Samizdat has just published Children of the Cure – the Preface of which is here This Book is not a Game.
Quotes from the text are in Hand of History on davidhealy.org. Most of the first chapter is below.
Flying to Philadelphia
Shelley Jofre was 32 when she got on a plane to Philadelphia in May 2002. People teased her about looking even younger. She is short and slight. She’s from Glasgow so her accent is distinctive even within the UK.
She joined the British Broadcasting Corporation’s (BBC) flagship investigative program Panorama from BBC Scotland in 2000.
Philadelphia was hosting the American Psychiatric Association’s 2002 annual jamboree. There were close to 20,000 delegates. Jofre was travelling with her producer Ed Harriman, a suave, articulate American, who had persuaded the broadcaster to take on the practices of the pharmaceutical industry, now that GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) had become the world’s largest pharmaceutical company and was based only a few miles away from BBC headquarters. He had an ace angle on a story about GSK’s paroxetine—one of the best-selling drugs in the world.
After Jofre got on the flight, Harriman handed her an article by Martin Keller, Neal Ryan and others, referred to then as Keller et al or the Keller paper and later called Study 329. It was published in July 2001 in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology—JAACAP to insiders. The leading journal in the field as it turned out.
Study 329 is a randomized clinical trial (RCT) of GSK’s paroxetine, branded as Paxil in America, Seroxat in Britain, Deroxat in parts of Europe and Aropax in Australia. The trial involved depressed children recruited from centres in America and Canada. Harriman’s angle was that he was pretty sure the children were being recruited from poor and deprived neighbourhoods and were likely to be mostly black. The mission—to document what was going on. Study 329 was one of the first major RCTs done with children. Harriman was sure it offered an opening on an unsavoury reality.
The flight from London was 8 hours. Time to read the article several times. There isn’t much in it about the treatment centres. The article confidently claims Paxil is safe and effective—in its abstract, discussion and conclusion. But it also describes some of the children as becoming emotionally labile. Before they landed, Jofre told Harriman she was not clear this drug worked very well and wondered if it caused problems. This is not the story he said.
After landing, when interviewing American child psychiatrists attending APA, Harriman insisted Jofre stick to his script. But the questions he had given her got nowhere. Everyone looked puzzled at any hints the testing was happening in centres of deprivation.
One more interview left. With Neal Ryan, the second author on 329 and as it turned out the person who drew up the protocol for the study. At the best of times, Ryan looks uncomfortable but faced with questions about the treatment centres he looked very comfortable. Jofre ran out of questions early with some time left on the tape so she asked him about emotional lability. All of a sudden, Ryan looked intensely uncomfortable and she knew she was on to something but there wasn’t time to find out what and Ryan wasn’t hanging about.
As Neal Ryan retreated from the interview room, everyone’s future changed. Ed Harriman didn’t know it. He was right about a great deal, as it later turned out. GSK were running another trial, Study 377, which fit his bill. But he was not right about Study 329. He got dropped by Panorama who decided to follow Jofre’s lead.
What came to light about Study 329 applies to every single drug anyone of any age takes for any medical condition. What came to light should shape the attitude everyone takes to every single academic article published in any area of medicine—it’s bogus or semi-bogus until proven otherwise. Peer review is useless. Approval of a drug by a regulator means nothing. The greater the prestige of a medical journal the more it has invested in what drug companies want.
A few days later Jofre found that the April 2002 edition of JAACAP carried letters by Alex Weintrob from New York and Mitch Parsons from Edmonton about Study 329, mentioning their concerns about children becoming suicidal on SSRIs. A confident response from Keller and Ryan about the merits of controlled trials compared to anecdotes—the plural of anecdotes is not data—seemed like, for most people, it would deal a knockout blow to these anecdotes.
But Jofre was an anecdote person, as everyone who has anything go wrong on a drug necessarily is, and these letters fit her hunch.
Four years later at an APA meeting in Toronto, she interviewed Martin Keller. This time she came armed. She had been working with George W Murgatroyd III, Skip to everyone who knows him. Skip is a lawyer who shares a gift with her—that of being able to vanish into the background.
It worked when Skip deposed Marty Keller the apparent author of Study 329 under oath and then when he deposed the real author of the study, whose name features nowhere.
