https://www.change.org/p/petition-for-change-in-the-mental-health-system-and-psychopharmacology?source_location=search

"If you have been harmed and are struggling with ongoing symptoms after taking an SSRI or SNRI antidepressant drug — such as sexual dysfunction, emotional numbness, social withdrawal, feeling detached from reality, brain fog, memory issues, worsening depression, severe anxiety, or severe inner restlessness — you may be experiencing an antidepressant injury. "

Kim Witczak just launched this new petition.

You can sign anonymously.

Remember to mention what SNRI or SSRI you took.

PS. Petitioners AD injury stories are visible at the bottom of the petition, in case you want to refrain from reading these.

https://antidepressantinjury.com/

1. https://www.change.org/p/get-suicide-prevention-services-to-ask-callers-if-they-are-taking-meds-that-cause-suicide?source_location=search

2. https://www.change.org/p/petition-for-change-in-the-mental-health-system-and-psychopharmacology?source_location=search

3. https://www.change.org/p/u-s-senate-class-action-lawsuit-against-manufacturers-of-xanax-and-generic-xanax?source_location=search

4. https://www.change.org/p/provide-tapering-strips-to-help-people-withdraw-from-antidepressant-and-antipsychotic-drugs?source_location=search

5. https://www.change.org/p/gps-and-psychiatrists-full-disclosure-of-the-withdrawal-and-withdrawal-length-of-venlafaxine-effexor?source_location=search

6. https://www.change.org/p/require-black-box-warnings-to-explicitly-name-and-describe-akathisia?source_location=search

7. https://www.change.org/p/make-tapering-psych-meds-safer-and-more-humane?source_location=search

8. https://www.change.org/p/update-antidepressant-cmi-s-and-pi-s-with-current-evidence-about-risk-of-withdrawal?source_location=search

9. https://www.change.org/p/recognition-of-the-severity-of-withdrawal-from-antidepressants-support-and-action?source_location=search

10. https://www.change.org/p/stop-pssd-post-ssri-sexual-dysfunction-nobody-deserves-permanent-sexual-damage?source_location=search

11. https://www.change.org/p/save-victims-of-pssd-government-funded-research-use-tax-money-to-help-victims?source_location=search

Here’s the link to the form where you can report any harm or reactions to the Food and Drug Administration of the United States

Please do this!

If you are from the UK and haven't yet submitted your 'Yellow Card' report to the MHRA please do this as soon as you can.

@Luke has been in contact and had in person meetings with them, and although they recognise that there are a lot more people harmed from Psych meds then reported, they can't do much more then they are without getting the numbers of reports up.

So, as much as it is the last thing on your mind right now, I would ask you all to strongly consider, going on and filling in your report. https://yellowcard.mhra.gov.uk

It is very easy to do. There will be no come back or judgement, they simply need to know what has happened to you.

In your report you can include all the symptoms you have experienced, by searching for each and selecting if it has resolved or if it is still an issue for you.

I would encourage you all to write a short, but more informative story, that you can include in the free text box at the bottom, as I suspect this is very helpful for them. They have insisted they read them all.

THIS IS SUPER IMPORTANT, COSTS NOTHING, THERE IS ZERO RISK TO YOU, AND IS ONE OF THE BEST WAYS YOU CAN HELP MAKE A DIFFERENCE, PLEASE PLEASE DO IT TODAY!!!!! 🙂 

Chippy

https://www.facebook.com/photo?fbid=122159948318822648&set=a.122119707002822648

They seemed receptive to the points I raised. Below is a summary of each point (kept as brief as possible, as obviously discussion was very in depth), and the MHRA’s reaction.

I am awaiting further feedback from them on the meeting, including minutes. I will post further updates, however going via politics and large organisations does take time and persistence.

I also shared details of my experience, which they made considerable amounts of notes on.

There were a number of further points that I wished to raise, however I only had an hour. If I can keep the line of communication with them open, I intend to raise further points.

