Champix Chantix Reviews, Reactions, Depression and Side Effects

by Chris Holmes

 

*Update: If you or a loved one has suffered a bad reaction to Champix and you are based in the U.K., you can report it to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) here. The more people do that the clearer the true picture will become. Protect others! Report it.*

Here are just a few of the other websites and blogs – totally unrelated to this one – where smokers have been reporting their personal experiences with this very unpredictable drug. Smokers have been told that horrific side effects are “very rare”, because that is what doctors and clinicians have been told themselves. These reports tell a very different story so before you take Champix/Chantix, read from all these sites, including mine. Ignore my opinions if you like – I’m pretty skeptical about pharmaceuticals generally, though not entirely of course. But all the comments on this site in the Champix Chantix blog section that come from ordinary smokers are well worth reading because they represent the sum total of all the comments that have come in, I haven’t edited any of it or left anything out.

Then if you compare that with some of these other sites, you see a pattern forming that is really quite terrifying, and look how often these smokers are calling for Champix to be withdrawn or banned, based on their own experience. Smokers were told this drug has a 50% success rate, or at least 44%. It certainly does not, the long-term outcomes may be as low as 14%, or 22% at best. Considering that these bad reactions are often utterly random and impossible to predict or avoid, it’s a hell of a lot to risk for not much chance of long-term success, especially when there are more successful methods of quitting which do not involve any risk at all – hypnotherapy, the Allen Carr books and acupuncture consistently proving the most popular. Personally I have been conducting hypnotherapy sessions for over a decade: it is simply a communication process so it is perfectly safe and very effective. I mention the other two approaches because I know they work more often than Champix does in terms of lasting success, and they are both SAFE. My advice is simply to try the methods that CANNOT harm you before risking anything that could.

Well, don’t take my word for it, just read this stuff for yourself, see what you think. Take care.

ehealthforum

Topix.com

peoplespharmacy.com

drugs.com

druglib.com

thatsfit.com

Oprah.com

adverse reactions

chantixsucks

pharmalot

newsinferno

whyquit

safest way to quit smoking

 

The ‘Benefits’ of Champix (Champix Chantix 8)

*Update: If you or a loved one has suffered a bad reaction to Champix and you are based in the U.K., you can report it to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) here. The more people do that the clearer the true picture will become. Protect others! Report it.*

Patricia McLinden (Renfrewshire, Scotland): “Brian was a quiet guy who lived for his wife and daughter… he loved the wild life, he kept falcons, birds of prey and gun dogs… he was a free man who loved life… then that changed… this drug must be stopped, I will do everything in my power to stop it… I’ve told you my story as best I could through my tears, Chris can you edit my story and make it clearer? You can use my real name Patricia McLinden, I’ve nothing to lose. I’ve lost my diamond my luvvy Brian… 26 years we were together…I’m broken now.”

Pfizer continue to market Champix aggressively

In the post below this one, a Pfizer spokeswoman is quoted as suggesting that the benefits of Champix “outweigh the risks”.

I refute that, first on the basis that the “benefits” being suggested – up to 50% success – are sheer hype, the real long-term outcome being about 14% success, which is rubbish. Secondly because the damage being done by Champix (Chantix in the U.S.) goes largely unreported, as was very nearly the case with Patricia McLinden’s story.

UNTOLD Misery Caused By Champix

As far as Pfizer is concerned, if a case of Champix side effects causing harm or death isn’t actually reported through the official channels, then IT DIDN’T HAPPEN. They know perfectly well that a certain proportion of bereaved spouses or family members won’t even know that their loved one was taking medication, and even the ones that do may well not realise that it can cause that kind of harm. So that’s two batches of victims for which Pfizer will never have to answer, and when the drug is being monitored for risk, none of that will be taken into account.

