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

Are conflicting studies putting babies lives at risk?

Birth defects

How the same study with different conclusions could spell disaster for unborn and newborn babies.

Last year (2012) the BMJ published a study from 5 Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) based on more than 1.6 million infants born after gestational week 33 between 1996-2007.

This year (2013) JAMA published a report based on a study from all Nordic countries (Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden) at different periods from 1996 through 2007, also based on over 1.6 million births. So it’s a safe bet that the two studies are one.

Study Jan 2012. Here.

Study Jan 2013. Here.

The first study concluded that the risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn doubled when the mother was using an SSRI.

This year the same study concluded that SSRIs do not increase the risk of infant deaths. Articles, like this one, which stated that “Recent research has cancelled the claims by saying that SSRIs do not pose any sort of risk” are at risk of wrongly giving the impression that these drugs are safe to take in pregnancy. Wrong! Stating that this is ‘recent research’ further gives the impression that this is a recent study, suggesting new findings. Also wrong!

The study was undertaken by a group of researchers from the Karolinska University Hospital, Stockholm, and initially warned that pregnant women who are taking SSRIs could be doubling the risk of having a baby with serious birth defects. This year though, the same researchers (bar one, Örjan Ericsson) presumably played with the stats, and concluded “Taking SSRIs during pregnancy do not up the risk of infant death.”

What the JAMA study actually found was that women who took an SSRI did have higher rates of stillbirth and infant death than those who did not. Although according to co-author Dr. Olof Stephansson, “this was because of an increased proportion of smokers, older [maternal] age, diabetes and hypertensive disease.” That’s not quite the same as saying ‘SSRIs do not pose any sort of risk’.

What the researchers failed to take into account is that SSRIs are in fact linked to increased rates of voluntary terminations. This may be because of the ‘disinhibition’ effect of SSRIs but more importantly, the findings could be due to Nordic women terminating pregnancies with significant birth defects. Similarly, in 2001 a woman wrote to GlaxoSmithKline, asking whether it was possible for her to have a healthy baby while using their drug Paxil (Seroxat). She had previously terminated her first pregnancy after discovering the baby had a serious heart defect (truncus arteriosus), and would likely not survive. Internal GSK documents were found to have stated that this baby’s heart defect was ‘almost certainly linked to Paxil’. Drug companies including GSK and Lundbeck have had no choice but to admit that Paxil and Celexa can have teratogenic effects, so it begs the question, why are these researchers putting babies lives at risk?

According to Professor David Healy, 1 in 10 pregnant Irish women are on antidepressants, leading to about 40 extra babies with significant birth defects and 200 extra miscarriages each year. So in the last 20 years, antidepressants have caused birth defects in 800 Irish babies and 4000 miscarriages.

That’s some discrepancy in the figures! Can any pregnant woman afford to take the risk?

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

Premalex; Corrupt Lundbeck targeting women for profit.

So who will Lundbeck target next and who is going to stop them?

It seems that Lundbeck are getting into trouble again, this time with Doctor Lotte Hvas, a member of the Danish Council of Ethics. She says “It is crazy that the pharmaceutical company is allowed to do so. Giving antidepressants to healthy with all that it entails of medicalisation and side effects.” Here.

She is referring to Lundbeck’s launching of Premalex in Sweden for Pre-menstrual symptoms. Now ‘Premalex’ happens to be another word for Escitalopram/Cipralex/Lexapro, an SSRI anti-depressant or depressant, depending on which percentage of consumers a person happens to fall into. You remember escitalopram, the same drug Brennan Mc’Cartney was on for 4 days when he killed himself, as a result of a drug-induced suicide. Also the same drug as Citalopram, (as found by a Brussels Court) and the same drug that my son Shane was on for 17 days before his death.

I looked up the Patient Information Leaflet here, and was surprised/shocked to see what the idiots in Lundbeck were recommending.

“Cycle 1 +2 The usual starting dose is 10 mg taken on the day of expected ovulation. After 2-3 days, the dose may be increased to 20 mg daily if you do not have troublesome side effects. If you are bothered by side effects, continue taking 10 mg daily. Keep taking the required dose (10 mg or 20 mg daily) until the first menstruation. Then a break before the next expected ovulation, when the same dose repeated.

Cycle 3 onwards You can continue to Premalex under Cycle 1 +2 if this worked for you. If you are not bothered by side effects, you can start with full dose (20 mg daily) was already at the date of estimated ovulation and then take 20 mg daily throughout the treatment cycle until the first menstruation. Then make a break until the next ovulation, when the next treatment period begins.”

Can you believe that? It is widely reported that the suicide risk with ssri’s is most prevalent upon starting, discontinuing, or changing dosage (up or down). Then there is the withdrawal symptoms which can start as early as 8 hours here. Yet, this awful company are recommending that women with pre-menstrual symptoms take this drug for approx 2 weeks, stop for 2 weeks and start this dangerous drug again. Who, in their right mind approved this?? Is Lundbeck being allowed to put women’s lives at risk for profit? Where are the regulators? website state, Escitalopram; “Tell your doctor if you have worsening depression or suicidal thoughts during the first several weeks of treatment, or whenever your dose is changed.” Here. Is anyone under the impression that Lundbeck put this in the patient Information Leaflet for the craic? Bob Fiddaman, author of “The Evidence, However, Is Clear: The Seroxat Scandal” had this to say…”GSK did it with Seroxat too. To give an SSRi to women menstruating is basically adding fuel to a fire.”