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

The Lundbeck merry-go-round.

Click to view brochure

This November IFMAD are holding a symposium in Monte Carlo which is sponsored by an unrestricted grant from Lundbeck pharmaceuticals.

IFMAD is an abbreviation for ‘International Forum on Mood and Anxiety Disorders’ – an unfortunate abbreviation it has to be said. Their website is also sponsored by Lundbeck Pharmaceuticals.

According to their ‘Lundbeck sponsored’ website, IFMAD was founded in 2000 by ‘Professor Siegfried Kasper and Professor Stuart Montgomery’ and supported by a scientific committee from around the world.

So what, you may ask? What’s another pharma funded symposium? Why does it matter that the brochure has a huge advert for Lundbeck’s Cipralex/Lexapro? I dunno, you tell me, or maybe you could ask Brennan McCartney? No sorry, he’s dead, just because his doctor relied on the objectivity of the ‘experts’ advice, believed it, and subsequently prescribed Brennan a sample pack of Cipralex. You can read Brennan’s story here.

Coincidentally, both IFMAD founders, Siegfried Kasper (Austria) and Stuart A. Montgomery (UK), have previously ‘investigated’ Cipralex and both studies have had positive results here and here.

Irish Professor Timothy (Ted) Dinan is one of IFMADs scientific advisors, Again coincidentally, he is also a faculty member of the Lundbeck Institute here and a Lundbeck ‘Brain Explorer’ advisor, here. In fact Timothy et al also recently concluded a Cipralex study, this time in rodents, here. The first line states ‘Despite the clinical prevalence of the antidepressant escitalopram, over 30% of escitalopram-treated patients fail to respond to treatment’. Fairly objective statement you may think? In my opinion, that’s a very deceptive statement and expert spiel at its best. What it is actually saying is that Escitalopram (aka Cipralex/Lexapro) has clinical prevalence over other brands and that it works in almost 70% of cases.

Similarly, most of IFMAD’s scientific advisors (listed here), have participated in Cipralex studies and all (without exception) concluded positive results. Here’s a couple of examples: Christer Allgulander (Sweden) here, A.C Altamura (Italy) here, Michael Bauer (Germany) here and Naomi Fineberg (UK) here.

Again (Ahem) most likely coincidentally, at least 12 of IFMAD’s scientific advisors are also faculty members of the Lundbeck Institute: Dinan, Altamura, Boyer, Arango, Kennedy, Mendlewicz, Möller,  Papadimitriou, Rihmer, Stein, Vieta and Zohar.

Lars Von Knorring (Sweden) is an IFMAD scientific advisor. He lists Anne-Liis Von Knorring (relationship unknown) as one of his top co-authors here. She was the same professor who was accused of covering up the bad results of Lundbeck’s Celexa (same drug, different story) and actively misleading doctors and the public hereLars also did studies on Citalopram which once again proved positive; one example here.

Maybe I should get a life and forget that my son would be still alive if he didn’t take Citalopram (same drug as Cipralex), prescribed by doctors who believed in the ‘independent’ spiel dished out by ‘independent’ KOP’s (Key Opinion LiarsLeaders)? NO? You know what I think? I think that IFMAD is a Lundbeck creation, created to propagate the ‘independent’ KOP’s subjective pharma-funded belief in Lundbeck drugs. Yes IFMAD, IAM(VERYEFFING)MAD this lovely November morning! Lundbeck-funded propaganda at its worst.

Monte-Carlo (2002) here.

Monte-Carlo (2003) here.

Vienna (2005) here.

Vienna (2006) here.

Budapest (2007) here.

Vienna (2008) here.

Monaco (2009) here.

Vienna (2010) here.

Budapest (2011) here.

Barcelona (2012) here.

Monte Carlo (2013) here.

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

How many deaths in vortioxetine trials Torsten?

Numerous deaths from heart attack have been traced to the prescription drug Cipralex (Lexapro). Health agencies are aware but have been slow to warn the public. CBC 2012 Oct 1

View the video here.

Last week I spoke to Mike Schoger who lost his mom Trudy due to a single dose of Cipralex. He made a few important points which he wanted to share:

 1Lundbeck hides behind red tape and bureaucracy to circumvent blame, all the while knowing that its product can kill.  If they can continue to sell their product without repercussion, regardless of how many people die, they will.

