Let Them Eat Prozac

[Guest guest]

http://www.healyprozac.com/default.htm

 

 

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)

 

 

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

Exclusive Video Premiere - Britney Spears