about being dismissive of people who know a great deal more about this subject than you do, by the looks of things.
Matt
pg
This might also, though perhaps less ‘directly’, be a useful link alongside the Fiddaman Blogspot video?
A review, dated 1st March 2008, of the book
“A Myth of the Chemical Cure: A Critique of Psychiatric Drug Treatment” by Joanna Moncrieff, BmedSci, MBBS, MSc, MD, MRCPsych
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/news/news-articles/0803/08030301
“…Although psychiatrists commonly talk of psychiatric drugs correcting a ‘chemical imbalance’, there is in fact no proof that such an imbalance exists – hence the notion of a drug ‘correcting’ such an imbalance is meaningless.
In fact, argues Dr Moncrieff, psychiatric drugs ‘work’ by creating abnormal brain states, which are often unpleasant, and which impair normal intellectual and emotional functions, along with other harmful consequences.
This misleading situation, says Dr Moncrieff, has arisen because it serves the interests of the psychiatric profession, the pharmaceutical industry and the modern state. Over time, these interests have led to a distortion of knowledge, deluding society since the 1960s that a ‘chemical cure’ is possible in psychiatry…”
Lisa Van S
Galileo,
Ive asked Nathan,.. now I will ask you. Provide me with the science based information, that, backs up your claim that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance!
Well at least you got that depression is a disorder,.. not a disease
Nathan
Lisa,
Here are some references. I don’t believe that I ever said that depression is always CAUSED by a chemical imbalance. Certainly it can be. My point was that, regardless of the cause, the RESULT is a change in brain biochemistry or signaling. If we treat the brain biochemistry issue, then we’ll hopefully have something modestly effective.
I found these by a quick pubmed search. They simply show that the level of various chemicals in the brain, CSF, and blood are different in depressed vs. non-depressed people. Whether they are causative isn’t known of course. The only way to find out if they are causative is to try to modulate them as see if it has an effect. That’s the way we test a hypothesis in drug discovery. There are a huge number of biological targets that we are pursuing with small molecules including the seratonin receptors, glucocorticoid receptors, corticotropin releasing factor receptors, etc.
Here’s the refs:
Neurotransmitter, peptide and cytokine processes in relation to depressive disorder: Comorbidity between depression and neurodegenerative disorders.
Prog Neurobiol. 2008 Feb 13; [Epub ahead of print]
In patients with heart failure elevated soluble TNF-receptor 1 is associated with higher risk of depression.
J Card Fail. 2007 Nov;13(9):738-43.
The relationship between cerebrospinal fluid biomarkers and depression in elderly women.
Am J Geriatr Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;15(10):832-8.
Evidence of an association between the vasopressin V1b receptor gene (AVPR1B) and childhood-onset mood disorders.
Arch Gen Psychiatry. 2007 Oct;64(10):1189-95.
Serum brain-derived neurotrophic factor levels in conversion disorder: Comparative study with depression.
Psychiatry Clin Neurosci. 2007 Oct;61(5):571-3.
Serum levels of folate and cobalamin are lower in depressed than in nondepressed hemodialysis subjects.
J Ren Nutr. 2007 Sep;17(5):343-9.
HorusCat
Nathan!!
I’m sorry bud, I was out of pocket yesterday, driving to bama to see my Mom and Dad with the jabbering masses in tow. Actually, I gave them some Zyrim and it shut them up for hours. (I know YOU will get the joke.)
I would have been here to chime in with you, even though I have decided that this is like arguing with my dog. Nothing you say will penetrate because they are like that guy who got caught in a lie and said, “That’s my story and I’m stickin’ to it.” They have no perception of you as a human being, only as fraudulent monster out to kill hundreds of unsuspecting sheeple.
Hey, if you are comfortable, email Ed and ask him if he will hook us up with each other’s emails.
Hang in there, buddy!!! You are a good man!!
HorusCat
Nathan,
There is a researcher at our VA who is doing incredible work on the genomics of the mood, thought and addiction disorders. He is finding areas of overlap between the disorders and unique genes where no overlap occurs.
