Triamazon

MHRA CEO KENT WOODS…  LIES TO SEROXAT VICTIM EXPOSED

I have received a response from the CEO of the MHRA regarding the recent teratogen correspondence

I have replied to Kent’s email and will show you the response within the next 48 hours.

Meantime, here is Kent Woods email to me.

Dear Bob

I am responding to the various e-mails you have sent to the Agency recently – in particular, to the open letter to me which you posted on your web site.

You have complained that I have ignored your correspondence to me. When we met in September last year, I explained after our long (and I thought productive) discussion that I would not be able to reply to your e-mails personally but that they would receive attention. A great quantity of correspondence does come to my office every day and as a routine it is passed on to the most appropriate person in the Agency for a response, although I do see most of it.

At our meeting in September 2008, we discussed in detail your views on Seroxat withdrawal and as promised my staff took this matter both to the BNF and to NICE, who were in the process of revising the guidelines on management of depression. You will no doubt have seen that the recently published NICE guidelines deal with withdrawal in some detail.

For the record, it should be stated that you have had personal meetings with several senior MHRA staff to discuss your concerns – chief executive, Director of Communications (twice), senior Communications manager (twice; once travelling to you), senior pharmacovigilance scientist (twice) – and numerous letters, e-mails and phone calls from them which have been both detailed and civil. To suggest that you have been ignored is, quite frankly, nonsense.

On the subject of paroxetine in pregnancy, you clearly have your own strong views and send us bits of evidence which support those views. Like other regulatory agencies, we must consider all the evidence, and the likely balance of benefit and harm, when we give advice to prescribers and patients. That scientific process is quite different from what a lay jury does in a civil court, weighing the arguments of the lawyers for plaintiff and defendant, and it is not surprising that the conclusions may be different. The legal and scientific understanding of ‘causality’ differs; the Agency sponsored a legal conference on this very point during the summer.

I take offence at your suggestion that when we disagree with you it must be because we are idle, indifferent or in the pockets of the pharmaceutical industry. No agency in the world has been more active during the past 20 years in assessing the risk-benefit evidence on SSRIs and updating advice to prescribers and patients as necessary. No agency has investigated a pharmaceutical company as thoroughly as MHRA has investigated GSK. Our actions throughout have been driven by the scientific evidence and by the legal powers we are given by Parliament. We take great care to prevent any conflict of interest which might influence judgments made or decisions taken by agency staff.

HERE IS WHERE KENT WOODS LIES,
READ PARRAGRAPH BELOW AND SEE THE TRUTH HERE…  See what Paul Flynn M. P. for Newport West, has to say about it by visiting this link www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/seroxat04.htm KENT WOODS WORKED AT GSK SEROXAT MAKERS FOR 27 YEARS. did he also tell the Seroxat investigations about his working for GSK for all those 27 years while being the MHRA CEO ? someone should inform the seroxat investigation team, has woods committed perjury ?
 
KENT WOODS: "My entire career before I joined the MHRA was spent in Universities" doing research on medicines and working as a physician in the NHS. I do not have an industry background. In 30 years of medical practice I saw the severe impact of depressive illness on people’s lives and also the increased safety of SSRIs compared to the anti-depressants which came before. Used well, their benefits outweigh their potential for harm. Our aim as an Agency is to help prescribers and patients use them with the greatest benefit and the least potential for harm.

I fully understand the human impact and the intense need to find some explanation when a baby is born with a congenital defect. But 2-3% of babies are born with some form of congenital abnormality, even in the absence of any drug exposure in pregnancy. Separating out chance events from a true teratogenic effect of a drug is extremely difficult. Being too willing to blame a drug can deprive future patients of the benefits of anti-depressant treatment when they really need it. There are no easy answers when the evidence is ambiguous. That is why opinions can differ. As a regulator I have no interests, financial or otherwise, in any company or industry. This agency is solely concerned to do what is best for public health..

You can choose not to believe any of this and your recent letters and blogs indicate that you will not want to change your fixed ideas. My colleagues and I have tried in good faith to respond to your concerns in an honest and constructive way. I am disappointed at the tone with which you choose to end this contact. We will continue to monitor SSRIs closely and to take any further action, or issue any further advice, which is necessary on public health grounds. We will respond to you in line with our responsibilities as a public body but abusive e-mails are likely to be ignored.