No warning about Protracted Withdrawal Syndrome in Patient Safety Leaflets

I raised that the PIL only includes advice not to stop abrupty, and that for Mirtazapine it also states “If you stop suddenly, you may feel sick, anxious or agitated and have headaches. It is possible that some of your symptoms may come back.”.

There is NO warning whatsoever of a serious, neurological syndrome which the RCPsych lists 27 symptoms for, and states that doctors cannot predict nor prevent it, and can last for years, with it’s own diagnostic codes etc and multiple patient voice surveys with hundreds of UK sufferers.

I stated that compared to other warnings about side effects, surely for patients what is far more important than incidental effects whilst taking a drug is a risk of years of long term harm, and questioned why there was no warning about this whatsoever.

I stated that at the very least PILs should include warnings that:

• Mirtazapine is a dependence-forming drug
  
• Before taking it, patients should be aware that there is a risk of severe and debilitating symptoms lasting many years after stopping it, significant enough to be a known syndrome with a diagnostic code.
  
• Doctors cannot predict this, and also cannot prevent it. Following advice of doctors is not enough to prevent it.
  

Dependence-Forming Drugs

I noted that in internal discussions about risks of antidepressants between the NHS, RCPsych and MHRA, antidepressants are described as “dependence-forming drugs”.

I then pointed out that nowhere in any patient-facing information anywhere on the NHS site, is information provided by doctors nor in the Patient Information Leaflets is the word dependence ever used.

I then stated that I could not consent to taking a dependence-forming drug.

Patient Information Leaflet Contains Scientifically Unsound Information

In the follow-up information provided after the meeting, I also pointed out that the PIL contains an explanation that antidepressants correct chemical imbalances in the brain, which was never objectively proven and is a position that psychiatry has since abandoned.

I questioned why such information would be present in the leaflet in the first place if it was not evidence-based and could easily mislead patients to believe that they had an objectively measurable chemical “need” for medication.

House of Commons Report

I raised a house of commons report done in the early 2000s: HC 42 I 04.05.pdf

I pointed the MHRA towards numerous quotes from it:

“During six previous investigations, user reports of often serious problems had been systematically discounted or ignored.”

“There was perhaps a degree of complacency in the Minister’s view of the Yellow Card Scheme. This system is widely considered to be failing and was described to us as “worthless” and “bit of a pup””

“Richard Brook, who was one of two lay members originally on the EWG examining SSRI antidepressants, told us: I seemed to be the lone voice on this expert committee saying, “This is of concern”, and the response I would get is from the Chairman or the officials, “Yes, this is very worrying, but it is going to have to be formally investigated”, and it seemed to go, in my view, into a black hole and remains there to this day despite questions on the floor of the House and questions elsewhere.”

“The suicidality problem was first investigated in 1990/1; withdrawal reactions were investigated in 1993, 1996 and 1998. In 2002, the MCA organised a further intensive review of both problems. This review was abandoned in April 2003, following criticism about conflicts of interest involving key figures on the review team.”

“The appointment of lay members was unprecedented; their contribution to the work of the EWG was subsequently warmly acknowledged. However, one of the two lay members left soon after the review began. The other was Richard Brook, the chief executive of Mind, who resigned in protest half way through. A third lay member was appointed to the EWG eight months later, by which time the report was virtually complete. In evidence to this Committee, Mr Brook expressed concerns about the influence of the industry on drug regulation, specifically the perceived threat by MHRA staff of legal entanglement resulting from regulatory action”

“The EWG was therefore unable to focus on its original brief, relating to withdrawal problems and possible suicidality in adults, until the end of 2003. Its final report identified a significant lack of important data, a clear and substantial risk of sometimes severe withdrawal reactions”

“There appears to have been a lack of effective warnings relating to the frequency of withdrawal symptoms experienced with Seroxat” “However, working papers seen by the EWG state that the original licence application recorded Seroxat withdrawal reactions in 30% of patients. The regulators denied this.”