In all processes of risk assessment, the only data that will ever be considered is the data which passes through the official channels of complaint against the medication. Yet the drug company know that many people who suffer side effects do not realise they are caused by Champix, or even that they ARE side effects. Brian’s case demonstrates just how tragic this can be, because it is the mind that is affected so he couldn’t assess himself, and Patricia had no idea that Champix – which is, after all, an ‘approved’ medication – could change someone’s personality so rapidly, especially since he had taken it before:

“My husband started taking Champix last year, then came off them because they made him feel sick, bad nightmares… sleep was so bad. March 2010 he started taking them again. I noticed a change in him, I said: “Brian, what’s wrong? You’re so moody and grumpy!” He said he was tired. I said: “It’s your job, with the heavy work”, but he still woke up in the middle of the night, going to the bathroom then downstairs for a cig. On April 8th I came home from work, Brian was not himself. I said: “What’s up luvvy?” He said “I’m tired”, then went to bed. April 9th he phoned his work, said he was not going in and was taking a week’s holiday. Friday was a lovely day so I said “Let’s go out”, but he would not…

“10th April Brian went out for a walk with the dogs. He was away for hours, so I went to look for him. I found him wandering the fields with his dog and his gun… Saturday night Brian took his Champix after dinner… [Editor: N.B. this clearly indicates that neither of them suspected the medication at all, even at this point in developments] …watched TV, he was very quiet. Then things went wrong: he was a bit on edge, so I said “What’s up luvvy, tell me please, Brian!” He said “It’s okay Trish, I’m fine.”

“11th April: 10.30 am Brian went out with the dogs. He phoned me every hour, saying he loved me, he’s sorry for ruining my life… I said “I’m driving to come and get you,” but he said “No”. He was not Brian on the phone, paranoid about stuff, talking rubbish… so I phoned the police. He texted me “I LOVE YOU”… then he shot himself at 2.45 pm 11th April 2010.”

Pfizer, your lousy medication has no benefits that outweigh these risks, you ruthless, heartless, money-grabbing bastards. If I were that spokesperson, and I read this account I would quit my post immediately, and do some sort of penance, for fear that I would never sleep peacefully again.

Two Further Chances for the Story to Remain Untold

Patricia first contacted me through the “Contact Us” email facility on the Truth Will Out site, but as I get quite a lot of marketing spam through that, my spam filter had chucked it into the Junk Mail file and I hadn’t noticed. Once I picked it up, I began an email exchange and at some point I asked Patricia at what point did she make the connection with Champix? Obviously she might never have done, just as I might never have noticed her email in the junk file. She said that after Brian’s death she received an email “from his friend in the USA asking me about him taking Champix, then it just hit me. I read the information about it, and found that that was the cause of his behaviour.”

In the USA, the Champix Experiment has been going on for a few years now, they’re a bit ahead of us. The first Champix-related death to hit the headlines in the USA was that of Carter Albrecht which happened in 2007. That tragedy, and all those that have followed have (mysteriously) done nothing to prevent country after country “approving” this largely useless and completely unpredictable drug.

To Any Skeptics

If you have stumbled upon this and are inclined to think that this is just one case, and therefore inconclusive, please read all the comments that have followed all the posts that touch on the subject of Champix published on this site, then look at all the other Champix horror stories on the ‘net. I believe you will see a pattern forming.

Patricia emailed me today : “I will never settle in my life until this drug is stopped… Chris thank you so much for all your help. Please put my real name, and my late husband. Let me know if there is anything more I can do to get this evil drug stopped.”

Now stop it from happening in New Zealand too

To all the smokers in New Zealand: After first deciding not to fund this drug with public money in your country, on the grounds that it was not safe and there was no real evidence it worked any better (in terms of long-term outcomes, the only ones that count) than nicotine gum, Pharmac have mysteriously done an about face and “cautiously” approved it. Pharmac: That is the most inappropriate use of the word “cautiously” I have ever encountered. To approve this drug at this point in the horror story looks more like corruption than caution, so before this actually gets rolled out as a sickening reality in November, you’d better think again before this tragedy is replayed in your own land in loving, happy family homes.

Doctors: don’t prescribe it. It’s bloody dangerous, and not just to people who have had depression before, it’ll fry anyone’s brains, apparently at random. Do you want to do that to a family on your books?

Drug Approval Bodies in every country in the world: we’re watching. We’re waiting. We’re counting. Please tells us: How many victims like Brian and Patricia do you require, exactly, before you rescind the Champix Licence-To-Print-Money-And-Kill-Innocent-People?