It worked in Toronto when Jofre interviewed Keller, a tall, slim, handsome and confident man, whose photographs don’t do him justice. He is as comfortable in his body as Ryan is uncomfortable. He didn’t smell danger when Jofre approached him for a quick question after his lecture. This was not a formal interview setting. Who could think such a young-looking girl could pose a threat? Not a camera or tape recorder in sight.
jofre: What about suicide attempts on Paxil?
keller: None of these attempts led to suicide and very few of them led to hospitalization. The thing is, you have to consider what are the alternatives? Right?
jofre: So some of the unpublished studies showed that placebo actually seemed to have more of an effect?
keller: Come on, you know better than that.
And reaching down from a height he stroked Shelley Jofre under the chin. A touch that Hans Christian Andersen missed.
tim says
Thank you to all who have produced this compelling book.
I was delighted to find immediately on Amazon UK, and bought the Kindle option.
It has been hard to pause from reading, even for a couple of minutes, in order to post this comment.
annie says
It was terrific watching Shelley in action in all 5 Panorama Progs. The Secrets of Seroxat was screened in 2002.
Seroxat in Children
Shelley Jofre
Taken on Trust
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hegMQE1Poo0
“I think David’s day is here”
Dr. Mike Shooter; half an hour in
The black covers of Samizdat, are as soft as a black labrador’s ears
Bob Fiddaman says
Book review here, only minor spoilers.
Children of the Cure: Who Cares?
https://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2020/06/children-of-cure-who-cares.html
Spruce says
This looks like a really interesting book. Well done to all of those involved in making it. I will definitely be buying it, and giving a copy to my doctor at some point.
What this book reveals, further consolidates what I have already come to know about how corrupt and dishonest the medical and pharmaceutical industry is, and the unhealthy relationship between the two.
Every year I seem to learn a little bit more about just how corrupt it all is, and each time I learn a bit more, it never fails to shock me, just a little bit more.
Heather R says
Agree with Tim, fantastic book, unputdownable! I have to admit I was never totally clear in my head about Study 329, having joined these blogs about 3 years ago when they were often referred to, and having tried to look back to learn more detail about it. This book sets out everything so clearly for me, in language I can understand. Well written and gripping. Thank you!
susanne says
I have been able to dip into the book which has an ‘open me ‘cover for sure but i would describe it as setting out a horror story written and contributed to by a collective of people who give hope that there are some who will never keep silent or sacrifice children (and others) to the most despicable corruption which was allowed to destroy so many lives.. Even those of us who have read something about the issues already will find it educational as well as shocking – those who are implicated in the scandal – well who knows how they live with themselves
susanne says
Something missing? An Apology to those who volunteered to take part in the trial ?
But Jenny knows best…..
http://www.pulsetoday.co.uk/news/primary-care-hydroxychloroquine-trial-goes-ahead-as-lancet-paper-retracted/20040938.article
MHRA halts recruitment to primary care hydroxychloroquine trial over death reports
27 May 2020
Antiviral drug Remdesivir approved for Covid-19 treatment in the UK
26 May 2020
Hydroxychloroquine has ‘no effect’ against Covid-19, studies find
21 May 2020
GPs ‘strongly discouraged’ from prescribing antimalarials for Covid-19
09 Apr i
The UK clinical trial into the effects of hydroxychloroquine on Covid-19 ‘will continue’, the Department of Health has said, as researchers retracted a paper that had indicated the treatment was unsafe.
The MHRA halted recruitment to the PRINCIPLE trial – led by the University of Oxford and including almost 800 GP practices – last week, after the Lancet published a study that found hydroxychloroquine increases the risk of death in Covid-19 patients.
However, since then researchers had questioned the data quality of the study- which also prompted the WHO to halt trials – and yesterday three of the paper’s authors decided to retract their paper because they could not ‘vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources’.
This came as Surgisphere, an American healthcare company whose chief executive was the fourth author of the paper, would not transfer the full data-set, client contracts, or audit reports needed for an independent, private peer-review.
Following the retraction, the Lancet said in a statement: ‘The Lancet takes issues of scientific integrity extremely seriously, and there are many outstanding questions about Surgisphere and the data that were allegedly included in this study. Following guidelines from the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE), institutional reviews of Surgisphere’s research collaborations are urgently needed.’
The three authors added: ‘We always aspire to perform our research in accordance with the highest ethical and professional guidelines. We can never forget the responsibility we have as researchers to scrupulously ensure that we rely on data sources that adhere to our high standards. Based on this development, we can no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources. Due to this unfortunate development, the authors request that the paper be retracted.
‘We all entered this collaboration to contribute in good faith and at a time of great need during the Covid-19 pandemic. We deeply apologise to you, the editors, and the journal readership for any embarrassment or inconvenience that this may have caused.’
