A Paxil Study, A Politician & A Newspaper Retraction
46 CommentsBy Ed Silverman // May 2nd, 2011 // 9:49 am
Back in 2001, the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry published a paper concluding the Paxil antidepressant was “generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.” But the study, known as 329, was later discredited amid charges that outcomes were conflated, unflattering results were omitted and ghostwriting was involved.
The details became known more than two years ago as documents emerged from investigations by UK regulators (look here) and the former New York Attorney General (read this), as well as lawsuits charging GlaxoSmithKline hid the risks of its Paxil pill. More recently, there was a call for the paper to be retracted (read here).
One of the 22 co-authors was Stan Kutcher, a physician who is running for the Canadian parliament (the election is being held today), and The Coast newspaper, which covers Nova Scotia and Halixfax, ran an article last week noting his involvement. And the article quoted Alison Bass, a former writer at The Boston Globe who wrote a book called ‘Side Effects’ about the episode, which appears to have upset Kutcher to the point where the paper ran an unusual apology.
Here is what Bass said: “They essentially distorted the outcome measures, and essentially lied,” she told The Coast. “They also omitted information about adolescents who became suicidal on Paxil and withdrew from the study. And they miscoded those teenagers - they said they were non-compliant, when in fact they had been withdrawn from the study because they became suicidal” (you can read the full story here, which has since been pulled down from The Coast web site).
Here is the apology: “In that article, The Coast referenced, without limitation or criticism, statements to the effect that, Dr. Kutcher, being one of the authors of a research paper, distorted the outcome measures and essentially lied. The Coast retracts those statements and without reservation, apologizes to Dr. Kutcher for having published them. We recognize that Stan Kutcher is the federal Liberal candidate in Halifax and we sincerely regret having published those statements during the campaign” (read the entire apology here).
It would appear the Bass quote set this in motion, although no one from Kutcher’s campaign would comment yesterday or respond to a request for a follow-up call that we left with a campaign worker. And the editor at The Coast likewise declined to respond to an email sent this weekend. Nonetheless, the unusual apology suggests the events surrounding study 329 may, once again, be up for debate when numerous investigations have shown the results were not what they seemed.
UPDATE: We heard from the editor at The Coast, Kyle Shaw, who wrote us this: “There are indeed differences in the Canadian and American libel laws, and while I’m not qualified to explain what those differences are, I can tell that under our laws there are specific provisions to protect political candidates within a few days of an election. Given the timing of our publishing in this case, the story clearly ran afoul of the law.”
Meanwhile, Bass writes on her own blog that she is being attacked as a Scientologist for her work questioning the veracity of the study 329 (read here). One of Kutcher’s higher profile co-authors, by the way, was Brown University psychiatry professor Martin Keller, who was a target of a US Senate Finance Committee probe concerning disclosure of grants from drugmakers. You can read (this) for his take on how study 329 was drafted.
Hat tip to Soulful Sepulcher and Fiddaman
Stephany
What’s next, Nemeroff for President? Kutcher’s forcing the paper to retract and in essence bury the story connecting him to the Paxil 329 study speaks louder than words in any campaign rally speech.
A politician attempting to bury a story about his past is questionable, and a psychiatrist embedded in the mental health system such as Kutcher is, should be held even more accountable.
He works with teens currently in the Canadian mental health system. It appears that he must not have wanted the Paxil 329 study to be brought up, possibly then causing people to question his integrity as a self-appointed KOL.
industry insider
Accusations notwithstanding, I would like to comment on the scientific merit of Study 329 based on the data as reported in the journal. The results of this study should never have been allowed either for registration or marketing purposes in the first place because it is scientifically invalid. The result is clear to anyone who understands clinical trial design. Imipramine was used not only as a comparator, but its inclusion served as an internal control against placebo. In plain English, an previously FDA-approved drug, such as imipramine, when subsequently used as an internal control, such as in Study 329, should prove to be statistically significantly better than placebo irrespective of how it fares against Paxil. The fact that imipramine, a drug previously used for Major Depression failed to separate from placebo signifies that this trial was invalid, distortions and embellishments notwithstanding.
