Richard Brook
Richard Brook resigned from the MHRA (the UK's drug advisory body, formerly the CSM). His resignation was based on his belief that the MHRA was incapable of operating in patients' interests.
Charles Medawar stated "Richard Brook's brave resignation is enormously significant, and the loss of the one independent consumer figurehead now calls into question the whole credibility of the CSM's review.
It is alarming that Brook was put under such pressure, and typical of the regulators to try to gag him - and then produce a statement that is profoundly misleading by omission. Brook holds a public position of considerable importance, and the Department of Health is the major sponsor of MIND.
Brook's resignation pretty much mandates a formal parliamentary investigation of the UK medicines control system.
The drug regulators have made a series of bad errors; it is completely unacceptable that they should be now allowed to investigate their own mistakes." -- Guardian, March 13, 2004.
Brook stated that his colleagues "appeared more interested in putting their reputations, and those of drugs companies, before the safety of patients."
GlaxoSmithKline's only excuse for the ongoing deaths caused by Paxil/Seroxat was that the MHRA had been fully informed. Brook stated that:
"In four reviews of these statistics over ten years, the regulator had failed to pick up the vital information that any dose of Seroxat above 20mg a day doesn't work any better but significantly increases the side-effects."
Why hadn't the MHRA disclosed this information? Brook stated that: "many of the people who work [at MHRA] or advise it have ties to drugs firms. Some have shares in the companies, research departments funded by them or receive fees for advice."
Furthermore, Brook was threatened with legal action if he went public. Regardless, Brook went to Lord Warner who asked the MHRA to change their advice on Seroxat.
Since the MHRA failed to acknowledge their mistake, Brook resigned.
In regards to the MHRA's premature announcement that SSRIs are safe, Brook stated: "It's amazing that the inquiry was set up two years ago and the MHRA has still not seen the original data. This surely raises questions about their ability to get to the heart of the matter."