Speaking in a GP webinar last night, England’s deputy chief medical officer Dr Jenny Harries stressed that the UK trials into hydroxychloroquine will continue, with ‘appropriate safeguards’.
She said: ‘Despite some of the uncertainty around trials on chloroquine, the big publication that created a little bit of noise in the media a couple of weeks ago has been reviewed possibly a bit more thoroughly. So those trials will continue with all the appropriate safeguards that we have in the UK.’
Carla says
The regulations of the Pharmaceutical Industry are not as robust as they like to make us believe.
If the FDA just tick boxes just for the sake of approving something and a lot of the information may be:
– misleading
– ghost written
– flawed
– data is all positive so the product sells
– harms are hidden etc
How can this regulatory process be rendered free from any harm?
What is the role of the FDA, MHRA or WHO?
As far as I am concerned, many innocent people are being severely impacted by the harms many medicines induce?
If the regulatory bodies are not as robust as we are led to believe, who are going to be our gatekeepers when something goes horribly wrong with any device, procedure or meds?
This area of medicine is severely haemorrhaging and is in desperate need of attention and it seems that everything is falling on deaf ears!
It seems the WHISTLEBLOWERS who speak up, are paying the price!
As the saying goes:
‘Just as there are unjust men there are unjust laws’ Gandhi
Children of the cure is another invaluable addition which will definitely be added to my collection to further increase my awareness and shed further light to an already troubled healthcare system. Thank you David for expanding my understanding of an area that is not just black and white.
Below is a blog which I discovered unexpectedly. It may interest and benefit a lot of people who are interested about the things we challenge and question, on a daily basis.
http://www.stoprx.org/pages/Others.html
annie says
Hi Carla
Jon Jureidini speaks about their new paper, which seems to draw parallels with the UK situation and ‘Suicide Prevention’ …
recovery&renewal
@recover2renew
Listen to interview with co-author of report here: from 01.09.00
https://www.abc.net.au/radio/melbourne/programs/mornings/mornings/12313926
Antidepressant Prescribing and Suicide/Self-Harm by Young Australians: Regulatory Warnings, Contradictory Advice, and Long-Term Trends
Martin Whitely Melissa Raven and Jon Jureidini
https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.00478/full?fbclid=IwAR0Cj63i3dqKStoTt9s_W5hSSWcbIPfNQZngxKKSIGJqeAzjy6NptJNz-gQ
In 2004, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) controversially issued a black box warning that antidepressants were associated with an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviours in people aged under 18 years. In 2007, the warning was expanded to include young adults aged under 25 years. In 2005, the Australian Therapeutic Goods Administration responded to the FDA warning by requiring Product and Consumer Information leaflets to be updated to reflect the risk. However, there was considerable debate, and at times emotive backlash, in academic journals and the international media. Prominent US and Australian mental health organisations and psychiatrists challenged the FDA warning. They argued that, on balance, antidepressant use was likely to reduce the risk of suicide. Several ecological studies were cited misleadingly as evidence that decreasing antidepressant use increases suicide risk.
Dee Doherty
@Deedoherty2
Some of @APRIL_charity ‘s long made appeals to @ProfLAppleby
regarding undisclosed Adverse Drug Effects costing lives features in this 13 min Short Film produced by evidence based psychiatrist Dr Peter Gordon,
@recover2renew & @T_A_Psupport
https://holeousia.com/2020/01/15/a-timeline-of-missed-opportunities/
A timeline of missed opportunities…
annie says
Hi Carla
Aropax (Seroxat) ‘catches-eye’ of Minister…
Dr Maryanne Demasi, PhD
@MaryanneDemasi
Investigative journalist, PhD in Rheumatology, researcher at @CochraneNordic former TV presenter/producer @ABCTV
Australian Health Minister @GregHuntMPorders review after study links rise in youth suicide with antidepressant use. The nation has “a culture of uncritical group-think” led by two of the most influential psychiatrists Professors McGorry & Hickie
https://smh.com.au/politics/federal/health-minister-orders-review-after-study-links-antidepressants-and-youth-suicide-20200609-p550yr.htmly…
recovery&renewal Retweeted
Peter Hitchens
@ClarkeMicah
Journalist, author, broadcaster
This news from Australia is very welcome. It is high time this correlation was examined to see if it is meaningful: Health Minister orders review after study links antidepressants and youth suicide
Health Minister orders review after study links antidepressants and youth suicide
By Dana McCauley
June 14, 2020 — 12.00am
https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/health-minister-orders-review-after-study-links-antidepressants-and-youth-suicide-20200609-p550yr.html
A spokesman for Mr Hunt said the minister “is deeply concerned by the rate of depression and suicide among young Australians” and that the TGA would review the Curtin study’s findings “and, if necessary, take strong and appropriate action.”