2. Lundbeck continues to describe Cipralex as a COMPLETELY different drug, as did the psychiatrist that treated my mother. (Cipralex and Celexa are the same drug.)

3. This company is guilty of MURDER, and they will continue to do so as long as they can get away with it.  It’s all about their bottom line.

4. From the company’s 2010 – 2011 financial statements, 56-60% of total revenue is from Cipralex.  Any bad press on Cipralex will hurt their bottom line. They will try to sell as much of the drug as possible. The patent for Cipralex expires this year.

5. The only new drug they have in the pipeline to replace Cipralex is Vortioxetene. If they get bad press on both Citalopram and Cipralex, this will hurt their ability to get approval for Voritoxetene.

Be aware/beware, Lundbeck are getting desperate; A recent article here on Lundbeck’s latest offering ‘vortioxetine’ states that “Lundbeck is considered to have one of the highest patent cliffs in the pharma sector, with two thirds of its current revenues at risk of competition.

Torsten Madsen (Lundbeck director), the same one myself and Tony had the displeasure to meet in Copenhagen, is referring to Vortioxetene in the video below. He says ”Some of the studies that we conducted did not have the outcome that we had hoped for, so we speculate that, emm, the reason is due to a too low dosing of 21004″ Well that’s really reassuring isn’t it? Did not have the outcome that they hoped for? Tut, Tut; How many people have died in vortioxetine trials Torsten?


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

Trudy Schoger; death by Cipralex

Yesterday ‘CBC NEWS’ Canada did a segment on Mike Schoger’s mum Trudy.

Trudy Schoger died from a heart attack a few hours after taking her first dose of Lundbeck’s Cipralex (AKA Lexapro). What people should be aware of is that this drug (as found by a Brussels Court) is the same as Celexa/Cipramil and the same drug that Shane was on. The recent warnings recommend a dose no higher than 40mg’s (20mg’s for the elderly) due to the risk of heart problems, including death. Tony spoke to a man last month in Dundrum who was still on a 60mg’s dose. Doctors differ, patients die!

Not only can this Lundbeck drug cause suicide, depression and aggression; it can also cause sudden death. According to a ‘Freedom of Information’ response that I received from the Irish Medicines Board, this drug has also been reported to have caused ‘intrauterine’ death, suicide and sudden death in Ireland.

Short Extract here…

An Ontario man whose mother died from a heart attack after taking a popular anti-depressant believes she would still be alive if she’d been warned about the drug’s known dangers.

“She deserved better,” said Mike Schoger, an engineer from the Chatham area, whose 75-year old mother Trudy died in December, just hours after taking her first dose of Cipralex.

“Health Canada knew there were issues for months [before fully warning the public],” said Schoger.

Trudy Schoger was on a diuretic, but otherwise healthy, when she was prescribed Cipralex for depression. The day she died, her son found her writhing in pain on her bed.

“She took the first dose and 45 minutes later she started getting pain in her shoulders and neck and chest,” said Schoger. Hours later, his mother lay dead in hospital and he was in shock.

“You could say my mom was one of my best friends,” said Shoger. “The last thing I would have expected is for something like this to happen.”

Citalopram and escitalopram safety update.

Citalopram and Escitalopram: Risk of sudden death and more allegations of Kickback and Bribes.

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

Was Brennan McCartney let down by Lundbeck, his family doctor, or both?

Brennan McCartney was 18 years old. He did not have depression. He died by a drug-induced suicide 4 days after his family doctor gave him a sample pack of Cipralex/Lexapro. You can see this talented young man in a documentary in my older post here Link.

Professor Healy looked at Brennan’s case and said, “It seemed to be a very clear cut case. This was a young man, who if he hadn’t been put on the antidepressant that he was put on, wouldn’t have gone on to commit suicide.

