Steve Connor: The workings of grey matter are still a very grey area

I was just reading this:

Steve Connor: The workings of grey matter are still a very grey area

and have some comments...

1. This business of certain parts of the brain being allocated to certain functions is questionable. The concept of "neuroplasticity," suggests that a brain, damaged by an accident or stroke, etc, may rewire itself, whereupon the motor functions responsible for operating the muscles of the left side of the face, for example, are allocated to another part of the brain, completely spontaneously.
2. No two people, as far as I can tell, manipulate information in the same way, and yet all people are more or less equally capable intellectually (put another way: I've yet to meet a stupid person, although I've met many who believed they were and behaved accordingly). This phenomenon is sometimes known as "difference of opinion". As such, the brain appears to be fluid in its operation - differences in the conclusions that people draw may be impacted by the objective that they may have established for themselves; and the importance/relevance they attach to the different factors presented to them, given the objective.
3. Steve Connor is correct: the only thing we have to study the brain is, well, the brain. The way to study the brain is to study a person's train of thought, if one has the patience. In this way, one may map a person's thought processes quite effectively, I've found, always remembering that a person's ideas, as presented, are merely a snapshot in time, and ought not to be viewed as immutable and unchanging (ie, people shouldn't be bound to their every utterance!).
4. Studying the physical brain tells one very little about the brain's operational methodologies (which as I wrote are probably peculiar to each individual): one could look at Einstein's pickled brain for a hundred years, and still not uncover what it was that sparked his discoveries, nor what caused him to pursue them in a way that allowed him to communicate what he'd found to others.

In the final analysis, one learns when one needs to learn for one's own purposes - anything else is unnecessary effort, I've found.

BBC Radio 4 - File on 4

I hear that the Beeb is busy kicking AZ's arse over the allegations of side effects being downplayed, off-label marketing, etc:

BBC Radio 4 - File on 4: AstraZeneca/Seroquel

It's an old story, but nice to see that it's getting some mainstream coverage. At the end of the day, AZ will not be prosecuted, and it will not change its culture, such that this sort of thing doesn't happen, again - not that I'm suggesting for one moment that AZ is a bunch of sleazy, little fraudsters, or anything. So, that means that the only way to approach the problem appears to be to warn potential patients that AZ and its ilk may very well be completely untrustworthy, and to avoid its products.

Shit sticks, as they say.

Shares tumble as Obama takes on banks

I have a confession to make... I read this, and laughed my fucking arse off. For a whole variety of different reasons.

Shares tumble as Obama takes on banks

For some reason, the very mention of "hedge funds" turns me into a pitiless blob of anti-matter. So, I suppose I should mention "funds hedge," just to make myself feel a bit better about it.

Sobibor survivor: 'I polished SS boots as dying people screamed'

I'm not sure what I feel about this, to be honest. I think that there's a risk in assuming that the motivation of Demjanjuk would be the same as, say, Heydrich, or Eichmann. Of course, there are those who would argue that the distinction between one murderer and another, in terms of motive, is irrelevant: the very fact that they undertook the action they did renders them identical, both morally and legally. I don't believe that that's true, but I am in the minority.

Sobibor survivor: 'I polished SS boots as dying people screamed'

By curious coincidence, I watched a movie (Conspiracy, 2001), last night, which dramatized the events of the Wannsee Conference. I don't know how accurate this movie is, historically. It is based on the edited (by Eichmann), minutes of the meeting, a copy of which was found by American investigators in the files of one of the delegates, after the War.

The thing that strikes me from this, though, is that there was no discussion - the decision had been made. The purpose of the meeting was to inform those who would need to be involved, and ensure that their agreement was obtained. Those who wavered, initially (Dr Friedrich Kritzinger, for example), are left in no doubt as to the position they would place themselves in, were they to object - according to the movie, at least. Does this make any difference - that some of the delegates may have been coerced into complicity?

I don't know. I'm just glad that I'm not Thomas Blatt, for a whole bunch of reasons.