One of the study’s authors, University of Adelaide psychiatric epidemiologist Melissa Raven, said there was also evidence of “a substantial increase in rates of self-harm by young Australians, with prescription antidepressants among the drugs most commonly used in self-poisoning.”
Child and adolescent psychiatrist and co-author Jon Jureidini, a University of Adelaide professor, said influential Australian mental health organisations had discounted official warnings about the risks of prescribing antidepressants to children.
susanne says
A Real Teeth Grinder in thebmj
Read page 265 in Children of the Cure for 22 references to Elizabeth Loder
and 49 references to thebmj page 263
( others who have contributed to this article are named in Children of the Cure)
BMJ 2020; 369 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.m2279 (Published 09 June 2020)
Cite this as: BMJ 2020;369:m227
Two leading medical journals retracted research papers on covid-19 last week because the authors said they could “no longer vouch for the veracity of the primary data sources,” raising serious questions about data transparency and research integrity.
On 22 May the Lancet published an observational study indicating that hospital patients with covid-19 treated with hydroxychloroquine and chloroquine were at greater risk of dying and of ventricular arrhythmia than patients not given the drugs.4 The same authors published an article in the New England Journal of Medicine on 1 May that found that angiotensin converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers were not associated with a higher risk
Data withheld
Both studies used data from a healthcare analytics company called Surgisphere. After several concerns were raised with respect to the veracity of the data, the study authors announced an independent third party peer review.67 But Surgisphere refused to transfer the full dataset and associated information, saying it would violate confidentiality requirements and agreements with clients, leading the authors to request the retraction of both studies.
The Lancet and NEJM are signatories to the Wellcome agreement on data sharing for covid-19 studies, which calls for research findings to be openly accessible and to give clear statements regarding the availability of underlying data.8 But an open letter to the study authors and the Lancet’s editor, Richard Horton, pointed out that its paper had no statement on data and code sharing availability and no ethics review.9
Robert Kiley, head of open research at Wellcome, told The BMJ, “In the case of articles which contain private and sensitive information, the data availability statement should still indicate how the data could be accessed, typically by making a request to the appropriate data access committee. We encourage all publishers to require a data availability statement for all research articles and to make this a mandatory part of the submission process.”
So is the Wellcome statement worth the paper it’s written on? Henry Drysdale, a clinical researcher with the DataLab at Oxford University, whose academic work has focused on research integrity, believes it does have some merit as it articulates an idea of best practice and provides a standard to which medical journals can be held.
“However, the statement focuses entirely on the sharing and dissemination of research and does not address information governance or research integrity standards. In the context of major concerns over the integrity of reporting and use of results for high profile covid trials, commitments to these standards are urgently needed,” he told The BMJ.
He believes that the concerns over the Lancet trial are not so much about the editorial process or reporting but about generating and collating data, with some querying the truthfulness of the data. “It’s possible that data sharing standards have been, to a greater or lesser extent, compromised through drives to produce and disseminate covid research quickly (as encouraged by the Wellcome statement). However, it’s very difficult to say with so little information about the sources of data and data collection processes for these trials,” he said.
Deluge of research
The covid-19 pandemic has created an urgent need for scientific evidence to help politicians, doctors, researchers, and the general public understand the evolving situation and know what treatments work. This has resulted in a deluge of new research, much of it published without peer review on preprint servers. “There is a headlong rush to publish in an emergency, and that is toxic,” Jefferson said.
Tracey Brown, director of the charity Sense about Science, told The BMJ, “The urgency of sharing emerging research and data on the covid-19 crisis has created huge dilemmas over quality. Rapid publication and early sharing of results is clearly warranted, but it means that the research community must also double down on communicating the status and reliability of results and their limitations.
“Open data and research evidence is useless without this information. Researchers must avoid hype and police the discussion of the research assiduously, especially as individual papers are now being seized on to push different policy responses.”
She added, “But some of the issues we are seeing are not new. Putting your name to a data analysis when you have not seen the data is research fraud, and always has been, crisis or no crisis.”
Elizabeth Loder, The BMJ’s head of research, acknowledged that it was difficult for peer reviewers or journal editors to detect deliberate, carefully orchestrated fabrication of data.
“In the case of the Surgisphere database, there was a high level of interest in the NEJM and Lancet papers because of the pandemic. This led to rapid identification and speedy retraction of the articles and underscores the value of having many people involved in evaluating and inspecting research both before and after it is published,” she said.