It’s funny–on the Turner blog piece, I responded to truthman with a whole essay on how I think brain chemistry, environment and experience interact to produce mood disorders in some people. (I think schizophrenia is a somewhat different animal.) I acknowledged that drugs are, in a sense, a band-aid. They are the bandage that we put on the brain while we do the hard work of healing our pain–with whatever methods fit in with our faith and worldview. I say whatever methods because for some, that may mean prayer and meditation, for others, CBT and group therapy, 12 step programs, counseling, psychoanalysis…But I think that medication and emotional work go hand-in-hand.
What was interesting, Nathan, is that he then never responded to me. I notice that when someone like you or me posts with a reasoned assessment of the industry and the work being done, especially in the CNS area, it is like a bleeding tuna thrown into a swarm of sharks. My first reaction is always to get agitated about it, then I decided I just have to sit back and laugh, because SSRIs and other neuroleptics are here to stay. I have to remember that this is a VERY vocal minority that haunt these websites…so while attempting to converse with them is an interesting exercise, that is all it is, an exercise. (In futility, I might add.)
I’m with you, bud, anyone who can fret over the small risk to an unborn baby posed by an SSRI while ignoring the thousands aborted every day has a need to re-examine her priorities…
Jane
“This comments section made me laugh out loud. Sorry Nathan, looks like you got swarmed by some right wing anti-science trolls!! You’re a good sport for trying to actually explain that yes, brain disorders like depression are due to a chemical imbalance. Next time, though, I wouldn’t bother - these guys don’t want to hear the real truth.”
Galileo, This is a very funny comment in and of itself. It use to be in the 60’s and 70’s pharma could pass everything off on the “right wing anti-science (trolls)” because when people were injured as a direct result of medications they had no effective means to pass this information on.Today however is a different story. See, today there is the internet and there are many many people who are pissed off because they or their loved ones where hurt badly because of psychotropic medications. You use to be able to get away with calling everyone Scientologist, anti-psychiatrist, and now “anti-science”, this is no longer effective and reveals your desperation. Call these people anything you want, as more and more people come off these medications or attempt to come off these medications and find they can’t, this small but vocal crowd is going to grow.
Jane
“They are the bandage that we put on the brain while we do the hard work of healing our pain–with whatever methods fit in with our faith and worldview.” Horuscat
This is where science has fucked up big time. Once you have messed up the chemical in the brain with these medications you have made it impossible to heal.
Nathan
Jane says:
“Call these people anything you want, as more and more people come off these medications or attempt to come off these medications and find they can’t, this small but vocal crowd is going to grow.”
I agree — that is a great asset of the internet today. If you’ll look back though my posts, you’ll find that I never claimed that these drugs were without serious side effects. I never claimed that companies are faultless. My primary argument is against Truthman, pg, and Matthew who claim that the drugs are completely ineffective, should be withdrawn from the market, and are part of a massive conspiracy between the drug companies and regulatory agencies.
Drug companies should be completely honest in their advertising and marketing about the science. As I hear over and over again on this website, we as an industry often aren’t honest and transparent. That is just as despicable as some of the crazy claims of conspiracy that Matthew, pg, and Truthman make.
pg
This study (one of the ones posted by Nathan):
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17720104
“J Ren Nutr. [Journal of Renal Nutrition] 2007 Sep;17(5):343-9
“Serum levels of folate and cobalamin are lower in depressed than in nondepressed hemodialysis subjects.
“…CONCLUSION: As with the general population, lower serum folate, RBC folate, and serum cobalamin levels were found in depressed as compared to nondepressed subjects on HD. Plasma levels of these VITAMINS may be one of many factors related to depression, but larger studies with stronger designs are needed to confirm the results of this study…”
Isn’t this study pointing more towards the idea that treating depression with psychoactive drugs is not actually addressing the issue - a lack of VITAMINS looks very much like nutritional problems, not a ‘chemical imbalance of serotonin theory that atypical antidepressants can ‘correct’?
A shortage of vitamins is not a shortage of fluoxetine, paroxetine and the rest.
Nutrition and its importance to our health is not what the theory of ‘a chemical imbalance’ is about. The chemical imbalance theory in depression is one promoted to sell psychoactive drugs, not healthy living, and it is that theory I believe Lisa is referring to.