Smokers, non-smokers – all NORMAL people: please use the internet to pass this story on. It will SAVE LIVES… and it is the only possible comfort we can offer Patricia.

In loving memory of Brian McLinden.

safer alternative

 

Champix for New Zealand next

 

*Update: If you or a loved one has suffered a bad reaction to Champix and you are based in the U.K., you can report it to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) here. The more people do that the clearer the true picture will become. Protect others! Report it.*

Calling all smokers in New Zealand, and their loved ones: this is what is heading your way in November 2010 **Update December 2010: it’s already approved, but New Zealanders need to be warned about taking Champix:

“…the crashing wave of deep and dark depression, bursting into tears for no reason at all, the feeling of no light in the world and that nobody would even care if you were gone and worst of them all the belief that that low dark feeling was something that could only be fixed by taking your own life. Ive just lived this hell after taking Champix for a mere 4 weeks, first 3 were fine but wow that 4th week and i roller-coasted from ready to punch someone in the face for talking too loudly to wanting to floor my car 200 kms into a wall. I had read online about people reactions before mine kicked in and honestly thought everyone was a nut-job bad mouthing a drug that worked as i had stopped smoking and felt great, but let me tell anyone who reads this and brushes off the more extreme sounding posts IT IS NO JOKE. I went from wanting to simply give up smoking one week to sitting in a mental health clinic 4 weeks later continually in disbelief at how the hell i managed to end up there.” (Andrew)

This is becoming a matter of urgent concern to smokers anywhere, but particularly any smokers in New Zealand, following a story in the New Zealand Herald concerning the approval of public funding for Champix despite concerns about suicides linked to the drug – a story which partially reveals the kind of dodgy deals drug companies do with governments to push them into accepting things they’re not altogether happy about. In this case Champix was sold as part of a package including a number of drugs, and the suggestion is that the NZ government could not get those drugs at that price without taking Champix as well – a sharp practice that should frankly be illegal where medications are concerned, especially a medication that has already been linked to deaths, which is exactly what the former hesitation was about. Particularly suspect is the fact that the New Zealand government drug funding body Pharmac has apparently changed its mind about Champix for no good reason at all – see extract below from NZ Herald.co.nz:

“Pharmac medical director Peter Moody said medical advisers had “cautiously endorsed” the use of Champix.

The agency is calling for public submissions on the package deal from Pfizer before the taxpayer subsidy kicks in on November 1.

“Quite often [drug] companies will offer as a package a number of medications at the same time. We will look at the total deal and look at the benefits we’re getting.”

He said package deals meant all the drugs from the company had to be taken. “You can’t cherry pick.”

A Pharmac spokesman said the price reduction on Champix had been agreed and “in return for that we get two new products and wider access to one other product”.

A spokeswoman for Pfizer said the package deal was suggested by Pharmac, rather than the other way around. The drug company had submitted four separate applications to get the drugs funded.

She said the benefits of Champix outweighed the risks. The subsidy meant “more people will be able to access Champix to improve their chances of quitting smoking”.

Pharmac had twice considered backing Champix but rejected the move because of safety concerns.

Pharmac papers stated that it “appears increasingly likely that there is an association between varenicline [Champix] and serious neuro-psychiatric events”.

It also questioned whether Champix was as successful as nicotine replacement therapies.”

Yeah – quite right too: although earlier in the piece reporter David Fisher described Champix as: “a hugely successful drug used to quit smoking” which is “estimated to be successful in up to half the cases in which people use it to try to stop smoking”, in fact it is nothing of the kind. Long term success rates are about 14% for Champix, about the same as Zyban and only a little higher than Nicotine Replacement Poisoning, which might be pretty useless but at least it doesn’t make anyone kill themselves.

Put simply, this drug should NOT be approved for public funding in New Zealand because the success rate is pure hype and there are smokers alive and well in New Zealand today who will be dead within the year if the drug is made widely available. That means husbands and wives becoming bereaved single parents, kids left without a mum or a dad – and all because of cynical drug company lies and corruption. While there’s still time, I’m going to try to draw attention to this crazy decision and hopefully the innocent smokers of New Zealand can yet be saved from having the same evil stunt pulled on them as the innocent Champix victims in the USA, the UK and Australia.