These SSRI’s double the risk of suicide, so at the very least doctor’s should be aware of the difference between feeling sad and depression before prescribing them. It seems that Canadian doctors are not much different to Irish doctors, where in order to cover their own backsides, the patient will always be to blame. Of course, there is always the added advantage that they can’t answer back. The doctor who saw Brennan, who was suffering from a chest-cold, having never mentioned this in his initial notes, on further recollection, recalled Brennan as saying… “Oh, and I think I am depressed and need medication.” Does that sound like something an 18 year old would say? Blaming the patient doctor?

Brennan’s family doctor handed him a sample pack of Cipralex/Lexapro. This meant that Lexapro was not actually prescribed and therefore Brennan did not get to consult with a pharmacist. This lack of informed consent led to tragic consequences for Brennan.

Dr. Stephen Fleming, Professor of Psychology in the Faculty of Health at York University, Toronto, reviewed Brennan’s medical records and the family doctor’s response. He makes some crucial points regarding the importance of differentiating between grief and depression. He also makes an interesting observation; In the doctor’s initial notes, there is no mention of him giving Brennan samples of Cipralex.

In a later letter dated May, 2012, Brennan’s family doctor said “I recognize that my chart note for the visit (Nov, 2010) is inadequate. I realized this shortly after learning of Brennan’s death and on the advice of a peer, I wrote an additional note documenting what I remember happening.” He noted that he saw Brennan “because he was feeling ill with a cough, had a tight chest and difficulty breathing.” On examination, he diagnosed a bronchial infection, prescribed Biaxin and Symbicort, and urged that Brennan get a chest X-ray.  Then the doctor added material that was not in his original notes; He recalled that, as he was terminating the examination, Brennan stated, “Oh, and I think I am depressed and need medication.” In this later letter the doctor states that Brennan’s symptoms were consistent with a diagnosis of depression and noted the following symptoms: “Brennan was finding this time of year difficult as a cousin had died some years previous, He had ‘fairly recently’ broken up with his girlfriend, Brennan was ‘eating little’, tearful, was not sleeping properly, and he ‘felt terrible’. The doctor described all of these symptoms as ‘normal reactions’ and he reassured Brennan that he would ‘get through it’.

Dr Fleming: “In spite of the doctor normalizing his responses, apparently Brennan stated he just wanted to ‘feel better’. Brennan acknowledged the presence of suicidal ideation but added that he was not capable of such an act as he was close to his family.” Dr Fleming points out that although the doctor normalised Brennan’s responses, he still gave him samples of Cipralex. “It is crucial to make the distinction between a ‘normal’ reaction to loss (eg., the breakup of a relationship) and major depressive disorder” and said “on the basis of the doctor’s description of Brennan’s thoughts, feelings, and behaviour, it is my opinion that he does not meet the threshold for depression and ought not to have been prescribed an antidepressant.” He further stated “From the material made available to me, the doctor failed to distinguish sadness (the ‘normal’ response to misfortune) from major depressive disorder. Brennan’s symptoms are principally neurovegetative and can better be accounted for by grief associated with the loss of his relationship – in other words, a ‘normal’ reaction to his life circumstance as the doctor originally and correctly noted.”

The misdiagnosis of grief as major depressive disorder may result in the unnecessary prescription of antidepressant medications.


PS. I contacted Dr Fleming and asked if he would answer some questions regarding Brennan’s treatment. He’s a really nice man and very forthcoming…

Q. Do you think that Brennan’s doctor got it wrong.

A. I think Brennan’s symptoms were not consistent with a major depressive disorder.  He ‘got it wrong’.

Q. Do you think that Brennan received a sufficient ‘duty of care’?

A. The distinction between sadness and depression is critical.  I don’t know the definition of ‘duty of care’ – he wasn’t diagnosed correctly.  In fact, Brennan did not meet the criteria for any psychiatric disorder.

Q. Are you under the impression that the add-in “Oh, and I think I’m depressed and need medication” was an after thought put in by the doctor to cover his own backside?

A. In a word, yes.

Q. Do you think it’s a statement that Brennan would have said or a lie?

A. It sounds like an odd utterance coming from an adolescent male. 

Q. What would you have done in the same circumstances?

A. I would have listened carefully to what Brennan was saying, made the distinction between sadness and depression (in other words, look at the context of his symptoms), I would not have recommended anti-depressants but rather talk therapy.  And, if I didn’t have the expertise to help him, then refer him to someone who does.  He didn’t know what he didn’t know.