This'll make you laugh...

My wife received a text message from my niece at some unspecified point in the (presumably), recent past.* I don't communicate with any of my family - they have nothing of any interest to say to me, and consequently I have nothing of any interest to say to them.

Anyway, it seems that my sister was thinking about trying to make contact with me, and sent my niece as emissary (but not to me, you'll note - apparently a game of Chinese Whispers is required). It seems my sister is concerned as to the reception she'll get if she tries to mend bridges, or whatever it is she has in mind (it must be four or five years since I last heard from her), and with good reason, too. I understand that it is appropriate and amusing to reject people who are trying to reach out, and this is a theory I look forward to testing.

And Ruth, dear Ruth, it wasn't my fault Dad left. Not even this evil machine was capable of achieving that at the age of two.

* I should note that while I've stated this as a fact, my wife merely told me that my niece had texted. Given that quite a lot of the things that come out of my wife's mouth, erm, strech credibility, if I may understate it like that, my niece may never have done any such thing, and my sister may never have entertained the idea of contacting me. Amazing the false paths we can be led down, when we rely on reported information, isn't it?

World's dementia to double every 20 years

Looks like I found something more interesting to think about quicker than I had anticipated...

DSM defines dementia as an "overall decline in intellectual function".

World's dementia to double every 20 years

Well, now... What's twice 100%?

Incidentally, my opinion is that everybody's brains are still working just fine. It's just that there are any number of legal and societal rules (ie, written, customary and some that are, seemingly, secret (until one breaches them)), which forbid free thought. The "forbidden" areas of thought become stunted.

In fact, there is very little thought that is encouraged, it seems to me. The upshot is that the less one permits a person to think for themselves, the less they will think for themselves, the more inclined they will be to adopt other "sanctioned" views, and so on.

You've got the system you deserve.

And, yes, I refuse to address myself to any more of your piddling, monkey problems. Quid pro quo, Claris - did you think I wouldn't reciprocate your selfishness, too? Did you really think I would go on giving as you took, without acknowledgement? Fuck you, monkey people.

MK-ULTRA

Google it for yourself...

I've just reminded myself of this, and thought it appropriate to remind everybody else of what the pharmaceutical industry was, and most probably still is. "Grotesque" is the word that springs to mind, most readily. Remember this, Eli: nobody's so big that they can avoid a fall. And the Shrubs aren't in the White House, anymore, so who's going to protect you, now?

Matt

"You wouldn't believe the sheer size of the conspiracy"

- Bill Bliss (my former "counsellor")

I may not be able to believe it, but I can imagine it, which is probably more valuable.

Matt

Addenda:
"You're the only innocent one in all this." - Simon Ruddick (my former "employer")

[screaming] "I don't want to think like you." - (my "wife")

Ignored: the mentally ill killed by drugs that are meant to help them

I just saw this, whilst looking for something else:

Ignored: the mentally ill killed by drugs that are meant to help them

Rufus May, a clinical psychologist, said yesterday: "The real tragedy about Daniel's death is that it symbolises how little things have changed in psychiatry. Young lives are still being wasted because we fail to listen to people and simply prescribe powerful drugs with little regard for their physical well being. The fact we continue to see people with schizophrenia as fundamentally different means we think it is acceptable to treat them differently."

No doubt it wasn't the drugs, nor the ignorance, but his "condition" that killed Daniel. At least, that enables everybody concerned to wash their hands of responsibility, whilst placing all of it on the shoulders of the person least able to carry it (Daniel), who is, conveniently, also the one person unable to express an opinion as to where the fault lay, now. Nice and tidy. Fucking halfwits.

Of course, not all of us are vulnerable, even if we continue to be ignored.

Matt

So long...

I'm going on holiday, shortly, so no Book of the Week. I may post, again, or I may not. To be honest, I think this blog has served it's therapeutic purpose.