Loder believes that The BMJ’s open peer review process and its commitment to sharing data and the posting of signed peer review reports alongside published research papers allow for a level of public scrutiny that is valuable.
She added, “We are considering a variety of steps we could take to prevent and detect potential fraud. In addition to solutions at the level of individual journals, however, I believe that cooperation among journals and public policy initiatives also may be needed.”
Carla says
Hi Annie,
Thank you kindly for all the invaluable information you have provided.
If healthy debates were to take place, which up to this given time has sadly never happened, how can people like myself come out of the closet and talk about issues relating to the risks of antidepressants?
It is all good and well for authorities, such as the FDA to place a black box warning on antidepressants for people under the age of 25.
Antidepressants, sadly, do not discriminate because of age.
We never have healthy debates on how antidepressants impact the elderly or people beyond 25.
Important questions, relating to antidepressants and (other meds),
need to be debated and unless that day comes, how can we create the necessary changes we have all been waiting for!
We need to have healthy debates about the following:
1. If you have health issues and you are ingesting more than one tablet and an antidepressant is thrown into the mix, how does this impact the persons mind?
2. Why is it that when some people try to withdrawal from antidepressants they can experience dangerous withdrawal symptoms.
3. Before antidepressants are dispensed, are there any tests that can be done to see if the medication is suitable for the individual concerned. This should include all medicines. ( Someone should invent a device to see if any medicines are flawed in any way/shape or form. The test or device, could try to figure out how one can determine whether a medicine is suitable/compatible for an individual without the nasty side effects)
4. As soon as an adverse event happens, patients should be given all the support they require. Once a certain amount of time has lapsed, you are not given the support one requires to deal with a residual or permanent health issues, induced by the medicines they were prescribed.
5. Some Dr’s have got to refrain from placing unhelpful labels on patients.
6. There has to be an enormous change in culture, starting from the educational institutions, informing potential clinicians of the harms the medicines they prescribe. Perhaps, the curriculum could make potential clinicians study pharmacology for 2-3 years.
7. They should have patients, as case studies come into the medical institutions to talk about their life experiences.
8. Clinicians don’t go down with their patients when the medicines they prescribe, harm them. There should be no more corruption within the system and enticements for clinicians who write up scripts.
9. Whistle-blowers should be encouraged to come forward and speak up within academic institutions.
10. Those who research drugs should be charged if anything they manufacture harm people. Those who do autopsies (pathologists) should provide the truth about how someone passed away, without being reprimanded.
11. All the negative clinical data should be put out there for all to see. Clinicians should tell the patients whether a medicine or procedure will benefit or not benefit a patient.
12. Clinicians should not do unnecessary tests or procedures that pose a threat to the wellbeing of a patient especially, to those patients who are medically compromised by the harms and ill effects of medicines and procedures.
13. Any clinician who inflicts harm or mistreats a patient(s) should not be in their profession.
14. A culture that breeds bullies and punishes those who speak up, needs to hang their heads in shame. Those who do wrong should go to a panel hearing where all concerned have a voice.
15. Innocent people who are held in custody and mysteriously pass away should also be told the truth about the meds they were given whilst they passed away. There is so much that families do not know until someone who knows about these medicines brings it to the peoples attention.
16. People who are unnecessarily overly medicated in institutions and have ‘no voice’ over their mental health, also concerns me.
17. People who are depressed need to be given other alternatives before they are given medications. Unless a device or test evolves, medication will always be a game of Russian roulette.
18. Flawed tests or misdiagnosis, should not be occurring in this day and age. If someone misdiagnosis or performs unnecessary procedure(s) with mal intentions, they should be charged like a criminal does.
I could mention more drastic changes and unless they are heard, we will always be tackling a bureaucratic system that really does not care!
So we have a catch 22 situation here.
Those who are severely depressed and don’t take them may be at risk of committing suicide.
Then we got the other side of the spectrum where those who take them commit suicide.
People need to talk and have people genuinely/sincerely be concerned about the issues they face in their lives. It concerns me when people are not given other options or are not informed of all the risks that clinicians prescribe to their patients
The Governments are always promoting head space, beyond blue and other mental health initiatives, which may or may not benefit people.
Mind you, the policies that many Governments put in place, such as organizations where people can make complaints about how patients are treated by people within the system is very concerning, indeed!
You have a Government infrastructure that is concerned about the society’s mental health and then on the other hand you mistreat whist blowers and give them the run around with your disgraceful policies.
Are Governments and those in politics really concerned about peoples well-being or are some benefitting Big Pharma by generating money for themselves at the expense of others?