http://www.jaacap.com/article/S0890-8567(09)60309-9/abstract
Stephany
1999 Paxil Approved In Canada For Social Anxiety Disorder
http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/fc122.htm
“”Social anxiety disorder is the third most common psychiatric disorder after depression and alcohol dependence and is also the most common of the anxiety disorders,” said Dr. Stanley Kutcher, professor and head, department of psychiatry, Dalhousie University and trial investigator. “News of an effective, safe and well-tolerated treatment for this disabling condition is very welcome indeed.”
Wonder why he wants the story buried now? hmmm?
Michael
If Canada elects this pharma shill, the the citizens get what they deserve.
Insider
It seems like a lot of studies have been misreperesented like this on many drugs. HOw is a busy physician suppse to believe anything?
riv
It doesn’t matter whether he wants it buried NOW or not, it’s not legal that it was published NOW.
Canadians want the Conservative party out. I don’t know if this riding was going Liberal or not, but what he did, with that study was nothing compared to what Harper’s ex-cons (as in convicted criminals) have done.
Sorry Ed, to drop you into politics the way the Christian Right plays it in Canada. I think you know the turf?
MsPiggy
This article was a factual report/account in the “Coast” about Kutchers professional history…not a political statement…thus the courts in Canada would have to decide whether or not it was legal under law…
After all, even in Canada voters should have a right to know who they are voting for…
There is little doubt this is a stellar case of political intimidation of the “Coast” by Kutcher & his cronies…
The blatant character assassination of Alison Bass & others after the article retraction by a political candidate & his campaign HQ staff might also fall under some legal scrutiny soon: as in a “defamation of character” suit.
I’m sure we’ll be hearing a lot more about this topic after the election..
Stephany
Here’s the forum
http://j.mp/j80Y79
called for Alison Bass scientology accusations
“Let’s see if we can dig up any information specifically linking Alison Bass to the Co$ in a concrete way. We’re talking things like completion records, mentions on Org websites, etc.”
MsPiggy
An example of the organized character assassination call to arms by Kutcher followers after “Coast” article.
http://forums.whyweprotest.net/threads/request-canadian-liberal-party-candidate-and-psychiatrist-under-attack-by-scilons.79758/
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
It is illegal for foriegn nationals to intervene in an election @ that time. The Coast had no choice but to remove offending article.
see
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SSRI-Crusaders/message/36861
riv
MsPiggy, this is not coming from the Liberal Party.
Don’t you know who “anon” are?
I sure do hope we hear more about this from someone, beginning with Ed, who used to run a respectable site.
There isn’t a word in your post that approaches sanity or truth.
MsPiggy
List Owner SSRIcrusaders is no other than well established & evidenced Fiddaman stalker jeremy bryce.
This is one very twisted individual who’s opinions and posting have absolutely no validity.
Riv: You don’t know of which you speak; if or when this situation is ever investigated we’ll know exactly who was involved…
What I have been witness too & can speculate upon; is that a person from/representing Kutcher campaign HQ was using the same obscure icon moniker in multiple forums & twitter while making the same accusations in each. Could be a mere coincidence, but it would have to beat some very long odds…
By the way: Kutcher lost the election by a huge margin, & I seriously doubt he’ll be throwing his hat into the political arena anytime soon.
riv
The riding was NDP. The incumbent took it again.
Did you vote?
Dick
Ed - Thank You for covering this. The thing that is extremely important for people to understand about this story, is that the Keller et al 2001 paper is incredibly still being cited in peer reviewed scientific literature as evidence that Paxil is safe & effective in the treatment of adolescent depression, despite all that has been uncovered about its fraudulent contents.
Alison Bass’s excellent book Side Effects… is the most definitive work on the Paxil debacle and is a must read for anyone truly interested in understanding the story.
For his part, Dr. Kutcher can an at anytime publicly distance himself from the 329 study - but from what he has recently stated it seems unlikely that his arrogance will permit that to happen.
