Monday, December 9, 2019

Comments by Bob Fiddaman

Showing 17 of 17 comments.

  • Good analogy, especially if you think that a lot of gambling addicts are prescribed antidepressants. There’s also evidence out there that antidepressants can cause gambling addiction, this would then be treated either by an increase of dosage or a change to another antidepressant type medication.

    Either way it’s a win-win situation for pharma… unlike casinos.

  • The European Brain Council is headed up by Alistair Benbow, former head of psychiatry at GlaxoSmithKline. This is the same guy who publicly defended the use of Seroxat in children, the same guy who ran to his lawyers because he took umbrage to a video I made about him, boo hoo.

  • Seems odd that Mylan’s own legal counsel would appear on Mad in America, more odd that she would defend the actions of Lloyd Price at the same time chastising a woman [nae grieving mother] for speaking out regarding her treatment of a pharmaceutical company that proudly boast “At Mylan anything less isn’t good enough!” [Their exclamation mark]

    It would appear Mylan’s legal counsel is also trying to tell the same grieving mother, that they have made jump through hoops, to adhere to the posting guidelines of this forum – Oh boo hoo.

    I suggest to Mylan’s legal Counsel that she gets her own house in order before throwing hissy fits in a public forum that offers debate and in no way tries to stifle opinion.

    Furthermore, I was a witness to the appalling actions of Lloyd Price. Do you really think Maria Bradshaw wanted to know about his children when her child had died as a result of taking a product that your company manufacture and that your company have openly admitted was the probable cause of his death?

    Tut-tut Ms Legal Counsel.

    My personal opinion (because we’re still permitted to have opinions, in western “civilized” democracies, even though Mylan and its lawyers would appear to prefer that this were not the case),is that Mylan have treated Maria Bradshaw with utter contempt and have done so whilst she has been trying to come to terms with the loss of her only child.

    This is fair comment on a matter of public interest, and I, and I doubt Maria Bradshaw, will not be silenced by some lapdog or lickspittle that has forgotten what the Law means.

  • Belinda,

    You wrote, “This company is doing this, because they believe totally that these drugs save lives and that we need to actively promote and encourage there use.”

    This kind of baffles me. I’m left wondering if I’ve been reading the wrong press release. Are there two diagnostic companies both with the name Sundance?

    Can you point me to where Sundance claim that they believe that these drugs save lives and that we need to promote the use of SSRi’s?

  • John, you rightly state, “Irving Kirsch’s research found SSRI’s to be slightly more effective than placebo. Why spend more money on something that a sugar pill would work just as effectively as but have nowhere near as many dangers?”

    If people (doctor’s and the general public) are ignoring the work of Kirsch then what hope do we, as critics, have?

    We can argue until we are blue in the face regarding the efficacy of SSRi’s. I’ve been writing about this for 7 years, there have been many, more distinguished authors, that have gone before me.

    Journalist’s such as Robert Whitaker have won awards for their work yet it’s still the pharmaceutical company CEO’s that get the knighthoods.

    If you think shouting from the rooftops about the lack of efficacy is the only way to warn people then more power to you. Experience tells me something completely different.

  • I don’t think anyone is really giving this a chance yet, remember this test is still in its infancy. Nobody, not even Sundance Diagnostics, are claiming it works.

    As far as I can make out this is not a test to determine whether it’s safe for certain patients to take antidepressants, I don’t think Sundance or Maria are saying that.

    It’s more about informed consent, having all the facts opposed to the theories of healthcare professionals and pharmaceutical companies.

    Yup, SSRi’s are about as effective as placebo but they are still here, still being prescribed. I can’t see a major push to ban them.

    Pharma often create blockbusters. The money spent on marketing is obscene.

    Now, we could all sit here and bitch about safety and efficacy [I’ve been doing that for the past 7 years] – In fact, many people having been calling for the safety and efficacy issue to be looked at… alas, they are still prescribed.

    So, you chip away.

    This test, if proven, should, at the very least, make people stop and think.

    Black box warnings and advocates are up against a huge industry here.

    Irving Kirsch’s findings should have been global news. Leaders should have asked questions, there should have been debates in parliament. Instead we got people opposing the findings of Kirsch, these people basically threw water on the fire.

    People have nothing to lose by taking a genetic test – I’ve never heard of anyone suffering withdrawal because they had a pin-prick of blood taken or a hair on their head pulled off.

    I guess the proof is in the pudding… just give the pudding a chance to rise before throwing it in the bin.

  • Dear Anonymous,

    I can concur that CARM [Center for Adverse Reactions Monitoring] have confirmed that Toran, Maria’s son, probable cause of death was due to the fluox he was prescribed. When making an assessment CARM took everything into account.

    A jpg of the assessment can be viewed here – http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-hWiLhGMH3Fc/UGoDFLVv2ZI/AAAAAAAAC_g/56OLZ13eEqE/s1600/carm1.JPG

    To be defined as ‘probable’, according to the standardised case causality assessment used by the World Health Organization, [WHO] is explained in this link – http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-jjK2hpE-jjE/UGoIg8zX6iI/AAAAAAAADAA/wmXcQV99Wio/s1600/who1.JPG

    The difference between ‘possible and ‘probable’ is also highlighted in this link – http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-xo79vO2hT30/UGoJB4jdbNI/AAAAAAAADAI/oqFtTKYR0oY/s1600/who2.JPG

    One could argue that CARM’s assessment could have been ‘certain’ but, perversely, to prove this Toran would have had to have died twice to return a cause of death by Fluox as ‘certain’.

    Bob Fiddaman