Matt

Scientific Misconduct Blog: Dean Edward J Wing and integrity at Brown Medical School

I've a certain interest in this story - I posted about it, when I was writing about the Great Genius Who Is Professor Marty Keller. Aubrey seems to have decided to press the issue - and good for him. Brown never did bother to respond, when I sent them an advance copy of Ghost in the Machine. I imagine that they were busy with other things. Sweeping. And rugs, I should think.

Scientific Misconduct Blog: Dean Edward J Wing and integrity at Brown Medical School

Create the Life You Deserve

Just under three years ago, I attended a NLP Practitioner's course, operated by a company called Inner Compass. Inner Compass has since gone into receivership, although the name has been acquired, and is still being used to sell goods and services. As far as I can establish, most of the people who were employed by Inner Compass are still in position. Hmmm. That sounds like a phoenix company, to me. Still.

Anyway, the Company failed me on the course, for reasons that it was unwilling to go into any detail over. That is, I was told that I was "seeking significance," although what this amounted to was not explained. Now, I don't think people should go around throwing around language, when they are unable to detail what they're talking about, because then it makes them look incompetent, but still.

So, having paid over 3,500 quid, I have no call on the Company to provide me with the certificate, nor to find me a place on another course, as was promised by the then owner of the Company, Andy Harrington, who still consults for the new company. Not within the Law, anyway (but in Equity? Well, that's a different matter). As "Sherry," the person who took my telephone call this morning, put it "your three and half thousand pounds doesn't exist, anymore". Right, thanks for that, Sherry. Actually, it does exist: it's in Andy Harrington's back pocket, and I can quite legitimately trace it all the way there.

So, I am currently awaiting the largesse of the new owner, who, I am assured, is very keen to maintain the good name of Inner Compass. I imagine we'll establish just how keen he is.

Matt

Related link:
The "all new" Inner Compass

Recording: British Paxil Users Meet With Brit FDA

Furious Seasons has posted the audio recording of the recent meeting between representatives of the Nine Elms Massive and patient advocates. I've made a couple of comments on there, if you're interested (and even if you're not interested, I've still made a couple of comments), but the upshot is that the Establishment has decided to defend its position - there is no attempt being made to address the issues with the industry that several commentators and patient advocates have raised. It seems to be about justifying the status quo, when the status quo is shit.

I listened to the recording for 36 minutes, and I was so disgusted with the whole fucking thing that I refused to expose myself to it, any further. It sounded very much like a PR exercize, nothing more. If the MHRA was really listening, it would be including its biggest (or at least most vocal), critics in the discussion and it would be addressing the issues that they raise, instead of justifying the machinations of the system, which, in their totality, I argue achieve precisely the opposite of what it is argued is being achieved.

What is being done to address the way in which companies have complete control over the trial of drugs, statistical analysis and writing of papers? What is being done to establish regulatory rules and guidelines, which fill the gaps left by legislation? Will the UK regulator address the question of its apparently flimsy assessment process - for example, why does it accept those dodgy academic papers as valid evidence of safety and efficacy, when there is evidence that this business of "information laundering" renders academia unreliable, to say the least?

Oh, it's all bollox - the halfwits don't want to change a damn thing, because it's not in their interests to change anything, and because they don't know how.

Matt

Clinical trials and drug promotion: Selective reporting of study 329

A paper by Jureidini, McHenry and Mansfield on the subject of Protocol 329. Dr Jureidini, you may remember, was one of the original critics of the paper that the Great Genius Who Is Professor Martin Keller "wrote," back in 2001. The paper is available on Healthy Skepticism, but has attracted attention from Fidders and Clinical Psych, the latter making the particularly pertinent observation that the various statistical shennanigans that took place in order to turn, quite magically, Paxil from a pile of kak into a pile of kak with a bow on top is anything but an isolated incident (although, I find that all magic is based on sleight of hand).