The truly sad thing is that he is considered a leading Canadian child & adolescent psychiatrist.
Dick
To Riv:
Your comment “Canadians want the Conservative party out” is out to lunch. Canadians have just given the Conservative party a majority government and handed the Lberal party a humiliating defeat. The Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff could not even get re-elected in his own riding.
Nice try.
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
The Evidence is Clear -
http://f.cl.ly/items/1O0G2Q2r0F3Q3M1r0b3T/Screen%20shot%202011-04-30%20at%208.21.13%20PM.png
Non Interference by Foreigners.
Kutcher was set up, quite whether it was done by CoS or by his political opponents remains to be seen.
The timing was opportunistic, however it seems to have backfired over a wide range of vested interests.
Such interference a few days before an election is clearly illegal & therefore The Coast had no choice but to remove the article.
JBeaver
To - List Owner SSRI Crusaders & web stalkers Jeremy Bryce and girfriend Mardi(Tuesday1st or whatever):
Kutcher lost the election by a margin of more than 2 to 1 - he never had a chance to win - The Coast story or not.
Anyway the election is over so you should get over your fascination with Canadian election law.The story is now about Kutcher and Paxil study 329 and freedom of the press.
Paddy
Mr Bryce [List owner of SSRi Crusaders]
If it is illegal, as you claim, then why hasn’t Kutcher issued lawsuits against Bob Fiddaman who broke the story on his blog [http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2011/04/stan-kutcher-vote-paxil.html]
Furthermore, why hasn’t Kutcher issued the same against Alison Bass and others that have highlighted his connections with the infamous Paxil 329 study…including Ed Silverman?
Your rantings against everyone and anyone that speaks out against GSK and Paxil have been noted.
For someone who runs a group called SSRI Crusaders, you seem to be obsessed with Paxil campaigners.
For the record, did you ever take Paxil?
riv
Paddy: It is Elections Canada which has to act here. That’s the way it’s done in a democracy.
Dear Dick: look up the word “majority”. He does not have a majority of the votes. He does not have the backing of a majority of the Canadian eligible voting populace.
Harper has sh** all over democracy, not the least in this last week, and this attempt to use an old story on a known killer drug is just his latest attempt. It will be the topic in the news for the next month. And there WILL be another election. Congratulate yourself Dick, you may have cost the NDP incumbent in that riding a few votes, but you did not run the vote up the middle and cause a loss for us. That’s what would have happened, in our system.
We will be in another election soon.
Shame on you Evelyn Pringle, and Alison Bass, allowing yourselves to be used this way. You’re never going to recoup your reputations.
Evelyn Pringle
Let me just say that I don’t know how my name came up on this blog as I had not even weighed in yet, but having people like riv (as usual - no real name attached), or the no-name blogger identified as Jeremy Bryce, claim that my reputation will be damaged by discussing Paxil Study 329 study, the most infamously fraudulent pediatric drug trial on the planet, is downright amusing.
For the record, there has never been, and there will never be, a successful attempt to intimidate me into not writing about truthful matters related to Big Pharma and its band of bought and paid for quacks in the field of psychiatry.
And that includes Kutcher and every other quack who was paid to sign off on the paper Sally Laden wrote on the Paxil 329 study.
Evelyn Pringle
The part of this whole sordid deal that has me the most ticked off is the fact that these “anonymous” people on the internet were plotting out a strategy to destroy the reputation of an honest and truthful author and journalist like Alison Bass by concocting a totally phony story about CCHR, co-founded by Scientologists, was behind the Coast article.
I don’t know what her religion is, nor could I care. But these people should by now realize that the tactic of bringing up this one specific religion every time there is a story or discussion about the corruption in the psychopharmaceutical industry is not going to work anymore.
CCHR is but one of MANY groups involved in the underlying cause of stopping child drugging in the US. But CCHR has done wonders and I’d be happy to work with that group even if it was run by devil worshipers. The point being - religion has nothing to do with this.
