Present: Robin Hanau; Cedric Knight; Barney Williams; Philip Hayton; Janet; Linda Fernando; Chris Freudenberg; Taiwo Afuape; Laura Stanton; Lou Cadman; Audrey Amiss; Tricia Casson; Emma Jacobs; Mike Slade; Margaret Hobbs; Rosanna Cavallo; Ian Smith; John Blackett; Rufus May; Jacqui Dillon; Brian Channel; Paul Ellis; Kerry Scutts; Jan Holloway; Dave Harper.

Apologies: Mark Bertram; Anne Cooke; Joanna Moncrieff; Diana Rose

February: David Healy lecture on Prozac and the "marketing" of psychiatric disorders; concentrated, important but difficult.

12 March: Simon Barnett and Gloria Gifford at Greater London Action on Disability; excellent talk.

28 March the NSF holding a conference on medication at the Royal College of Physicians. Ring if interested.

There is a discussion forum on Yahoo led by the International Society for the Psychological Treatment of Schizophrenia and other Psychoses UK (St Bernard's Hospital).

Business:

1. Apologies for non-arrival of posted minutes but the minutes of the last meeting had not been sent to Dave so he couldn't pass them on. They were handed over at this meeting and are attached).
2. A handout was distributed and a brief description given of a research project by Tamasin Knight of Exeter University conducting a project on coping with 'unusual beliefs'. Contact Tamasin if interested in taking part (handout attached).
3. Discussion of the Forum's statement drafted last year on compulsory treatment in the community following the proposed Mental Health Act reforms. Some suggestions were made for revision. It was suggested that 24-hour access to the standard NHS system should be specified and that a distinct line be drawn between sanctuary and rest and treatment. The proposals were felt to have been drawn up in response to media/public perceptions of assaults and homicides and it should therefore be stressed that this is a small proportion of cases. Alternatively, there was concern that this would simply reinforce the fear and that a Human Rights argument be used. The question arose whether there was any difference between a Community Treatment Order and Sectioning and it was agreed that the criteria were the same. A final comment was that the need in reality was for places of asylum. Two other issues were how and when to release it. There was discussion about a general release (but would the mainstream media be sufficiently interested?) or a targeted release of statement to MPs from all three parties and selected Mental Health periodicals. To enhance coverage the statement could be launched with a photo-opportunity of some kind. There was some discussion about whether the release could be linked to a demonstration (eg outside the Department of Health) or whether the next demo should be about stigma and the Tabloids. Rufus May suggested forming an organising committee for the demo and all interested are invited to contact him. He asked people to think creatively about a demo theme, maybe dressing up as pills?

Presentation: Mike Slade gave a talk on drugs and drug companies. (A copy of Mike's notes for his talk is also attached).

He focussed on the negative side of medication on the basis that everyone knew about the benefits. He listed the various groups of drugs and questioned whether there was any real specificity in what these drugs were supposed to be doing.

This, he said, is a huge business, income from drug companies is £1000,000,000 - the three named were Merck, Pfizer and Bristol-Myers Squibb. Their money, in the UK, comes from the taxpayers (NHS budgets) a public to private transfer of funds.

Mike looked at how the profit motive introduced bias and demolished the drug company argument that money invested in R & D had to be recouped by showing (based on numbers of people employed in the areas in question) that the amount spent on this is generally one-third of the budget spent on advertising. It was, he said, inconceivable that advertising had no influence.

He looked also at the reproducing of single studies in multiple publications appearing then as a mass of evidence. He cited drug company agents ghost-writing scientists' reports. Why, he asked, is the fraud and deception never reported?

He felt the Mental Health system had grown up accommodating these things. Treatment is medication-based; 'side effects' are merely seen as 'side' and not distressing main effects. This did'nt match up with the lived experience of actually being on the drugs with the side effects.

He concluded by mentioning Kahn's US study which showed no difference in suicide rates of those people on anti-depressants and those on a placebo. What was found was a 10% difference in symptom reduction. Returning to side effects what was felt to be the major problem was over-prescribing and the prescribing of "cocktails".

There was concern that we might in the UK take the US route of believing there was a solution to everything and a pill could produce it.

Some discussion of Kay Redfield Jameson's books on her experience of taking Lithium.

There was worry about government complicity over the amount of money going to drug companies. A major stumbling block was felt to be the impossibility of raising a scientific critique of the status quo. On the one hand was the medical profession who had been socialised into acceptance, on the other was the user's experience which was essentially individual and therefore not useable scientific evidence.

On a less serious note ideas for campaigns included a system of user reps to counter the drug reps system (anti-drug reps?) and a no-drug day.

There was mention of lobbying MPs on the issue and of finding out which charities and political parties the drug companies were supporting.