Social Audit Ltd

P O Box 111 London NW1 8XG

Telephone/Fax 44 (0)171 586 7771

Dear Keith,

Thanks for your well-timed faxed letter. It's not that I thought you were trying to be provocative, only that you make a grand job of it.

Only now do you tell me that "of course" you carefully examine all emerging evidence, yet you flatly tell The Times et al that my views are "not supported by the evidence" and that my analyses are "flawed"; and that "current evidence does not show that SSRIs are associated with dependence" etc etc. In other words, you prejudge the issue, give no indication whatever of concern, and manage to get it very wrong. Now that's what I call provocative.

Rather than suggest which bodies you consult in reviewing the evidence - most of it well emerged, rather than 'emerging' - I suggest the MCA/CSM calls for evidence in letters to the Lancet and BMJ. Will you attend to this, or should I? I also strongly recommend you study the December issue of the Washingtonian; it adds powerfully to the evidence I have already supplied.

There are just a few minutes left before 5.00pm - certainly enough time for you to fax me or pick up the phone to say you'll be on to these medical journals right away. I remain heartily provoked meanwhile.

Yours sincerely,

Charles Medawar

CLICK HERE TO READ ON

	Contents page
	List of MCA/CSM Correspondence