HorusCat
Jane,
You are wrong about the permanent effects of the meds. The proof is in the millions of people out there who have used them and no longer do. You concentrate on a small, vocal minority. The untold millions, literally millions, that have no adverse sequelae never get on a site on the internet and post. They just go about their lives and never think another thing of it. That is my point, which I will make over and over: you have no perspective. You think that because you are in contact with some people on the internet who make their opinions loud and clear, there must be an army of people out there who feel as you do. The exact opposite is true. There are millions of people out there who would look at you like you have your head screwed on backward.
The same situation occurs with very politically active people on whatever side of the equation. They belong to moveon.org or a similar right-side organization. They lobby their congresspeople, they blog, they tune in to Hannity & Colmes and the Sunday talk shows…they think that everyone is up on the political scene. Then you find out that 90% of Americans don’t even know who the secretary of state is, and they’re not even sure who the vice president is.
I get on this site and I think that everyone knows everything about the pharmaceutical industry…then I hire a personal trainer at the gym, and when he finds out what I do, he says, “So, you, like, do what all day?”
I see the same self-selection with physicians who use the internet. They believe that every doc out there is busy using the internet to keep up on medical advances….little do they know that many of their peers barely know how to turn a computer on…
HorusCat
If depression were due to malnutrition, you would see rampant depression in third world countries, where malnutrition is the norm. This does not occur. To note that depressed persons have a vitamin deficiency does not prove causality. Find a placebo-controlled, double-blind, randomized clinical trial of thousands of people where vitamin supplementation showed a significant improvement in depressive symptoms, and I’ll listen.
HorusCat
Jane says:
“Call these people anything you want, as more and more people come off these medications or attempt to come off these medications and find they can’t, this small but vocal crowd is going to grow.”
The SSRIs have been on the market for 20 years. The average person fills a Zoloft scrip 3 times. That’s a lot of people who have stopped these drugs successfully. I tried to google exactly how many prescriptions for SSRIs have been written, but couldn’t find it. Two decades is long enough that I think this small but vocal crowd has grown about as much as it is going to….
And let’s think about the number of those people who have some sort of personality disorder (borderline, anyone?) that makes them more likely to have this sort of experience…(that ought to wind you up).
pg
HC: I merely commented on the content of a study Nathan posted. It does say that further studies are needed re vitamins.
What it does NOT say is that the ‘depression is caused by a chemical imbalance’ of a particular neurotransmitter/s that needs treating by a particular type of drug is in any way proven.
The study says nothing about a chemical imbalance in serotonin, dopamine, etc, as used to ensure the wide-spread use of psychoactive drugs.
As far as I can see NONE of those studies prove that the “Depression is Caused by a Chemical Imbalance that an SSRI, or SNRI can Correct” is proven.
As far as I can see, Lisa was referring to the ‘drug industry’s’ Chemical Imbalance Theory. Not theories regarding proteins, or vitamins, or cholesterol levels, etc.
Nathan
pg says:
“What it does NOT say is that the ‘depression is caused by a chemical imbalance’ of a particular neurotransmitter/s that needs treating by a particular type of drug is in any way proven.”
pg, I hate to inform you of this, but vitamins ARE chemicals. My point was levels of particular chemicals in your bloodstream and in your CNS fluid are related to depression. Modulating the levels of those chemicals (whether through drugs or nutrition) can have an effect on the symptoms.
Nathan
pg, you are implying that the drug industry definatively believes that depression is caused by a chemical imbalance alone. That just isn’t true. Here’s some quotes from GSK’s Paxil website. Do you disagree with any of these statements?
———————
“Depression may be related to a chemical imbalance in the brain. Serotonin is one of these chemicals. One way to treat it is to adjust the levels of serotonin.”
“One of the most frustrating things about depression is that many times there is not just one cause. As with physical illness, many factors may contribute to the development of depression.
“Genetics….Hormones and biochemicals… Anxiety… Stress… Self-esteem.” (each are described in detail)…
For many people with depression, a combination of factors is responsible.”
“When you are treated for depression, you may see both a medical doctor and a therapist, depending on the course of treatment your doctor decides is right for you.”