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

Brennan McCartney; 4 days on Cipralex/Lexapro

Last Saturday, May 5th, a Canadian tv channel aired a documentary which partly concerned the story of Brennan McCartney. His story is at 7 minutes on this Youtube video.

Brennan McCartney was 18 years old when he went to the doctor complaining of a chest cold. He was also in the middle of breaking up with his girlfriend. He was given a prescription for his chest cold. He also came home with a sample pack of Lundbeck’s Cipralex, also known as Lexapro.

4 days after starting Cipralex he began to show signs of agitation. He drove down to the local store where he bought some rope. He hanged himself in a local park.

The family sought out a psychologist, Leslie Balmer, to review Brennan’s case. She concluded that there was nothing to suggest that he was sad or having a tough time. There was no ‘red flags’.

Psychiatrist Roger McIntyre said he has seen these effects with antidepressants first hand; “They report to us, within the first few weeks, a worsening of their distress, they report agitation, in many cases irritability they didn’t have before.”

Brennan’s parents (just like us) believe that Cipralex caused Brennan to commit suicide. Brennan’s mum Nancy, said “it is important to note that Brennan had no history of mental health issues.  He had no substance abuse concerns and was not clinically depressed.” Lundbeck again said that there is ‘no evidence’ that their drug increases the risks of suicide. LIARS!

Professor David Healy looked at Brennan’s case. He said “It seemed to be a very clear cut case. This was a young man, who if he hadn’t been put on the antidepressant that he was put on, wouldn’t have gone on to commit suicide.”

How many more Lundbeck victims will there be before this drug is investigated? Why are the FDA and the EMA not doing their job? What are they regulating? The pharma money? I won’t even bother mentioning the useless (Pharma funded) Irish Medicines Board.

What about all the Coroner’s who have expressed concerns about celexa (found in a Brussles Court to be the same as Cipralex): Magistrate Jacqueline M. Milledge, Aus, Coroner Ian Smith Cumbria, U.K, Birmingham coroner Aiden Cotter U.K, Brecon coroner Geraint Williams, and our own ex-pathologist Declan Gilsenan.


Some more information relating to Lundbeck’s suicidal drugs….

In October 2011, a Brussels court held that Cipralex was the same product as celexa under Articles 3(c)-(d) of the SPC-Regulation.

cipramil (celexa) stories,, lundbeck

Brussels court finds Escitalopram/Citalopram to be the same product.

BE – Ratiopharm (Teva) and Tiefenbacher v. Lundbeck (escitalopram)

Brussels court holds escitalopram to be the same product as citalopram under Articles 3(c)-(d) of the SPC-Regulation, Brussels Commercial Court, 3 October 2011 Link.

When the licence for Citalopram (Cipramil, Celexa) was coming to an end, Lundbeck launched their new wonder drug Escitalopram (Lexapro, Cipralex) and marketed this supposed new drug as a better and superior version of Citalopram. This has been proved once again to be fraudulent. So having been proved guilty of lying again and making billions from a product that was fraudulently licenced (without getting into how many people have died from its suicide ideation side effect) will the EU be taking a case against Lundbeck? What about the FBI? Will they be investigating Forest Labs who market Citalopram and Escitalopram in the US and incidentally have numerous ongoing cases for people who have suicided on this drug?

As far back as 2003, this had been reported in The British Medical Journal…

“The Danish drug company Lundbeck breached the UK industry code of practice in the way it advertised the successor to its top selling product, the antidepressant citalopram (Cipramil), the drug industry’s watchdog has ruled. The company claimed that its new offering, escitalopram (Cipralex), was more effective than citalopram, even though the two drugs have exactly the same active ingredient”. Link.

It didn’t take a genius to work it out either…

Lundbeck have a habit of lying and it was no surprise that they had lied to us at our meeting in Copenhagen. I have said already that we were shocked when we questioned Dr. Madsen and Mr. Schroll about the drug trials that they are doing on children as young as 7, their answer being that Lundbeck were mandated to do drug trials on children, even for adult medication. Well, I e-mailed the Danish Medicines Board about my concerns and surprise, surprise, Lundbeck were lying!