Without the necessary CHANGES, corruption will flourish in the wrong hands.
If we no longer do things, the right way, we are all doomed by a process that is not only deceiving but damaging to the human race.
It is not alright when the human/animal species is harmed by the stupidity of those who have no moral conscience.
Bring medicine back to moral integrity, where people come before profits! CB
susanne says
It might be on a bit of a tangent here but I want to flag up a publishing house set up to publish writers’ experiences of mental health -‘Chipamunk Publishing’ – but also one of it’s a greaters writers Zekria Ibrahimi
Chipmunkapublishing ltd, 1 Jun 2011 – 69 pages
Let us be as unrepentantly weird as possible about this play…
We do not want to be respectable and precise… Schizophrenia is not a neat thing. It is amorphous, it is grotesquely psychedelic, and this play wants you to participate in schizophrenia at its most macabre, all the way to death and beyond…
We are in the underbelly of society, we are where shame and terror intersect, we are amidst the predators and the vulnerable…
This is the story of the System that feeds off the doomed…
This play hopes that you too will seek to be a part of schizophrenia, of what is the ‘other’. Why stagnate in a complacent sanity? Explode into insanity instead…
Zekria Ibrahimi (born in 1959) is defined by his schizophrenia. It first hit him long ago, in his late teens. He is fifty years old now, grey and frail, almost a pensioner, with all the aches and injuries of age, and he does not always want to remember how, as an adolescent in the late 1970’s, he suddenly became afraid of everything surrounding him, and, worst of all, of himself. He would run around the countryside and knock at the doors of strangers because he feared the apocalypse was pursuing him … He would pick up rubbish outside in alleys and streets and hoard it in his not very palatial lodgings … He was always wandering away from home, searching for … what would never be found again … the straight route, the level way … He was a tramp, freezing during the nights in public toilets where he had various unsavoury insects as company on the cold concrete …
There were years of pain when his schizophrenia became almost his only companion- albeit a sadistic one, punishing him even as he hugged it. Perhaps, to echo both R. D. Laing and Emily Dickinson, it is the entire globe, it is general society, that is truly insane. Schizophrenics simply burrow all too deeply under the surface. They reach the very core of the savage reality in us all. Most varnish over the anarchic truth within through the superficial sham paraded as ‘civilization’. Schizophrenics prefer to be uncomfortably honest barbarians.
Eventually, after much psychotic shouting on Hammersmith Broadway, the hapless Zekria was confined at the Charing Cross unit in the West London Mental Health Trust. Following the unsafe unstable freedom of his schizophrenia, came the restrictions of Section 3. He would not have survived without the multi- racial compassion of the individual doctors and nurses in Charing Cross. Yet the overall SYSTEM remains an ogre of rules and restraints, and the INSTITUTION of psychiatry can be as cold and vicious as in the days of lobotomy and insulin shock.
Now he is elderly, but still he muses about being locked up, drugged up, about how, with schizophrenia, the treatment can be worse than the disease…
annie says
Chipmunk Publishing was the vehicle Bob Fiddaman used for his book in 2011.
http://chipmunkapublishing.co.uk/about-2/
The Evidence, However, is Clear
The Seroxat Scandal
https://www.amazon.co.uk/Evidence-However-Clear-Seroxat-Scandal/dp/1849914141
There was also the option to receive copies with personal inscriptions from the author.
Seven years later a reviewer said :
A truly horrendous scandal exposed
Reviewed in the United Kingdom on 17 June 2018
Since Bob F wrote the book even more scandals have been exposed – see David Healy blog and Rxisk blog. It is a triumph that the truth isbeing publsihed at last but with massive obstruction by the medical profession and drugs industry shamefully
‘Look inside’ for the ‘Highway to Hell’…
Carla says
Hi Annie,
Thank you kindly for your reply.
There are a lot of medicines out there that should be catching the ‘eye’ of every health minister, not just antidepressants!
Many antidepressants should come with a label for ALL -not just the youth.
Our society, never debates how many of these antidepressants induce suicide in those above 18 years of age and older. It is such a taboo to discuss such concerning matters.
Whilst I am writing here, I would like to also add, that many Government organizations do not take complaints seriously when some Health Professionals do not do the right things by their patients.
There should be a public enquiry (Corrupt Organization Body) looking into how Government agencies handle many complaints.
I was told by someone in the legal system, I have NO RIGHTS!
Since, when does the legal system discriminate against those who try to do the right thing!
