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
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.
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
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?
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.
additional material to:
Canadian Association of University Teachers
Ottawa ON K2B 8K2
Or post to:
Department of Psychological Medicine
Bangor, North Wales, LL57 2PW
from Miller v Pfizer, Motus v Pfizer, Berman v Lilly, and other
cases are available on request from the above address.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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)