I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, I think that anybody who brings up Scientology as a defense in a debate ought to be required to specify their own religion before they utter the first word. If they don’t their blog should be deleted.
They should also be required to identify themselves by their real names.
Fid
Ms Pringle, I hereby accuse you of being an Evangelical Priestess for no other reason than you share the same initials.
Yours
Anon
Cindy
Evenlyn hit the nail on the head. Why is it that every time someone exposes the raw truth about a farce of a psychiatric “study” the word Scientologist has to be brought up as a reason why the criticism of the so-called science should be considered non-credible? This happened to me, too, a few years ago when I was writing about Indiana’s 2005 law, SEA 529, which mandates mental health testing for all Indiana children ages birth to 22.
Is there some unwritten rule somewhere that Scientology can’t ever be right? I’m not a scientologist, but I interviewed one — and he was very knowledgeable about the topic. And, he had access to some extremely concise, damning material that I, of course, was intensely interested in printing once I’d double-checked and triple-checked his claims, and learned that he was right.
I consider this source a friend now, and we still communicate from time to time, and share information. You, go, Evelyn! Don’t let ‘em wear you down.
riv
What the Conservatives will continue to do on the backs of women, the disabled, the racially marginalized and the elderly. (Most of the latter being women).
http://uddari.wordpress.com/2011/04/22/funding-cuts-by-harper-government-election-update/
The Coast pays its bills with a slew of ads pimping out trafficked and compromised women for sexual services.
Of course, this won’t bother those who do the same on their blogs.
Insider
One of the authors above is correct. THe real problem the article is still be sited as truth, when nothing could be farther from the truth. THey try to make it more beleiveable by the number of times it is sited. It should be pulled and it never should have been published to begin with.
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
Please don’t take my word for it, here is the evidence, which for once is abundantly clear.
People who seek to interfer with the electoral process,for whatever nefarious reason, have broken Canadian law. Ipso Facto
source
http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-124.html#h-106
Non-interference by Foreigners
Prohibition — inducements by non-residents
331. No person who does not reside in Canada shall, during an election period, in any way induce electors to vote or refrain from voting or vote or refrain from voting for a particular candidate unless the person is
(a) a Canadian citizen; or
(b) a permanent resident within the meaning of subsection 2(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act.
2000, c. 9, s. 331; 2001, c. 27, s. 211
Evelyn Pringle
Fiddy - I will accept that title. LOL.
MsPiggy
Insider: Please show everyone reading what is not true in the article!
Are you saying Kutcher was not co-author of GSK Paxil study 329?
Are you saying Paxil 329 is not a controversial study with much debate regarding outcome, manipulation of data, ghost writing, with many reputable calls for a complete retraction from journals?
Please site everything in this article you have proclaimed as being untruth here….
Being pro-pharma is one thing, but you’ve gone way over the top this time…
Stephany
Evelyn Pringle said:
“For the record, there has never been, and there will never be, a successful attempt to intimidate me into not writing about truthful matters related to Big Pharma and its band of bought and paid for quacks in the field of psychiatry.
And that includes Kutcher and every other quack who was paid to sign off on the paper Sally Laden wrote on the Paxil 329 study.”
I second that and agree!!
riv
And second male bloggers who pimp out women to gain hits to their websites, wile you’re at it.
Oh such high and mighty ethics.
Evelyn Pringle
I’m going to try harder to stick to my rule of not responding to ride-by anonymous bloggers like riv above. It is definitely a waste of my valuable time to respond to nonsense from people who don’t even have the guts to identify themselves.
Evelyn Pringle
If you read the 2007 deposition of Sally Laden, she says Kutcher was very involved in the final paper that was published on the Paxil 329 Study.
And she admits that nobody told her that over 5% of the kids in that trial, who were given Paxil, tried to kill themselves or that over 6% had suicidal ideation.
Kutcher, being an investigator, would have known this so the question remains why was this very serious adverse event not reported in the paper?