Hypnotherapy is the best method for smoking cessation: New Scientist magazine

Here’s the NZ Herald article in full

Actual failure rate for Champix here.

18.09.10: I received this message by email, here it is in full:

Andrew wrote:
“Chris, i stumbled onto your site while looking up the side effects or as the Drs
have since told me “adverse effects” of Champix, i immediatly found
solace in the fact that many people’s descriptions matched mine, the crashing
wave of deep and dark depression, bursting into tears for no reason at all, the
feeling of no light in the world and that nobody would even care if you were
gone and worst of them all the belief that that low dark feeling was something
that could only be fixed by taking your own life. Ive just lived this hell after
taking Champix for a mere 4 weeks, first 3 were fine but wow that 4th week and i
roller-coasted from ready to punch someone in the face for talking to loudly to
wanting to floor my car 200 kms into a wall. I had read online about people
reactions before mine kicked in and honestly thought everyone was a nut-job bad
mouthing a drug that worked as i had stopped smoking and felt great, but let me
tell anyone who reads this and brushes off the more extreme sounding posts IT IS
NO JOKE. I went from wanting to simply give up smoking one week to sitting in a
mental health clinic 4 weeks later continually in disbelief at how the hell i
managed to end up there.

Now that Ive had my say to people who don’t believe it happens i want to give
every person that has fallen into that deep depression and suicidal thoughts
that have searched the web for info some hope and a true light at the end of the
tunnel because it was the one thing i was searching for but did not find. The
cause of your feelings is 100% Champix related and your brain WILL experience
happiness and normal thinking again, everyone’s neurotransmitters work
differently but what Ive found is however long it actually took the Champix to
work will roughly decide how long your brain takes to return to normal. Im no Dr
by any means but i was prescribed a low dosage of Valium / diazepan to
“take the edge off” from my Dr who told me in his experience giving
anti depressants not only didn’t work with champix related depression but in
some cases made it worse. Let me tell you the Valium worked to kill the anxiety
that came from continually thinking about killing myself and within a few days
the thoughts the anger and those messed up dreams stopped. So please if your
having the side effects as extreme as some i urge you to see your Dr or if your
in Australia get a referral to the mental access team through the various
Hospitals they helped me so much and i owe them my life literally. Scarily
enough their own words to me were you aren’t the first and you definitely wont
be the last to suffer this from Champix. I implore anyone considering this drug
to really think hard as it seems the chances of you successfully quitting aren’t
far ahead of the chance you’ll be sitting in a psyche ward as i did, even as bad
as cold turkey can feel its not even 1/1000 of how bad the reaction that i
experienced is. My only wish is to spread this exact message through as many
blogs and info sites about bad reactions to Champix, Chris feel free to use my
post anywhere you like, people suffering the effects NEED to see that there is
light at the end of this black tunnel.”

There are many more disturbing accounts like this in the Champix Chantix blog section of this site, and on many other blogs on the web. My urgent advice to smokers is to read around before deciding whether to try this medication.

safer alternative

Chantix Champix 7 – Unite The Blogs!

*Update: If you or a loved one has suffered a bad reaction to Champix and you are based in the U.K., you can report it to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) here. The more people do that the clearer the true picture will become. Protect others! Report it.*

Unite The Blogs!

This is an excerpt from a former Champix user posting on the blog ‘Chantix Sucks’:

“…what are doctors doing? this is a bloody disgrace and i think before not too long there will be an uncovering of the truth of this awful drug and its potential dangers…the death toll will be rising as we speak and god only knows how many suicides and deaths there have been that havent yet been traced back to champix.
DO NOT TAKE THIS DRUG WHATSOEVER!”

http://chantixsucks.com/wordpress/ “Rob’s Experience – May 3rd 2010”

Chantix Sucks is a blog about “the dangerous side effects of Chantix”. Here’s a bit more of the same post:

“…i recall very little of this incident and any others which include nearly crashing my van twice, smashing cups, plates, bowls…my co-ordination was terrible…the scary thing was i was completely detached from what was going on…i seemed to have no feelings left for anything either…i had slipped very quickly into a depressive mode and as the days went by and my long distance relationship ended through my behaviour i slid even faster into a whirlwind depression…my dreams were absolutely nuts…i was either killing someone or being killed or committing suicide…in the mornings my first thoughts were how to kill myself and how many tablets i would need to do the job properly!
I am very normal person, pleasant, well mannered, brought up well kinda guy…i am not aggresive and live life with that extra smile…this drug in my opinion should be removed from market immediately!!!”