It is not a fair system when you have some professionals end peoples careers because of a complaint(s) that was submitted or not have a fair hearing for all concerned.
Whistle blowers are discriminated against and are not given a ‘fair go’ when it comes to serious complaints.
There is a ‘tribal’ stance that sadly, still takes place in our society today, that destroys the innocence of workers, without any substantial facts.
What ever happened to the presumption of innocence. If the tribe all stand together without knowing the facts, you have all played your part in ruining someone’s life. This is a crime in itself!
As, for the Health Minister, who never replied to my concerns, it makes me wonder if I was deliberately ‘outcasted’ and given no ‘rights’ because of my strong voice concerning particular subjects I am passionate about.
For the Health ministers secretary to say:
The Health Minister cannot answer my letter because it would be like: ‘brothers going against brothers’, speaks volumes about how our Health Ministers take complaint’s seriously.
For someone to bear false witness and for an organization to take one person’s word over another, in my opinion is worthy of a proper investigation.
Is it worth destroying someone’s career without all the facts?
When you all collude together to destroy a person’s good name, it makes me wonder why some professionals stoop so low!
I do not have trust and faith in our leaders (or Government Organizations), if people in our society do anything to protect those who do play dirty games.
Pogo says
Been think about avenues for DH to spread awareness of this and his other books to a wider audience. I suppose being able to take the opportunities below boils down to time management issues and judging priorities with other commitments. Still…
Get interviewed by the organisation Rebel Wisdom and mention the book(s).
To get a feel for their format, here is a interview with Robert Whitaker (author of Mad in America)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LQvN5aFcBr8&t=1s
They have also interviewed Jordan Peterson who is a Canadian psychologist.
Make sure, as part of the agreement for being interviewed (any interview for that matter) that you have them add some contextual information of your choice, below the video. Including one of your books, website etc.
Rebel Wisdom say of themselves:
“When our existing assumptions and ways of thinking break down, it’s the rebels and the renegades, those who dare to think differently, who are needed to reboot the system.
Rebel Wisdom is founded on the conviction that we are seeing a civilisational-level crisis of ideas, as the old operating system breaks down. The new is struggling to emerge – and the most transformative ideas always show up first as rebellious. In these times of change, we can no longer trust the traditional media to make sense of the world. The old gatekeepers are losing their power. A new counter culture is filling the void, driven by a great intellectual awakening. Facilitated by new technology, it’s made a new kind of conversation possible; more in-depth, more open and more democratic. Fuelled by social media, many have become trapped in reaction and ideology, yet big questions can only be explored with open-minded, self-reflective, grounded conversations. Rebel Wisdom looks to move beyond ideology. We create our content with the intention of engaging with the whole person – intellect, body, and intuition – to create honest discussions. In a time where truth has become whatever you want it to be – we believe in the rebellious, transformative power of genuine Truth. That’s why we also run events in the real world, to help people live out the ideas in our films for themselves. Conversations that strive for Truth can have a profound effect on our lives. Right now, they are also the most rebellious.”
I don’t have a Twitter account but if those that do keep mentioning DH, then maybe they’ll get the hint. https://twitter.com/WisdomRebel
Joe Rogan, who hosts The Joe Rogan Experience, is a smart interviewer, with a huge audience. And together with Jordan Peterson who is a Canadian psychologist, Eric Weinstein and many others is a member of the Intellectual Dark Web. Joe allows his guest to say as many time as they like “Oh and by the way, I go over this subject in more detail in my latest book” or first book, second book, etc. He is also a psychedelic adventurer so likes to interview people who know about brain altering chemicals.
Again, in order that DH comes up on the radar it might require our frequent posts to: https://twitter.com/joerogan
On the fringe (I choose that word thoughtfully) and widely viewed around the world is London Real with 2 million subscribers. Host Brian Rose has interviewed amongst others: Noam Chomsky, Jordan Peterson who is a Canadian psychologist (uhmm, this room seem to have an echo), Prof David Nutt (former UK government drug Tsar)
Brian Rose has an insane (I choose that word loosely) interest in anyone who knows something about the therapeutic potential of psychedelics. He wants to interview basically anyone who holds controversial views or novel views or has better than average insight to the problems/solutions of today.
More and more people are turning to Tech Platforms to get their news and follow the latest discoveries. This medium is taking over from print magazines and books. Yet, to take full advantage of this shift in lay peoples knowledge sourcing, and make video podcasting financially self-sustaining, this really requires the help of someone for whom Information Technology is second nature (there must be some students or others currently in lock-down, who would welcome the opportunity and volunteer their services for free, so as to feel their doing something useful). For to concentrate on both the information content ‘and’ the visual aspects ‘and’ getting all the technology to work at the same time, required switching back and forth between different parts of the brain and for anybody born before AD 2000 it is an impossible task for one brain to do, or so it seems to my addled brain.