Why did it take a state attorney general’s investigation to expose these results 3 years after the paper was published? On top of the drug not working to begin with.
Stephany
Project on Government Oversight (POGO)archives:
Paxil 329
Sally Laden Deposition (pdf)scroll to page 359/360 Kutcher very involved
http://pogoarchives.org/m/ph/sally-laden-sti-deposition-20070315.pdf
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
Quote - ” And she admits that nobody told her that over 5% of the kids in that trial, who were given Paxil, tried to kill themselves or that over 6% had suicidal ideation. ….”
Since one of the TWO comparators in the Paxil 329 trial was an active placebo imipramine, i.e. a tricyclic, what was the comparison of % suicide / suicidal ideation on the Paxil arm compared to the imipramine arm?
Evelyn Pringle
Read the deposition yourself List Owner or Bryce or whoever the hell you are. Stephany posted a link for it.
If you don’t even know the basics of the study, Laden’s depo or the arguments, why are you even out here in this debate to begin with? What’s your purpose?
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
This was a serious question ~
“Since one of the TWO comparators in the Paxil 329 trial was an active placebo imipramine, i.e. a tricyclic, what was the comparison of % suicide / suicidal ideation on the Paxil arm compared to the imipramine arm” ~
which refers NOT to the deposition of Sally Laden but to the data within the trial.
Genuine readers will note that I do not deny the possibility of a linkage between suicidality & a tricyclic, nor do I deny a possibility of similar with paxil, indeed any other SSRI
In this regard(suicidal ideation)is Paxil more dangerous than a tricyclic & given that a tricyclic is much more toxic in overdose than an SSRI, what is the balance of the cross product of risks?
What then is a clinician to do when faced with a depressed child? Give him/her a tricyclic, an alternative SSRI, a placebo or let depression run it’s course? (Please don’t say talking therapy because very sadly there aren’t nearly enough therapists)
Obsessively targeting just one SSRI to meet the needs of class action lawyers could in effect lead clinicians to make even more dangerous choices. It’s called the law of unintended consequences.
Targeting by lawyers & their bagmen in the UK led to this ~
http://tuesday1st.blogspot.com/2010/07/ssri-snri-annual-total-prescription.html
I wonder are you are proud of your achivement, Seroxat sales on the floor whilst those of say Cipramill rose many many times more than paroxetine fell. A cynic might argue that the bagmen were not working for the class action lawyers but are in the pocket of Lundbeck.
Explain it all to the parents of a teenager who suicided on Cipramill!
BTW how did they all get off Paxil/Seroxat so quickly -
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3492596460_045aef0c28_o.jpg
or was the Seroxat/withdrawal issue just another confection made up to meet the needs of a UK class action that ultimately failed?
Antidepressants per se are right out of control yet you still obsess about Paxil329 whilst spending your time looking for reds under the beds.
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
Quote - you don’t even know the basics of the study, Laden’s depo or the arguments, why are you even out here in this debate to begin with? What’s your purpose ”
My question was perfectly serious. Genuine readers will note that I have not denied the possibility of a link between Paxil/Seroxat & suicidal ideation, neither have I denied the possibility of a similar link to tricyclics which were used in one of the three arms of the 329 trial.
Given that it is accepted that % fatal toxicity in tricyclic overdose is much greater than that for SSRI, what then is the cross product of the risks?
When faced with a depressed child what is a clinician to do, rx an alternative SSRI, a tricyclic, a placebo or let depression run it’s course? Don’t bother shouting “talking therapy” because with the best will in the world there quite simply are not enough of them.
Targeting just one SSRI , whilst meeting the then needs of a by now failed uk class action lawyer, can have some very strange consequences
http://tuesday1st.blogspot.com/2010/07/ssri-snri-annual-total-prescription.html
SSRI, SNRI - 2009 Annual Total Prescription Increases Hit Record High - 2.54 million
A cynic would say, who’s side are you on, Lundbeck’s? Fortunately I am not a cynic but please do try to explain this massive shift in market shares to the parents of young people who suicide or worse on Cipramil.