Now read this, which I posted on an Australian medical blog on the 22nd of August 2008:

“I’m going to make a double prediction here: the hyped “success rates” widely publicised when Champix/Chantix was launched will turn out to be very misleading, because they were based on short-term trials (just like NRT), and the horror-stories and the bodies will pile up so high in the end that no-one will be able, not even the manufacturer, to keep trying to blame the dead or continue to suggest that all the suffering is “nicotine withdrawal”. I hope all you Champix apologists will remember at that point, WE TRIED TO WARN YOU.” http://www.6minutes.com.au/commentall.asp?artid=173035

It is time for all the blogs carrying the individual horror stories to LINK UP and ALL these reports should be collated and sent to the FDA and any other official medical body in every country where Chantix Champix has been unleashed on an unsuspecting public with a clear, united demand that this evil drug must be withdrawn immediately.

No more deaths, Doc. No more damage. Chantix Champix is too unpredictable, and the lousy long-term outcome of about 14% success (see here) means it’s not worth the risk.

safer alternative

I see what you’re saying, but…

Addiction. It’s a well-established notion. It’s simple, you see. If you can’t stop doing something, then you’re addicted to it! Must be. Otherwise you’d stop. If you say you’re going to stop doing something, but then you don’t – if the ‘thing’ (alcohol, gambling) apparently overrides your conscious recognition that you’d be better off not doing it, then the ‘thing’ must be controlling you: addiction!

But doesn’t that assume that your conscious mind normally directs all your behaviour? In denial of a Subconscious mind, in fact?

So Lizzie has finished with Malcolm, because he’s a rat. On a conscious, rational level she KNOWS she shouldn’t ring him, but as the days go by there are these frequent urges (it’s the craving system again) to pick up the phone. Sometimes she does – then she puts it down again. Nobody has told her Subconscious mind about the new Don’t Ring Malcolm policy, that was a meeting that took place on a conscious level and the minutes of the meeting haven’t been passed on to the Emotional Department. So there is a battle going on within her mind between the conscious intention to leave it at that, and the emotional Subconscious which keeps harking back to happier moments and wondering what all this unnecessary isolation is supposed to be about … good luck, Lizzie’s conscious mind. You’re going to need it, because I always put that capital ‘S’ there for a reason. It signifies something pretty important.

Gina has made a conscious decision to go on a diet, forsaking all things creamy and sugary. There’s a new regime, and the conscious mind is all signed up to it for the next few months. Trouble is, her Subconscious mind signed up to nothing, and doesn’t know anything about this. So after a week or two with no cake, no biscuits – no chocolate – Gina’s Subconscious mind is thinking: “What’s happened to all the biscuits and chocolate all of a sudden?” and starts sending reminder signals (cravings, memories and dreamy thoughts, a bit like the Marks and Spencer adverts on TV: “This isn’t just a chocolate eclair! This is an M & S chocolate eclair, with Belgian chocolate and thrice-whipped cream from hand-milked Grecian cows…” Meanwhile Gina’s poor little conscious mind is trying to insist that a Weightwatchers caramel bar will do just as well. Good luck, Gina’s conscious mind!

So: the heroin addict that promised to stop taking heroin but did not stop, that’s because they are addicted. Their body needs the heroin. Simple concept, the heroin’s to blame – blame the heroin. Ban it.

The gambler who promised and promised to stop gambling but did not stop, that’s because they are addicted. Their body needs… hang on – no drug! And yet the behaviour is very similar, is it not? Promises broken, lies, deceit, theft? Seemingly unable to stop doing this, even if it costs them a marriage, a business, custody of the kids? Some gamblers end up suicides.

And what about Duncan’s compulsive urge to pick his nose? Doesn’t matter how often he’s told… Is he addicted to it? Or Edwina’s nailbiting, Stuart’s shoplifting, Amanda’s nymphomania? Addicts, all?