I'm not a statistician, and so I don't fully understand the nature of the argument, although I do understand that changing what one claims to have been looking for, after one has the results in front of one, probably isn't very scientific. No, to quote the Great Genius Who Is Professor Martin Keller, "I'm better with words"! And I'm still struck by the need that James McCafferty (the Paxil Phase 4 project manager, and a SKB employee), perceived to tell Sally Laden (the ghostwriter) that she oughtn't to be making grand claims as to safety, when she was also documenting lots of adverse events.

McCafferty and Rosemary Oakes, a senior statistician at SKB, who worked on the project, got their names on the paper, when it was published. Call me old-fashioned, but I should have thought that having the Company run the trial, crunch the numbers, and then write the paper, informing people of what the numbers meant, before using that paper as an adjunct to a marketing authorization application (and have the regulator accept said paper as valuable evidence), is probably open to abuse. What? Oh, yeah: it was abused, but I should state for legal reasons that it is only my opinion that this was abused. As such, it is merely my opinion that I cannot conceive of a more flagrant fraud.

Matt

Book of the Week - The Autumn of the Patriarch

At the suggestion of a friend, this is to be the first in a regular series, wherein I'm going to let you know what I like to read, and maybe why. I'll quote an excerpt, and then you can please yourself whether you go and get yourself a copy!

...When the cataclysm had passed he still heard the distant music of the windless afternoon, he went on killing mosquitoes and with the same slaps trying to kill the katydids in his ears which hindered him in his thinking, he still saw the light of the fires on the horizon, the lighthouse that tinted him with green every thirty seconds through the slits in the blinds, the natural breathing of daily life which was getting to be the same again while his death was changing into a different death more like so many others in the past, the incessant torrent of reality which was carrying him off toward the no man's land of compassion and oblivion, God damn it, fuck death he exclaimed, and then he left his hiding place exalted by the certainty that his grandest hour had struck, he went through the sacked salons dragging his thick phantom feet in the midst of the ruins of his former life in the shadows that smelled of dying flowers and burial candlewicks, he pushed open the door of the cabinet room, heard through the smoky air the thin voices around the long walnut table, and saw through the smoke that all the ones he wanted to be there were there, the liberals who had sold the federalist war, the conservatives who had bought it, the generals of the high command, three of his cabinet ministers, the archbishop primate and the Ambassador Schontner, all together in the one single plot calling for the unity of all against the despotism of centuries so that they could divide up among themselves the booty of his death, so absorbed in the depths of greed that no one noticed the appearance of the unburied president who gave a single blow with the palm of his hand on the table, and shouted aha! and that was all he had to do, for when he lifted his hand from the table the stampede of panic was over and all that was left in the room were the overflowing ashtrays, the coffee mugs, the chairs flung on the floor, and my comrade of a lifetime General Rodrigo de Aguilar in battle dress, minute, impassive, wafting away the smoke with his one hand and indicating to him to drop to the floor general sir because now the fun is going to begin, and they both dropped to the floor at the instant the machine guns' death jubilation started up by the front of the building, the butcher feast of the presidential guard who with great pleasure and great honor general sir carried out his fierce orders that no one should escape alive from the meeting where treason was being hatched...

I'm a big fan of Marquez. I don't know what made me think of this book, though. Something to do with deception and illusion, perhaps? It's a recurring theme, of late. Perhaps somebody should have realized before now that when a tyrant takes charge, he spends his time in power turning his dominion into a replica of himself. Just think what Mugabe's mind looks like. How he neglects himself - or most of himself, anyway!

Fluoxetine - Part III

I thought about writing a caustic preamble to this latest missive from the MHRA, but then the whole thing's so fucking tedious that, frankly, I felt that it was beneath me to devote the requisite mental energy for a truly lacerating introduction. Anyway, the MHRA has nothing to say. Seemingly, it is a body with no knowledge and no ideas, and no hope of securing either of those things. Either that, or it's as corrupt as fuck. This to the Ministry of Truth, copied to Vara, blind copied to lots of people (the MHRA's Great Words of Wisdom are emboldened, as usual):


Dear Sir or Madam,

Thank you for your prompt reply, and for taking patient concerns over the drugs that they use so seriously. Particularly those patients who are giving you earache over drugs that they believe to be snake oil remedies.