Instead of looking for reds under the beds, look at the current state of play - http://tuesday1st.blogspot.com/
Dick
To: SSRI Crusaders : Bryce and Mardi (Tuesday1st)
You have shown your ignorance and lack of basic knowledge of science when you characterize imipramine an “active placebo”.
So Against my best sense to not respond to idiocity, here I go:
Imipramine is an active drug, and is not an active placebo. An “active placebo” is a drug molecule that does not have any known mechanism of action on a targeted response, but can however induce innoxious side-effects such as headache, nausea, diarrhea etc.
The use of an active placebo in this study would have helped prevent both the patient & the clinical evaluator from guessing which arm the patient was assigned, thereby maintaining the integrity of the double blind. There is no “active placebo” in study 329.
Use of the imipramine drug arm in this study, it seems, was presumably included with the hope of demonstrating superior efficacy of Paxil over a previously accepted treatment (imipramine), which not surprisingly it did not.
However, the imipramine arm actually demonstrated 50% fewer occurrences of emotional lability over Paxil, (or better stated Paxil showed a 100% increase in this dangerous side-effect over imipramine). As we now uderstand, according to study 329 coding submission, Emotional Lability is a euphemism for suicide/ suicide attempts/ and suicidal thinking.
So to downplay the superiority of imipramine over Paxil regarding serious side-effects (with no clinically significant difference in efficacy), by the authors’ own admission under Discussion-Limitations
“….Another methodological limitation must be acknowledged: the study was not designed to directly compare paroxetine with imipramine. The objective of the study was to determine the efficacy of two antidepressants with different mechanisms of action. To conduct a traditional three-arm comparative trial, this study would require testing at p values of .0167 rather than .05. To power a
study at this level, it would have been necessary to enroll a greater number of patients, thus exposing more adolescents to the potential risks of clinical research….”
This is a free science lesson , so please will you both now get lost.
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
from paxilprogress ~ post headed Three previously UN published Paxil Studies ~ posted by Elisa Ontario, Canada
http://www.paxilprogress.org/forums/showthread.php?t=11819
we are told ” …..six-month continuation phase, 35 who completed the study. Paxil patients took 79.3 days to relapse compared to 79 days for those on a placebo vs 61.5 for those on imipramine. Four Paxil patients withdrew due to an adverse event, three due to emotional lability. Three patients overdosed, but these events were considered unrelated to the drug. One patient overdosed in the imipramine group and a patient in the placebo group experienced suicidal and homicidal ideation. This part of the study, issued in 2001, was never published.”
Let’s look at this again ” a patient in the placebo group experienced suicidal and homicidal ideation ”
what caused that? untreated depression? the underlying psychostructures of the triale?
If the contents of the paxilprogress post are to be taken at face value then surely to conclude anything (either for Paxil as GSK did) or against the 329trial as vested classaction lawyers did) has to be weighed within the limitations of the very small numbers in the trial.
Please do explain how one of the “placebo group experienced suicidal and homicidal ideation ” came about & how many children in the other arms would suffered these traits treated or not?
List Owner SSRIcrusaders
~ “However, the imipramine arm actually demonstrated 50% fewer occurrences of emotional lability over Paxil, (or better stated Paxil showed a 100% increase in this dangerous side-effect over imipramine). As we now uderstand, according to study 329 coding submission, Emotional Lability is a euphemism for suicide/ suicide attempts/ and suicidal thinking. ..” ~
The imipramine arm actually demonstrated 50% fewer occurrences of emotional lability over Paxil
So one antidepressant (a tricyclic)causes 50% less suicidal thinking than another (a SSRI)
Yet the very same tricyclic is known to be many many more times more toxic in overdose than the stated SSRI … My question was what are clinicians to do when faced with this dilema? Indeed what are clinicians to do when faced with children of the type on the placebo are who are both suicidal & homicidal?