Convenient hook, isn’t it, the word “addiction”? Useful shorthand term for all sorts of things. Now, once or twice readers of this site have referred to my “theories” about these things, which bugs me because I DO NOT theorize. All my observations have come about through practical hypnotherapy with thousands of individuals who have smoking habits, gambling habits, drinking habits, drug habits, bad eating habits and yes – nailbiting too. And the ONLY ONE that I cannot shut down with a single session of hypnotherapy is: heroin. That, I believe, comprises a genuine physical dependence, combined with compulsive habit, and very often with an emotional complication too.

All the others can be eliminated without withdrawal and without relapse in many cases too, which proves that they never were addictions, they just looked like addictions. They are compulsive habits. See Read The Book for more info.

how to ditch a compulsive habit safely in two hours

Cravings Are Not Withdrawal Symptoms

by Chris Holmes

** Update 16/07.10: There is a link in the third comment at the end of this article to the website of Action on Smoking and Health (A.S.H.) which refers to a study on cravings that confirms exactly what I’m talking about here. God knows I never expected ASH to confirm or agree with anything I say, because they have staunchly defended and promoted Nicotine Replacement products until now, but maybe everyone involved in that is getting ready to admit that NRT is a complete waste of money because it’s based on a myth, just as I’ve been saying all along. Now watch them immediately start promoting some other pharmaceutical instead, instead of admitting openly how WRONG they were all this time about hypnotherapy, the Allen Carr approach, acupuncture… no, it’s chemicals, chemicals chemicals all the way!

Anyway enjoy the article!

Cravings Are Not Withdrawal Symptoms

Whether you are a smoker or not, you know what a craving is because we all get lots of cravings, they are not all about tobacco. In hypnotherapy we shut down cravings for all sorts of things routinely: smoking is just one example of that. If anyone reading this doesn’t believe that it is simply because they haven’t experienced it themselves, but it’s an everyday occurence for hypnotherapists – I’ve been doing this for the last ten years. Easily demonstrated too.

For several decades now, smokers have had it drilled into them that smoking is “nicotine addiction, nicotine addiction, nicotine addiction”. Yet for most of the time people have been smoking tobacco in Europe it has simply been regarded as a filthy habit. Odd references to “addiction” have occured down the ages but that is partly due to the unclear meaning of the term, which has often been confused with Compulsive Habit anyway. But I can easily explain why smokers’ cravings cannot possibly be withdrawal symptoms and are not related to nicotine levels in the blood anyway.

Now, don’t get me wrong: I know from my own experience as a smoker in the past that trying to quit smoking with willpower alone – or with nicotine replacement products, Zyban or Champix – CAN be a real struggle, or even seem impossible. According to the U.K. Government’s own commissioned studies into the long-term outcomes of those methods (which the National Health Service recommend) the chances are very much that your success – if any – will be temporary. What smokers don’t realise is, that is NOT because it is really hard to stop smoking, it is because those methods are all based on a myth: “addiction” to nicotine.

If cravings were withdrawal symptoms you would experience them at their worst when the nicotine level was lowest, which would be first thing in the morning if you are a typical smoker. No nicotine has been taken into the body for hours, so those “nicotine receptors” should be “going crazy” the moment you’re awake. Yet most smokers do not even keep tobacco by the bed. So there is a gap – an elapse of time – between the moment they open their eyes, and the moment when they first light up a cigarette.

Of course, there are a few smokers who light up before they get out of bed but I think everyone is aware that this is not the norm. The majority of habitual smokers will normally get up, go to the bathroom, maybe have a shower, go downstairs, put the kettle on, feed the cat… all the time feeling perfectly normal. They are not climbing the walls desperate for nicotine. But why not? They haven’t had any nicotine for hours! IF THE URGE TO SMOKE WAS REALLY A WITHDRAWAL SYMPTOM, THAT WOULD BE THEIR WORST MOMENT.

