cipramil (celexa) stories,, lundbeck, Newspaper and internet articles

How safe is Lundbeck’s new drug LU AA21004?

Lundbeck’s PR department are going into overdrive at the moment. Due to the patents expiring on Celexa and Lexapro, Lundbeck are heavily reliant on finding the next block-buster drug. They seem to think they have found it in LU AA21004. This drug is also known as vortioxetine and according to Lundbeck, 8 out of 10 trials have shown the drug to be effective in depression. The information on Lundbeck’s proposed new drug on the Clinical Trials website include 5 clinical trials conducted in India, here.

It’s unfortunate that in the same week that Lundbeck are found to be flouting the rules by advertising their “anti-anxiety” drug Deanxit contrary to Indian law, it has also emerged that the company may have been ghostwriting their own material.

A report published this week by the Parliment of India has found; In case of sertindole (Serdolect of Lundbeck), an anti-psychotic drug, three experts located at three different places (a Professor and Head of the Department of Psychiatry of Stanley Medical College, Chennai; Professor of SKP Psychiatric Nursing Home, Ahmedabad and a Professor and Head of the Department of Psychiatry of LTM Medical College, Mumbai) wrote letters of recommendation in nearly word-to-word, identical language and not surprisingly all of them used the incorrect full form of DCGI in the address! Is such a coincidence possible unless the person behind the scene who actually drafted the letters is one and the same person?  Full report.

Now, one would have to consider, if Lundbeck are continuously using corrupt practices in India, as I have previously shown with the licencing of Deanxit here, how can their findings with LU AA21004 be relied upon?


Deanxit is another of lundbeck’s controversial and dangerous drugs and another example of Lundbeck committing corruption, deceit and fraud within the approval process.

Lundbeck lied to get approval for this drug by stating that at one meeting, 7 leading psychiatrists recommended that the drug should be registered for sale in Sri Lanka, when in fact journalist Anne Lea Landsted was able to prove that 3 of the psychiatrists had never even been at the meeting! Her letter can be found here…Link.  Lundbeck later apologised and offered to withdraw the drug from the Sri Lankan market, but surprisingly, it’s still there!


Carl Hugod is a medical expert who worked in the Danish National Board of Health. He was contacted by two journalists investigating Lundbeck’s Cipramil/Celexa. Carl agreed to look through the scientific papers which Lundbeck submitted for the licencing of this drug. What he found was that scientifically, the evidence was very poor and there was nothing to show that this drug was any better than other ssri’s and in fact could possibly be worse. He said that on a scientific level this work would not have been accepted in a university and was another case of Lundbeck doing whatever was needed to get a drug licenced, by fraud and corruption. Lundbeck manipulated the data from the Cipramil studies to show that this drug was better than other ssri’s when in fact it clearly wasn’t. Carl made a complaint to the board of scientific fraud and said“In my opinion the National Board of Health should never have been satisfied with this utterly disgraceful lack of scientific documentation concerning the drug’s effectiveness.” He publicly voiced his concerns that some professionals on the licencing board were being paid by “The Lundbeck Fund” which Lundbeck said was an entirely different company…! Link.


Lexapro was another dubious example of the way Lundbeck got through the approval process. This drug came about immediately after the patent for Celexa ran out. A Brussels Court found both to be the same product here. The Bureau of Investigative Journalism also raised questions whether the trial was truly independent or if Lundbeck’s connections with Arbacom, a Russian company that sponsored the ‘independent’ trial was an issue here. The BMJ reported that Lundbeck breached the UK industry ‘code of practice’ by claiming that its new offering, escitalopram (Lexapro/Cipralex), was more effective than citalopram (Celexa), even though the two drugs have exactly the same active ingredient here.

Then there is the small matter that Lundbeck is currently being investigated by the European Commission. The EC has opened a formal antitrust investigation to examine potential breaches of EU rules on restrictive business practices and on the abuse of a dominant market position under Articles 101 and 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). Link.

So considering Shane and all the other deaths associated with these drugs, can Lundbeck be trusted when they talk about the efficacy of their latest invention LU AA21004?

7 thoughts on “How safe is Lundbeck’s new drug LU AA21004?”

  1. I can see the same thing happening with their latest drug, more and more death and destruction. Then when the parents of the victim make an issue out of their child’s use of the drug they will spout the usual “it’s the disease not the drug”. But it looks like Lundbeck’s corruption is catching up on them. There is only so many brown envelopes they can hand out or children they can kill before their reputation precedes them.


    1. “The weight of current evidence suggests that, in general, antidepressants are neither safe nor effective; they appear to do more harm than good.” Is anyone surprised anymore?
      How many children (and adults) will these drugs kill though before the truth is uncovered?


      1. Calling any of these drugs Rat Poison would be unfair to the makers of Rat Poison because they label and market their product for its correct intended use. The FDAC is a joke so long as it allows this to continue.

        I had to change the name of my post on Racketeering because the search engines weren’t picking it up.

        Given that US Federal Criminal Law is being violated by virtually everyone involved in this abomination the only option remaining to them is to Deny, Deny, Deny, ….. and Bluster.

        Because the penalties are no laughing matter.

        Understanding US 18C95 Sec 1958 is key to understanding these Federal Criminal Laws too.

        Refer yourself to Sections 241 & 242.

        Violation of them in this question is incorporated into and through 1958, and as I said the penalties are No laughing matter.

        Which is WHY I’ve made so many references to Nazi Psychiatry. The industry’s ‘Illlnesses’ are Political, not Medical.

        Unlike Mr Fiddaman and Yourself I have Yet to receive any threats from the firm of Dewey, Cheatem & Howe, but one Never knows. So far, what I’ve seen appears to have no more actual teeth than the threat of Civil Action for violating US Copyright Law, like the warnings on DVD movies.

        Racketeering and Civil Rights Violations however are a whole ‘nuther kettle of fish.

        And these Damn drugs are No different than tying someone behind a pickup truck and dragging them down a dirt road.


    1. Wow….that’s very interesting. Lundbeck are no stangers to ‘dodgy antidepressant research’ either and what a surprise…Citalopram didn’t pass the test. Isn’t it a pity that the drug regulators didn’t do their job properly before these drugs were launched onto the market?
      As you’re no doubt aware, a Brussels Court found Citalopram to be the same as Escitalopram, so maybe it’s an ‘open’ secret among the drug industry! Disgraceful…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s