The issue of the way in which the MHRA assesses drugs is a new one, in that the MHRA has not chosen ever to answer the query, in the first place. I don't believe that the way in which drugs are assessed for marketing in the UK could be any more substantive. Perhaps you could give me a checklist of "substantive" items that the MHRA would be prepared to answer - it has already refused to confirm its assessment process, and the benefit to be taken from both fluoxetine and paroxetine? Frankly, I'm struggling to understand what it will discuss.

In fact, on that note, I rather suspect that the MHRA has nothing at all to discuss with me, on any subject. And I rather think I know why, but that would be for another day. Regrettably, that means that I have nothing to discuss with you (pl), because that seems to be the only level of agreement that we can reach. I regret that your methodology is anything but sophisticated - tant bloody pis!

Best regards


Matthew Holford




***********************************
Subject: RE: FOI 08/064 - FW: Fluoxetine
Date: Mon, 21 Apr 2008 13:04:43 +0100
From: info@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
To: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk


Dear Mr Holford

Thank you for your e-mail of 19 March.

You reference one of the documents we previously sent you, and in particular the phrase "if used in its specified way"; and ask whether this phrase was included by a scientist or a lawyer. The document which you refer to was in fact developed through a consultation process which included people working for the MHRA itself as well as a range of stakeholders from outside the Agency (including patients and consumers). To attribute any one particular phrase or part of the document to a specific individual is therefore difficult and potentially misleading.

In relation to the other questions you pose, we have nothing to add to our earlier response. Unless you raise substantive new matters, we will not be responding to further correspondence on this issue.

Kind regards

MHRA Information Centre

MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?

Fidders has been intrigued by the apparent confluence and coincidence of interest shown by the D'oh, the MHRA and GSK's lawyers (please see the link, below). I thought it would be quite a sweet idea to contact Steptoe's, and put a human face on patient dissent! This to Andrew Bloom, a partner at Steptoe's, copied to Fidders and Breckenridge, blind copied to lots of people:

From: m.holford@hotmail.co.uk
To: abloom@steptoe.com
CC: [redacted]@blueyonder.co.uk; [redacted]@mhra.gsi.gov.uk
Subject: MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2008 08:41:11 +0000

Dear Andrew,

I wonder if you could forward this email to the person responsible for "reviewing" Mr Fiddaman's blog?

Perhaps you will be aware that staff at the MHRA have been forbidden from visiting the site, aside from one or two authorized persons, that is? We are interested at the correlation between visits by the MHRA, Steptoe's and the D'oh. We are also interested in that, whilst it ought to be trivial for the MHRA to have its IT people establish which user station it is that is visiting Mr Fiddaman's site, it appears not to be concerned with the breach of its own ban. Plus ca change, plus ca le meme chose, I imagine!

MHRA - Has the penny finally dropped?

In any event, I am concerned that there is an inequality of bargaining power, here. That is to say, we have significantly more knowledge in this area than you do. We regret this state of affairs with all the sincerity that our hearts have to offer you. If you are interested in having the deficiency in your intelligence remedied, we would be happy to oblige.

Howsoever it may be, you will have noted, I imagine, that Mr Fiddaman is doing nothing other than describing the world from his perspective, as are we all, I imagine. We would regret any attempt by Steptoe's to try to characterize it in any other way. I trust that we understand one another. Incidentally, if you believe that you have won an argument with us, at any point, please advise, and we will be happy to disabuse you. We imagine that you are very bright guys, but you are not in our league. Kindly do not contradict me on that point.

Finally, I would be grateful if you would not take to making allegations of defamation, harassment, and whatnot, in our direction. It's really quite tiresome. And untrue. As I wrote, before, we are merely describing the world from our perspective. How you receive our perspective is a matter for you to address, not us.