“It is likely to take several weeks of treatment before you notice a change in how you feel. You might need to continue some kind of treatment — medication or psychotherapy — even after you feel better to help keep you from having recurring episodes of depression. Ask your doctor how long you need to stick with your depression treatment — and follow the advice you are given.”
Nathan
In regards to the risk, again they seem quite open on honest to me. These support exactly the claims you guys have been making. If the manufacturer is honest about the side effects, then what is the problem? Here’s what they say about withdrawal and about potential damage to unborn babies:
“Don’t stop taking Paxil CR before talking to your doctor since side effects may result from stopping the medicine, particularly when abrupt. Symptoms some patients have reported on stopping
Paxil CR include: dizziness, sensory disturbances (including electric shock sensations and tinnitus), abnormal dreams, agitation, anxiety, nausea, sweating, mood fluctuations, headache, fatigue, nervousness and sleep disturbances.”
Tell your doctor if you are pregnant or plan to become pregnant, as there is a potential risk to the fetus with paroxetine. Some studies of paroxetine in pregnant women have suggested an increased risk of heart malformations. In addition, babies born to mothers who have taken antidepressants, including SSRIs such as Paxil CR, in the latter half of pregnancy have reported complications, including difficulties with breathing, turning blue, seizures, changing body temperature, feeding problems, vomiting, low blood sugar, floppiness, stiffness, tremor, shakiness, irritability or constant crying. Tube feeding, help with breathing, and longer hospitalization may be needed. There have also been reports of premature births in pregnant women exposed to SSRIs, including Paxil CR.
Like many antidepressants, Paxil CR can be present in breast milk so tell your doctor if you are nursing.
pg
I agree with you Jane. Psych drug petitions (re damage on them and/or difficulty coming off them) are a bit of an example, they’re growing longer daily and between the few I’m aware of they contain tens of thousands of signatures. Awareness is growing and is still in its early days yet.
Re permanent side effects of psychiatric drugs: they certainly don’t appear to have developed a cure for the permanent side effects they can visibly see (now appearing from the use of antidepressants as well as antipsychotics) such as Dyskinesias,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5-zwe_hgOyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R0EbgpyztCA
or Dystonias.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sCo82bv5lRM
(Jane said:
“Call these people anything you want, as more and more people come off these medications or attempt to come off these medications and find they can’t, this small but vocal crowd is going to grow.”
and
“This is where science has fucked up big time. Once you have messed up the chemical in the brain with these medications you have made it impossible to heal.”)
truthman30
Nathan
In regards to the risk, again they seem quite open on honest to me. These support exactly the claims you guys have been making. If the manufacturer is honest about the side effects, then what is the problem? Here’s what they say about withdrawal and about potential damage to unborn babies:
Nathan…
You are one Grade A Dickhead !!!
Yes Glaxo warn NOW about these side effects, but FOR MANY YEARS THEY DID NOT ..
THE PUBLIC HAS BECOME THE CLINICAL TRIAL
this kind of practice where drugs are passed quickly without adequate trials , and side effects are added later as the years go by is absolutely scandalous…
If you agree and support this kind of practice by your beloved industry then you are just as guilty as the pharma execs who make decisions based on PROFIT BEFORE PEOPLE.
I kinda feel sorry for you Nathan, you have no concept of what it really means to be human, what it really means to suffer…
Nathan
“Yes Glaxo warn NOW about these side effects, but FOR MANY YEARS THEY DID NOT ..THE PUBLIC HAS BECOME THE CLINICAL TRIAL”
Were they aware about the side effects and covered them up? Then I agree - that’s is unacceptable and dispicable. If not, then that is just tough luck. We can’t find out about every side effect durring clinical trials. Many new ones come up only after they have been administered to the general population.
pg
Nathan, if they seem open and honest to you then it might be that you haven’t seen the information.
Some of the things drug makers do and say are more to do with the where they are and what restrictions they are under at any given time, rather than scientific accuracy:
For instance - article date 2005:
http://medicine.plosjournals.org/perlserv?request=get-document&doi=10.1371/journal.pmed.0020392
“…The Irish equivalent of the FDA, the Irish Medical Board, recently banned GlaxoSmithKline from claiming that paroxetine corrects a chemical imbalance even in their patient information leaflets [29]…”
The same applies to industry changes of tactic on the existence of ‘discontinuation’ problems.