Whilst you guys are obsessing & sensationalising over one (flawed) clinical trial (paxil329) the rest of the SSRI’s, especially Cipramil are skyrocketing
(http://tuesday1st.blogspot.com/)
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3337/3492596460_045aef0c28_o.jpg
gassa
I guess there’s no answer to that last question in the Scientology handbook.
Larry Bone
Just in case anyone hadn’t noticed, here’s the SSRI research damage control methodology pharma/psych play book:
1. Ignore, not acknowledge and/or greatly minimize any possible misrepresentation or possible fraudulent wrongdoing to block any challenge to research validity.
2. Claim that valid evidence published in a newpaper of record or book linking suicides or homicides to a particular antidepressant or antipsychotic are unreliable, untrustworthy or false.
3. Blame the uncovering of such evidence on a religious organization that has validly and effectively produced factual evidence that uncovers pharma psych industry misrepresentation and coverups.
4. Label anyone who questions the validity of pharmaceutical and psychiatric research as being a member of such religious organization. Anyone whose criticism of the industry appears conservative or somewhat muted is not so labelled.
5. Continually and gratuitously accuse actual members of such organization and the organization itself in mass media of mentally instability and continually maintain that the organization’s call for reform of the pharmaceutical and psychiatric industry is based on unreliable, untrustworthy and completely false information.
Larry Bone
List Owner SSRI Crusaders speaks of the doctrine of unintended consequenses. Seems to me its actually the doctrine of increased reckless refusal to act responsibly on the part of the medical profession.
The pharma psych industry seems totally incapable of admitting they are back at square one and have failed with antidepressants. These seem to only worsen a depression condition and gradually disable people taking them over time.
Everyone knows the safest thing to do would be totally ban their prescription in any amount and totally eliminate them from the list of drugs a doctor or clinician can legally prescribe!
Industry defenders will scream that it will be way to expensive to get all the elderly, all the teens, all the infants and all everybody else safely weaned off these drugs and it will be prohibitively expensive and blah blah blah blah blah blah.
How much more death and gradual mental and physical disability do we need to see before the industry will finally throw in the towel and make up the damage?
Responsible doctors are reducing dosages to minimal levels thus trending toward prohibition of any prescription at all to anyone.
We can have financial industry reform, and we can have banking industry reform. But I can’t hardly imagine the total amount of money that is blocking pharma psych industry reform!
Gassa
To those of you calling for “reform”: the problem is that your idea of reform is discriminatory and would trample on the civil and religious rights of the rest of us.
grieving
NO it should not be retracted.
I’m one of the x-paxil user who now has 3 miscarriages thanks to my sperm being damaged.
I live in the Nova Scotia (Halifax) area and I want this Dr. kutcher to stop his practice and to have his Dr degree taking away from him and also want his Political career taking away from him.
its hard seeing my wife thinking shes pregnant and then find out 8 to 11 weeks that we lost the baby. all around the same time so I’m taking it that its my sperm DNA that is damaged.
break down of the 3 miscarriages
1.) Oct of 2009 - first miscarriage was at 6-7 weeks but did not find out till 12 weeks deformed was not growing
2.) Oct of 2010 - second miscarriage was at 8 weeks - Stopped growing.
3.) May of 2011 - Third miscarriage? on the 26th of April 2011 HCG levels was at 37,700. then on may 5th 2011 we saw a heart beat at 163bpm at wife 8 weeks pregnant baby 7weeks in growth - about 2 weeks later (May 18th) spotting. then yesterday went to the ER due to wife having pain behind the left ribs we find out that her HCG Blood Levels dropped more then half to 12,386 (at 11 weeks 4 days pregnant) when it should be at 25,700.
Dick
To Grieving:
My heart-felt condolences on your losses.
GlaxoSmithKline’s Paxil is a known teratogen - and has caused terrible heart-defects in many children. There are many on-going civil suits.
I don’t think the idea of sperm damage is out of the question. This horrific drug is now associated with many types of death.
And yes you are correct - Dr. Stan Kutcher’s name will forever be associated with the carnage caused by Paxil.
Best wishes & hope for a Paxil free future.