Best regards


Matthew Holford

I've just posted this as a comment...

...on the Pharmalot thread that covers the Bob Fiddaman intimidation story, and I thought it summed up my position so succinctly that I'd post it, here, too:

Former pharma Marketing Exec wrote:
“…In the end, when you connect all the dots - and the dots always get connected - you can actually see the extent the management went to in order to cover up and deceive the very market they serve. The patients, their own scientific advisory board, their KOL’s…”

Yes, and yet, despite this evident and flagrant abuse of trust, it seems that no significant effort is being made to remedy the deficiencies of the system that permitted it to happen, in the first place. There will be a bit of superficial tweaking, obviously, but there will be no attempt to change the culture of secrecy and blind eye.

There is no argument, here: the drug doesn’t work in any but the tiniest proportion of depressed people. And it’s dangerous. The Company knew both these things, but continued to press the drug on an unwitting public. The only thing that saves GSK from a very public humiliation in the criminal courts, is, I suspect “the public interest,” as perceived.

That is, I imagine, the damage to the UK economy (loss of jobs - and people are already being laid off in Eire, where the drug is manufactured), and, more pointedly, loss of public confidence in a lie that should never have been peddled, when there is no alternative treatment that people are willing to consider, are the things that will be used as justification for doing nothing meaningful, at all. Meanwhile, people such as Bob Fiddaman will continue to receive shitty letters from halfwit lawyers on behalf of mealy-mouthed jobsworths.

Shit sticks. The things that GSK (and its regulators), would have to do in order to restore public trust are unconscionable for people with the mindset that these people have. It would mean that they have to admit that they were wrong - and they’ve positioned themselves such that that is not a possibility.

Matt

Scientific Misconduct Blog: It's Groundhog Day for bullying by GlaxoSmithKline over Seroxat

Scientific Misconduct Blog: It's Groundhog Day for bullying by GlaxoSmithKline over Seroxat

Just in case GSK's lapdogs come a-calling on me, I've decided to take the video down (although plenty of the links below carry it, if you fancy a look). I've sought some advice on this subject, and this is best summed up with a message from our sponsor!

Related Links:
AHRP - Video sets Glaxosmithkline hounds to intimidate British blogger
Bipolar Blast - Glaxo Smith Kline
BLOGSCAN - GSK Lawyers Have Paxil Video Taken Down
Clinical Psych - Does GSK Love Bad Publicity?
Furious Seasons - Glaxo goes after British blogger's video
Healthy Living - GSK lawyers have Paxil video taken down
Missisyphus's Weblog - Bob Fiddaman's Video
Pharmagossip - Aubrey Blumsohn on Corporate Bullying
Pharmalot - Glaxo, An Angry Blogger And Free Speech
Seroxat Secrets - GSK target Seroxat campaigner
Soulful Sepulcher - supports Bob Fiddaman
Tony Nunn - Glaxosmithkline news

Intimidation: a standard tactic?

I couldn't help but have a chuckle to myself, this morning. I'm a longtime fan of Elvis Costello, and Watching the Detectives is a wonderful track, but given recent events, it was an uncannily timed post.

It seems that Bob Fiddaman has incurred the wrath of the Great, Powerful and Excellent GSK, and has, incidentally, injured the fragile sensibilities of Ali B, in the process. You should have a read, for yourself:

GSK Lawyers target Seroxat campaigner Bob Fiddaman

GSK's got form in the intimidation stakes, of course, as I pointed out to the Ministry of Truth, in a recent post. Anyway, I suppose I ought quickly to apologize to GSK and Ali B, et al, if I have inadvertently suggested that they are a bunch of lying, scheming scumbags, at any point, during the past year, on this blog. They are, of course, not lying, scheming scumbags, but fine upstanding members of the corporate community, with only the good of Mankind in their thoughts. I just wanted to make that absolutely clear.

Related links:
Addleshaw and Goddard email request form - feel free to make enquiries of GSK's conduct, via its lawyers!