Ignorance demands a lack of education. Doctors world wide do NOT have this excuse. The majority of doctors are stupid. Stupidity demands an education with an arrogance that depletes the ability to learn. We usually see this in religious fanatics. I've told of my last trip into hospital to explain this in more detail than here in my blog page, there was an incident only a year and a half ago where I went to the doctor because I had something stuck in my throat. She said it was emotional based and she wanted to refer me to a shrink. (My father was dying at the time) and I said I'd be happy to consider this option after I saw a ENT specialist. She argued the point with me until I got angry and demanded the referal. I had a growth the size of my thumbnail on my larynx. I could have choked. Doctors is stupid. Treat them as such!

I would like to add to this list this link:
www.healyprozac.com/


here is the first page to give you a taste

too bad the side bar didn't show as it is full of great tidbits. Dr. Healy was fired from a job in Toronto Canada because he stated at a lecture that the patients were over medicated the side bar has a copy of the letter. I suspect like many others big pharma stepped in. I can also say that I have a personal stake in this as the program he was going to be running late drugged and I think killed my best freind maybe if he had been there that one special life would have been spared.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Index
Home
Site Layout
Context
The Trials
Editors' Dilemma
Medicine Control Agency
Ghostly Data
Academic Freedom
Academic Stalking


Ordering Information
This website explores threats to public safety and academic freedom surrounding the SSRI group of drugs – Prozac, Zoloft (Lustral), Paxil (Seroxat/Aropax).

It makes available trial transcripts in 3 major cases involving SSRIs and suicide and homicide.

It also makes available correspondence surrounding issues to do with ghost writing, efforts to draw attention to the hazards of these drugs and the dramatic changes taking place in academia as an increasing proportion of clinical research is privatised.

This background data has been synthesized in book form in Let Them Eat Prozac published by James Lorimer for the Canadian Association of University Teachers, ISBN no 1-55028-783-4. Chapters 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 10 are made available here linked to their respective background materials.

On the face of it, the investigation of possible hazards posed by SSRIs does not seem to have followed the conventional dynamics of science, where anomalies in the data are supposed to spur further investigation. In this case, debate has been closed down rather than opened up. Journals that might have been thought to be independent of pharmaceutical company influence have “managed” not to publish articles and the appropriate scientific forums have “managed” not to debate the issues.

Is this evidence of undue pharmaceutical company influence?

Is it evidence of the power of the current epidemiological paradigm in medicine that effectively only values one form of evidence – that stemming from Randomised Controlled Trials?

Is it evidence of a Matthew Effect, whereby concerns stemming from centres other than Oxford, Cambridge, Harvard or Yale are simply much less likely to be taken seriously?

These questions go to the heart of the current debate on academic freedom and the role of commercial support for Academia. In order to move this debate forward, we would be happy to publish on this website germane material, whether from others who have lost posts within either Academia or pharmaceutical companies, or people who have had difficulties raising hazards about pharmaceutical agents, or other material.

Please forward additional material to:

James Turk
Canadian Association of University Teachers
Ottawa ON K2B 8K2
Canada

Or post to:

North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine
Hergest Unit
Bangor, North Wales, LL57 2PW
United Kingdom

Further material from Miller v Pfizer, Motus v Pfizer, Berman v Lilly, and other cases are available on request from the above address.
‘Considering the benefit and the risk, we think this preparation totally unsuitable for the treatment of depression.’ — May 25th 1984 communication to Lilly US from Lilly Bad Homburg by B v.Keitz containing a translation of an unofficially received medical comment on the Fluoxetine application to the German regulators.

‘I do not think I could explain to the BGA, a judge, to a reporter or even to my family why we would do this especially on the sensitive issue of suicide and suicidal ideation.’ — Memo from Bouchy C to L Thompson Re: Adverse Drug Event Reporting – Suicide Fluoxetine. November 13th 1990. Exhibit 117 in Forsyth vs Eli Lilly.

‘I am concerned about reports I get re UK attitude toward Prozac’s safety. Leber suggested a few minutes ago we use CSM database to compare Prozac aggression, suicidal ideation with other antidepressants in the UK. Although he is a fan of Prozac and believes a lot of this is garbage, he is clearly a political creature and will have to respond to pressures. I hope Patrick realizes that Lilly can go down the tubes if we lose Prozac and just one event in the UK can cost us that.’ — Memo from Leigh Thompson February 7th 1990. Exhibit 98 in Forsyth Vs Eli Lilly.

‘All policymakers must be vigilant to the possibility of research data being manipulated by corporate bodies and of scientific colleagues being seduced by the material charms of industry. Trust is no defence against an aggressively deceptive corporate sector.’ — Editorial (2000). Resisting smoke and spin. Lancet 355, 1197.

‘Essentially, we believe that it is not a good fit between you and the role as leader of an academic program in mood and anxiety disorders at the Centre. Whilst you are held in high regard as a scholar of the history of modern psychiatry, we do not feel your approach is compatible with the goals for development of the academic and clinical resource that we have. This view was solidified by your recent appearance at the Centre in the context of an academic lecture.’ — University of Toronto/ Centre for Addiction & Mental Health (Dec 2000)



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------