On March 9, 2018, a group of thirty academics, psychiatrists and people with lived experience wrote to the UK Royal College of Psychiatrists to challenge public statements about antidepressant withdrawal made in The Times newspaper. The Registrar of the college replied with a decision on the complaint on April 24, 2018, which resulted in a response by the thirty signatories to the original complaint. A Press Release is provided below, with a link to the full reply letter and the response from the Royal College's Registrar. Please share if you can, thank you. Click below to hear a podcast interview with Professor John Read about recent events: https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/05/professor-john-read-uk-royal-college-psychiatry-dismisses-complaint/ PRESS RELEASE FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE 1 May 2018 College of Psychiatry Misrepresents NICE Antidepressants Guidelines when Dismissing Complaint about Misleading the Public The Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) has dismissed (24.4) a formal Complaint of misleading the public on a matter of public safety against its President, Professor Wendy Burn, and the Chair of its Psychopharmacology Committee, Professor David Baldwin. Burn and Baldwin stated, in a letter to The Times (24.2) that: ‘[for] the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment’. A Complaint, asking that the claim be retracted or substantiated, was lodged (9.3) by 30 people, including 10 psychiatrists and 10 people who have experienced withdrawal effects from antidepressants for between 11 months and 10 years. In dismissing the Complaint the RCP misrepresented a recommendation by the National Institute of Clinical Excellence (NICE) that doctors “Explain that symptoms are usually mild and self-limiting over about 1 week”. The College misleadingly omitting the second half of the sentence: “…. but can be severe, particularly if the drug is stopped abruptly.” The complainants have written today (1.5) to the RCPsych today to point out: “This is not a rejection of our complaint, it is a repeat of precisely the same offence that led to our Complaint in the first place: the minimisation of antidepressant withdrawal effects. This compounds the offence and is a matter of grave concern.” For a copy of the complete letter to the RCP: https://www.madinamerica.com/2018/05/royal-college-dismisses-complaint/ The RCP letter dismissing the Complaint makes no mention of the numerous research papers cited in the Complaint documenting that withdrawal effects often last far longer than two weeks. These include a survey of 800 antidepressant users which clearly contradict the two-week claim but was removed from the RCP website within 48 hours of the misleading statement being made in The Times. In their letter today the complainants have stated: ‘To withhold or suppress research evidence (the survey of over 800 antidepressant users) because it is potentially embarrassing to two senior officials who have made a public statement that is contradicted by that evidence, might be seen to position the RCPsych beyond the traditional parameters of scientific practice.’ On April 26th the Earl of Sandwich said, in the House of Lords: “This statement has appalled a large number of psychiatrists and patients who have lodged a complaint with the RCP, including some who have experienced withdrawal effects for between 11 months and 10 years. Even the Royal College’s own survey of 800 users found that withdrawal symptoms generally lasted for up to six weeks, with a quarter reporting that anxiety lasted more than three months. If even one of our leading institutions can mislead Times readers on a matter of public safety, what hope do the Government have of explaining these things to the general public?” Professor Sami Timimi, Professor of Psychiatry and member of the Council for Evidence-based Psychiatry, and a signatory to the Complaint commented: ‘It is shameful that the official body that represents my profession throws about dangerous and misleading statements like this that lack a credible evidence base. We should be warning people about the terrible experiences of withdrawal that patients may experience, not giving false reassurance. Another signatory to the complaint, James Moore, from Monmouthshire, added: ‘The Royal College’s response to our complaint is deeply concerning. I have experienced antidepressant withdrawal effects for a year. The College’s response does not acknowledge the importance of ensuring that patients are fully informed. Antidepressant withdrawal is a serious issue that can blight lives and result in life-changing harm for some people.” Professor John Read of the University of East London, another signatory, said: ‘The disingenuous nature of their response to our Complaint means that our concerns now go beyond the conduct of two senior officials, to the culture of the whole organisation. We have given them 14 days to respond to our many questions about their investigation of the Complaint, before deciding whether to appeal or take our concerns elsewhere’ ENDS