You can take this as an open response to your open letter to me, but if you put it on your web site you must publish the whole letter and not selected extracts.

Yours sincerely

Kent Woods
Chief executive

For further details please visit
http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2009/12/ceo-of-mhra-kent-woods-responds-to.html

Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous

"Your immune system will attempt to destroy the molecule wherever it finds it, including in places where it occurs naturally, and where it is vital to the health of your nervous system".

For further details please visit
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-swine-flu-vaccine-advocator-sir-liam-donaldson-cmo-exposed-1261361546.html

Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous

These links prove beyond doubt that the UK MHRA and the UK press are liars, are corrupt while under ex-drug company executive’s control and as you can see now pose a serious threat to public health.

For further details please visit
http://www.free-press-release.com/news-mhra-medical-mafia-at-the-very-least-1261277317.html

Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous

Rob Evans and Sarah Boseley
Monday October 4, 2004
The Guardian
It would appear to be a happy and satisfying relationship. "Our priorities are aligned," says one document. There have been "notable successes" says another, citing "another example" of where the two sides "cooperated well". In business partners, this would seem to indicate a harmony of views. The documents obtained by the Guardian, however, relate to meetings between the drug industry and the watchdog body set up by government to police it.
Critics say the drug regulator and the industry are too close. Their proceedings have long been shrouded in secrecy because of the drug companies’ insistence on the commercial sensitivity of information relating to their products.
Today, documents obtained by the Guardian under the open government code reveal the reality of relations between the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) and the trade association of the industry it regulates. The documents show that:
· the regulator and the industry have been engaged in a joint lobbying campaign in Europe;
· the industry privately drew up its own detailed blueprint of how the MHRA should be run;
· the industry has been pushing for higher level representation at the MHRA against ministers’ wishes.
Since 1989, when the then prime minister, Margaret Thatcher, took drug regulation out of the hands of the Department of Health, the MHRA has been 100% funded by the pharmaceutical companies.
The MHRA’s chief executive, Kent Woods, appointed in January, has no drug company background, URGENT THIS IS NOT TRUE… Kent Woods worked at GSK for 27 years as quoted by Paul Flynn MP. SEE LINK: http://www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/seroxat04.htm
Has Kent Woods hidden this fact of 27 years at GSK from the SEROXAT PAXIL & VIOX Enquiry Investigation ?
but critics say the agency continues in the unquestioning belief that the regulator and the industry are working together in the mutual interests of public health.
John Abraham, professor of sociology at Sussex University, who is well respected for his books on drug regulation, says that in 1989 there was a reconstruction of the regulators’ mission alongside the new fees relationship. The MHRA came to believe the interests of public health are coherent with the promotion of the industry.
"The criticism of the old Department of Health medicines department in the 70s was that it didn’t have any teeth. Not only does it now not have any teeth, but it is not motivated to bite," he said.
The MHRA told the Commons health select committee inquiry into the influence of the industry that it does not consider the fee relationship to be a problem.
"I would suggest to a lay person there is a big problem with the concept of independence from industry of a body that is fully funded by industry," said Professor Abraham. The UK’s regulatory agency competes with those of other countries to approve drugs for the whole of Europe.
But Professor Woods says that neither industry funding nor close liaison is a problem. "It is important that the regulator understands the regulated industry.
"I have to say that our areas of overlapping interests are not 100%. There are some things where we have common cause but our prime responsibility is to ensure we protect public health. These are aims which the industry shares. I don’t think there is a necessary antipathy between what the ABPI [The Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry] is trying to achieve and what we are trying to achieve. But there are other areas in which we can’t agree."
Richard Ley, spokesman for the ABPI, denied that the ABPI had the MHRA "in its pocket". "The objective of the MHRA is to ensure that medicines are assessed to be effective and as safe as possible. Those are also our aims. We have an absolute desire to have good quality medicines."
The documents record the regular meetings and dinners between the MHRA and the ABPI over the past year.