“Three separate reviews conducted by the MCA/CSM in the 1990s were all based on Yellow Card counts, and produced misleadingly low estimates of the risk level”

“The MHRA/CSM failed to warn of the lack of evidence (since the early 1990s) of SSRI effectiveness in mild depression, suggesting that most users might expect minimal benefit when exposed to significant risks”

I questioned why, 20 years after establishing that there were serious risks and a lack of effective warnings, there are zero warnings about any of this for patients, and why I was able to suffer the exact same life-altering harm decades later.

Patient Voice Surveys

I pointed the MHRA towards two patient voice surveys:

Antidepressant Withdrawal: a Survey of Patients’ Experience by the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Prescribed Drug Dependence – 2018

The nature and impact of antidepressant withdrawal symptoms and proposal of the Discriminatory Antidepressant Withdrawal Symptoms Scale (DAWSS) – 2024

I then made the following points:

• Despite the MHRA justifying not providing any warnings with low yellow-card counts, researchers have no problem finding hundreds of people affected in the UK at any one time should they want to study this iatrogenic harm
  
• Many sufferers reported significant disability and suffering for years
  
• Mean number of symptoms experienced by sufferers was 19.1
  
  • NHS website only lists 7 symptoms
    
  • PIL doesn’t warn of a multi-year syndrome with many symptoms at all
    
  • NHS website just mentions in one line that some people may have severe symptoms that last “a lot longer”
    
  • Both of the NHS and RCPsych pages on stopping antidepressants are buried amongst general guidance on antidepressants.
    
  • The NHS page for side effects doesn’t mention protracted withdrawal syndrome at all and doesn’t directly link to anything about persistent harms despite it having a SNOMED code and the NICE guidelines specifically acknowledging it.
    

  [*]The information given and total lack of strong warnings is totally inadequate. Even if you’re specifically looking for it, it’s hard to find the single line of text that describes this condition having “severe symptoms for a year or more” which also itself understates the median durations in patient voice studies.

  [*]The same issues were reported in this more modern study as the ones highlighted in the APPG survey in 2018, highlighting that absolutely nothing is changing and that the NHS continues to do serious harm with no actions being taken to prevent nor mitigate it taken by them, nor the MHRA.

Patient-Facing Information Contains Zero Information on Risk

I pointed out that even though a “stopping antidepressants” guide by the RCPsych exists, patients aren’t aware of it nor that stopping them is dangerous.

I pointed out that BEFORE deciding to take them, patients need to know that they might struggle to stop them again, and that if they have an adverse reaction they may be stuck between two bad options of continuing to react adversely or being exposed to danger by stopping.

I pointed out that at the moment, finding this information relies on patients not trusting their doctor, and having a 6th sense to know that they should research that this particular drug might have lots of other information out there about risks of stopping it. Most drugs are not dangerous to stop, and most people would never think to randomly do this when starting antidepressants.

I stated that doctors MUST provide information that they’re dependence-forming and that they are risky to stop before a patient decides to take them.

I also pointed out that the dreadful treatment by doctors experienced by me, and many in the patient voice surveys was enabled by the complete lack of information provided to them about this risk and these harms, despite them being well-known by the MHRA and RCPsych and the subject of many internal discussions between them and the NHS.

Summary Points

• Providing no warnings to patients about known long term harms of treatment is indefensible and unethical after decades of them being known to every responsible organisation involved.
  
• All guidelines focus on how to stop, not warning patients in advance of taking these medicines that they can cause severe long term harms after stopping that doctors have no way to predict nor prevent.
  
• The overwhelming majority of these medicines are prescribed by GPs, who have no information on this topic and studies show will typically deny its existence and leave patients disabled and suffering if it happens.
  
• Inaction between patient voice surveys has resulted in the further disabling and suffering of hundreds more people in the UK, currently nothing is done to prevent another in a few years from displaying the same results. Every single one of those is a human being.