Leonie                    Why are you testing this drug which is well-known to be detrimental to children on children as young as 7 years of age in a drug trial? Citalopram and Escitalopram?

Dr. Madsen               Em, we have done a number of trials and will do a number of trials. Eh, by one I can speak to the situation now, em, we’re mandated to investigate em, pharmaceutical effects in children also in order to advance the understanding of em, this treatment mortality, also on children.

Leonie                       So you actually intend to keep doing trials on 7 year olds, yeah?

Mr. Schroll                We are not able to get approval of new drugs if we don’t test it in…

Leonie                       So you have to test them on children? Oh, of course you are looking for U.18’s as well, aren’t you, to make more money Yeah?

Dr. Madsen               I think that is …..a certain out of this but per, per, eh, the Medicines Board, we would be mandated to do eh, trials, clinical studies in children.

Leonie                       So you’re still going to do them then, yeah?

Dr. Madsen               If we want to have eh, drugs approved in Europe, then we will probably have to, yes.

Leonie                       You have to? That’s if you want them, want them approved for U.18’s you mean?

Dr. Madsen             No.  Also if you want adult drugs approved.

Leonie                       If you want to have a tablet or medication approved in an adult population, you have to, eh you have to trial them on 7 year olds?

Dr. Madsen               Correct

Oct 11, 2011

Danish Medicines Agency – “Pharmaceutical companies are only required to conduct clinical trials in children for marketing approval of a drug if it is intended for use in children”.


cipramil (celexa) stories,, lundbeck

Lundbeck under investigation again.

The latest investigation into Lundbeck’s wrongdoing was done by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism, London. Full Article by Melanie Newman… BOIJ.

The Bureau of Investigation wrote a recent article about Cipramil (Celexa in the U.S) and Cipralex (Lexapro here) which is basically the same product, but one happens to be the newer version which Lundbeck introduced just as Cipramil’s Licence was running out. The one major difference is that the newer drug costs more than 11 times that of the older version and the NHS are paying £14.91 compared to just £1.31 for the older one. Makes me wonder just how much the HSE (Health Service Executive) in Ireland are paying?

Was trial of blockbuster anti-depressant truly independent?

The NHS is spending almost £25 million a year on a blockbuster anti-depressant drug despite evidence that it has little clinical advantage over an almost identical medication which costs a fraction of the price.

An investigation by the Bureau of Investigative Journalism for The Independent has raised questions about the only head to head independent study to find evidence that Cipralex is clinically more effective in treating depression than its out-of-patent predecessor, Cipramil. Both have a similar main ingredient but Cipralex costs £14.91 compared to just £1.31 for generic Cipramil. The investigation sheds light on the lengths that  pharmaceutical companies go to extend the lives of drugs whose patents are about to run out. 

Questioning effectiveness
Cipralex or Lexapro, as it’s known in the US, is one of the most widely prescribed anti-depressants in the world, but has been criticised for being little different from Cipramil, whose patent expired in 2002. There has only ever been one independent direct comparative study which suggests that Cipralex is clinically more effective.

The Bureau’s investigation has now established connections between an individual working for Lundbeck, the Danish company that makes both Cipralex and Cipramil, and Arbacom, a Russian company that sponsored the independent head to head trial…Full Article.


This is not the first time Lundbeck have found themselves having to defend their dubious practises

Lundbeck have already told myself and Tony that they have and will again, do drug trials on children as young as seven. They have blatently lied to Irish TV stating that their drugs do not cause suicide or violence, when they have already admitted to the same in another country…Link.  They have also been accused of comitting medical Fraud and Bribery…Link. 

Lundbeck have also been accused of accused of hidden advertising, which by the way, is obviously not an offence here or there would be a lot of Irish so-called helplines shut down…Link. There seems to be no shortage of paid Irish puppets extolling the virtues of Lundbeck’s drugs while at the same time denying the very serious side-effects!

Talking about increasing the price of their product for Premature babies from $78 to $1,500, Lundbecks Vice President said, “We can price these almost anywhere we want given the product profiles”…Link.

Lundbeck found guilty of breach of advertising rules. Link.