Among the "notable successes" of its close collaboration with the industry, the MHRA paper cited how it "cooperated well" with the trade association to lobby other European governments and the European commission on a review of legislation governing drug companies. It was, according to the briefing paper, "another example where the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry and the MHRA worked closely together".
Minutes of a meeting between the ABPI and senior MHRA officials in April record that the "ABPI thought there was a remarkable concordance between MHRA and their priorities…"
At their meeting with the MHRA top officials in June, the ABPI presented an eight-page blueprint detailing how it thinks the MHRA should be run to "build upon the excellent working relationship" between the industry and the regulator. According to this document, "our priorities are aligned [ABPI/MHRA]".
Following this meeting, Nicky Lilliott, the ABPI’s head of regulatory affairs, wrote to Professor Woods, to confirm that, as agreed, the ABPI would develop an action plan to discuss a wide range of issues for the future of the agency. "I would propose that over the summer the ABPI drafts an action plan and this is then circulated to yourself and colleagues for comments, with the intention to agree the action plan at our meeting in September."
"The action plan would need assigned topic leaders, joint ABPI/MHRA, in order to achieve the agreed objectives/milestones. The main driver for the actions and timelines for these issues will be the implementation (of) the new pharmaceutical legislation by October 2005". Professor Woods said the action plan related to establishing a framework for bilateral meetings. The documents show the ABPI is unhappy at proposed changes to the structure of the MHRA. It used to have three people on the ministerial advisory board and two on the Medicines Commission, the drug licensing appeal body.
Pressure
In a letter to Professor Sir Alistair Breckenridge in January, Dr John Patterson, the ABPI president, wrote: "We remain concerned at the lack of representation of the pharmaceutical industry at board level within the MHRA … As the only regulatory agency that is fully industry-funded, we believe it is essential that we have a say on a variety of issues, not least financial matters relating to fees and service levels."
After more pressure, MHRA officials discussed alternative arrangements. Roy Alder, a senior MHRA official, suggested in March that "there could be scope for industry to make a similar input to MHRA business and operational policy" through other ways. He wrote: "Ministers are clear that the MHRA board should have no current industry people. There seems no option on this issue." He suggested someone recently retired from the industry could possibly be put on the board, "but ministers may want to avoid any perception of industry interests at board level."
The Committee on the Safety of Medicines (CSM), made up of independent experts, advises the MHRA on which drugs to license after studying clinical trial data on safety and efficacy. Its members are supposed to declare any sponsorship or payments they receive for lectures or advice from industry. The last complete declaration of interests of CSM members, for 2001, shows 17 out of 36 members had personal financial links to the industry, while others have declared non-personal interests such as research grants.
The documents show that industry has been agitated about ministers’ "unrealistic" plans to tighten the rules on conflicts of interests. The ABPI complained ministers were "being too restrictive in the requirement for experts to not hold any personal interests in the pharmaceutical industry."
Professor Abraham claims there is too much of the "revolving door" syndrome at the MHRA. Not only do CSM members take fees from industry, but many agency officials used to work for drug companies, such as the former head of worldwide drug safety at GlaxoSmithKline, who is now the MHRA’s head of licensing. ·

Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous

For further details please visit http://www.free-press-release.com/news-cancer-patient-given-1-year-to-live-claims-triamazon-is-a-miracle-1262009771.html

Yes To Health Limited are the sole distributors for Triamazon.
For further information on how to purchase the product please visit www.sayyestohealth.co.uk

Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous

For further details please visit http://www.free-press-release.com/news-mhra-no-prescription-is-required-for-new-anti-cancer-pill-triamazon-1262008961.html

Yes To Health Limited are the sole distributors for Triamazon.
For further information on how to purchase the product please visit www.sayyestohealth.co.uk

Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous

Mr. Kent Woods, is the head of the MHRA (The regulatory body for all of the large Pharmaceutical companies.)
And yet Mr. Kent Woods had previously worked for GlaxoSmithKline (a major Pharmaceutical company) for 27 years.
SURELY THIS IS A CONFLICT OF INTEREST?
See what Paul Flynn M. P. for Newport West, has to say about it by visiting this link www.paulflynnmp.co.uk/seroxat04.htm

Posted via email from triamazon’s posterous