By the time drug makers have little choice than to stop denying withdrawal because the evidence presented for years by academics who speak up has become impossible to hide, they have made a fortune from that denial because millions of people are given the drugs.
And to ‘eventual’ reversals of claims of a drug curing a chemical imbalance. By the time they’re forced to word things differently, its too late for many.
pg
They DID know Nathan. Perhaps taking a look at the evidence would help - there’s plenty around. The comment by Aubrey Blumohn somewhere above suggested the Glenmullen report. That might be an excellent place to start.
Have a good weekend all.
Nathan
If they covered it up — again that is horrible. But you guys are berading the drug’s CURRENT status. The company should be held criminally responsible for its past actions. But that doesn’t change what is out there currently. As far as I can tell based on your guy’s comments, they are CURRENTLY being relatively honest about the drugs.
pg
“Relatively honest”? They’re STILL promoting the serotonin imbalance theory but keeping JUST within the bounds of not being accused of outright dishonesty. We clearly have a very different idea of what constitutes honesty (and thus honesty in science and medicine).
http://www.paxilcr.com/how_paxilcr_works/how_paxilcr_works.html
“…Scientific evidence suggests that depression and certain anxiety disorders may be caused by a chemical imbalance in the brain.
Paxil CR helps balance your brain’s chemistry…
…Paxil CR helps maintain a balance of serotonin levels, which may help cell-to-cell communication return to normal. Paxil CR is with you throughout the day to help you manage and treat your condition…”
Nathan
“They’re STILL promoting the serotonin imbalance theory but keeping JUST within the bounds of not being accused of outright dishonesty.”
Of course they are — it’s a theory. They state it’s a theory. Elsewhere on the website they state that depression may have many causes, only ONE of which may be serotonin imabance. The fact that SSRI’s work in some patients strongly suggest that SSRI imbalance IS at least one cause of depression.
pg
One last comment, I’m about to go out
They have promoted theories as scientific facts for years, they’ve hidden data for years, they’ve miscoded trial data for years, then when genuinely honest academics have spoken up for years about that lack of honesty, and it becomes impossible for the drug makers to continue to lie, they then choose to do as little as possible to correct what they previously and knowingly knowingly misled millions of people about by calling their theory a fact.
A lot of people were and still are being harmed, and some of those have died. A small percentage of millions of people across the world is a great number of people.
The fact that SSRIs don’t work in others and have caused brain damage such as movement disorders, seizures, strokes, damage such as cardiac problems,hemorhages, damage to unborn and newborns, etc in some patients strongly suggests that SSRIs can do a great deal of damage throughout the body.
Enjoy your day.
truthman
Were they aware about the side effects and covered them up? Then I agree - that’s is unacceptable and dispicable. If not, then that is just tough luck. We can’t find out about every side effect durring clinical trials. Many new ones come up only after they have been administered to the general population. Says Nathan
Explain this then Nathan..
Paxil(Serxoats) withdrawal syndrome was changed by GSK over the course of a few years ..
From 1 in 1000 to 1 in 3 (30%)
Is that good enough? ..
It was in Glaxos interest to deny “withdrawal” syndrome and to suppress side effects , of course it was..
If people had have realized the true side effects profile of the drug, many would never have agreed to take it…
The SSRI industry is supported by psychiatry because both need each other to sell the drugs..
You say thet the chemical imbalance theory is only a theory and that GSK have a right to base prescriptions and sell drugs based on a theory..
Well how about i make up a theory about rat poison and promote it as a diet supplement..
How about “Rat poison might help you lose weight by making you throw up”
Does that make it ok ?…
The chemical imbalance theory is a fraud which laid the foundation for the SSRI drugs..
You claim to be a reputable and ethical scientist Nathan, well why dont you grow some balls and speak the truth about whats going on, instead of defending pharma as if it’s your mothers milk…
Nathan
“Paxil(Serxoats) withdrawal syndrome was changed by GSK over the course of a few years ..