Think of video podcasting as a Minimum Viable Product (MVP). They can be created fast and cheaply. Tested to see if people want it and if one likes doing it. Can list one’s own self-authored books etc., in the space below the video. Black Box Warning: Doing video podcasting can become additive.
To start off a Youtube Channel, it doesn’t need any equipment that one hasn’t already got but it does need a bit of know-how to for the results to look good at the viewers end. For something that ‘looks’ well presented carries more ‘authority’ for the first-time-viewer. One needs to ‘Hook’ their interest first and keep them watching! Then subliminally, inject the real information or steer them in the direction one wish to go. Example: Dr Rohin Francis often appears in scrubs and/or surrounded by clinical paraphernalia. Then gets people to think about things in a way they would not have done so before. Check his formate out on his channel Medlife Crisis: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCgRBRE1DUP2w7HTH9j_L4OQ
Videos done by music recording artist often have a studio sound mixing console in background and of cause, academics (much like DH) often have well stocked bookshelves as a backdrop. This approach, subliminally informs the first-time-viewer, that this ‘Talking-Head’ is more likely to have something meaningful to say and thus worth watching all the way through.
There are many videos explaining the ins and outs of how to do this. Rather poor examples (they just appeared on my first search and I’m too lazy to look for better ones).
How to make $300 camera look Pro: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0wqUWYx3UrY
Look good and sound great on video from home: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U_Ho383acVE
How to built a home Youtube studio for less than $100 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TAw-xGSd83I
In fluent geek-speak; Best cameras for live streaming: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TOJk9NA_2Gs
And my favourite for its earthiness: How to look professional on zoom: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m5AxcjUHBEE
If people like the content, they will often donate $$$$’s via Paypal, etc., in the hope that the presenter will produce more videos for them (as in reality they appreciate it takes a little time and the odd £ here and there). On the plus side, any new equipment bought for the purpose is mostly tax deductible and there is often money left over.
Dr Martin Sweatman (a chemist or something at a univercity) popularises his very ‘niche’ book by doing a series of video’s about his rather niche pet hobby. Even I find it fascinating to watch the way he uses his analytical scalpel to dissect peer reviewed articles about his pet subject. Resulting in some of them (metaphorically speaking) expiring on operating table. As a result of his videos, he has occasionally been asked to give interviews by other video makers and most importantly — more people read his book. His formate can be seen here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_NcXR7iqVrY&t=414s
Currently, with many parents concerned by their children suffering anxiety due to the lock-down and getting proscribed SSRI’s, then surly this is a prime time to weigh-in on the topic via Youtube.
Then there are all people that DH can interview by video link. Poster sussanne mentions Zekria Ibrahimi and he may agree to an interview. Whilst there is a strong likelihood that he has neither laptop not smartphone over which to do it, Zekria can probably pull some strings to get access. As it happens, I only live about an hour from his current abode so could even pop over to see him if needed.
Then there are other Youtubers that DH could interview, using the scatter gun approach. i.e., asking as many people as possible (via a standard boilerplate email) — as few of the many approached accept. Yet, every guest can lead to the next potential guest saying YES. And be prepared to explore areas one would rather not, based on what the guest speaks about. Viewers are drawn to such genuine discussions (for reasons I can’t put into one sentence). They’re drawn to presenters who have real authentic passion for their subject. Focus on ‘birds of a feather,’ those who have large followings and strong opinions about medical matters such Dr. Peter Breggin. Maybe Trisha Greenhalgh who has taught students how to read medical research papers. Richard Smith, former editor of the BMJ. Popular and growingly influential with the younger generation is Mikhaila Peterson (currently critical about tranquillizers). Her father’s video’s have helped him become a best selling author. He is a Canadian psychologist named Jordan…. One can see how, that with the right visual amplification and guests who are on the same frequency to add more energy, the cyberspace-echo-chamber can be made to resonate with the input from informed specialists on topics which many lay people have a thirst to know more about. Hopefully, some of the current generation of medical students — whose brains are not yet fully ossified by the system— will even get around to reading a book or two about some of the topics covered…
Having said that, this mode of communicating to reach a wider audience of millions may not suit everyone and/or they might need a short while to settle in and feel comfortable with the medium. Still, I thought I’d post the ideas, whilst I’m sitting here with my legs refusing to take me anywhere today.