Also, many smokers feel an urge to pick up a cigarette when they have just put one out, such as when drinking, socialising or if bored. That urge is compelling, but it cannot be withdrawal because the nicotine level in the blood is still high from the previous cigarette. A “withdrawal symptom” is an experience caused by nicotine withdrawing from the system, which only happens later. Another clear indicator is the fact that the urge to smoke will vanish in particular circumstances regardless of falling nicotine levels: many smokers never smoke outside or in the street, so if they go out shopping they don’t want one. Gardening, playing sports… hours may go by, nicotine levels fall away – no symptoms, no “withdrawal”. This is because cravings are not linked to nicotine levels at all. They are compulsive urges prompting the usual habitual behaviour, but ONLY if it is a) possible, b) appropriate and c) convenient.

So if you get on a plane – as long as you’re okay with flying and don’t seriously object to the smoking restriction – you will find that nicotine levels can fall and keep on falling, and hey presto! No pesky withdrawal symptoms! Likewise if you board a bus, ride on a train, walk into Sainsburys or a cathedral, step into an operating theatre or meet the Queen… the brain knows this is NOT A SMOKING OPPORTUNITY so it doesn’t send the signals until you LEAVE that situation and a smoking opportunity presents itself.

Now, I need hardly point out that the social restrictions I’ve just described require INTELLIGENCE, SOCIAL KNOWLEDGE AND DISCERNMENT to distinguish between, and I doubt if any scientist is going to suggest that the nicotine receptors in the brain possess such complex abilities such as would be required to appreciate the shifting rules and mores of modern society. No, they were simply supposed to “go crazy” due to the falling level of nicotine specifically – NOT the fact that you’re chatting to the Queen, halfway to Cyprus or admiring a beautiful stained-glass window.

Real drug addictions are totally different. If a heroin addict gets on a plane and the level of heroin in the blood falls low THEN THEY ARE ILL, it doesn’t matter where they are or what they are doing. They couldn’t make out like they were fine even if they were talking to HRH.

Interested? Want to know more about what’s really going on with cravings? Click on the Read The Book section of the site, and when the Contents page appears, read a bit more. If you want to read all of it, click on Buy The Book. £16.95 for the paperback, or just £5 for the full download version. If you don’t like buying on-line, contact me directly for the other options.

I shut down smoking habits in a single session routinely. You can’t do that with a heroin addiction. I’ve tried. If you smoke tobacco you are NOT a drug addict, and that’s why the nicotine-based approaches rarely work except in the short-term. And that’s down to willpower mainly. The real solution is hypnotherapy, and there will come a time when that is simply common knowledge and everyone will understand that all this endless hype about “nicotine addiction” was just a simple mistake which turned into a gigantic moneyspinner for the drug companies at the taxpayers’ expense.

Lennox Johnston – Nicotine Man!

Lennox Johnston was largely responsible for tobacco smoking being wrongly classed as a drug addiction when it is, in fact, a complex compulsive habit. At first, the medical profession were sure he was wrong. They should have stuck to that position, because he WAS wrong. See Chris Holmes’ book ‘Nicotine: The Drug That Never Was’ for the full story.

An excerpt from Nicotine: The Drug That Never Was (Volume II: A Change Of Mind) by Chris Holmes

ii). The tobacco story has so many curious twists and turns that I am never really surprised when another one pops up. In Volume One I mentioned that I hadn’t quite managed to discover exactly when the “nicotine addiction” story started, as an interpretation of compulsive use and I suggested that if anyone was intrigued about that then they should keep digging and if they found anything enlightening to let me know. This inspired Chepstow-based hypnotherapist Marc Bishop to investigate further and he contacted me recently to tell me about Lennox Johnston, of whom I had never heard.

The fact that I had never heard of him is interesting in itself, because it turns out that Lennox Johnston – and be honest, you’ve never heard of him either, right? – was the first person to use nicotine in isolation to offset the impulse to reach for tobacco. In other words he invented Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) – the very thing my book denounces. Now, NRT is prescribed and sold all over the world, so if we all know about innovators like Alexander Fleming and Louis Pasteur, how come Lennox Johnston is never mentioned when people talk about NRT?

Actually it is probably because he was a bit like me: he made a bit of a nuisance of himself and everybody thought at first that he was wrong… which causes me to feel a certain, odd kinship with the chappie even though he is very much my adversary in this argument, for am I not in a very similar position here, trying to explain why smoking is not what most people presently think it is? Here is an extract from Johnston’s typical pronouncements to the editor of The Lancet circa 1953:

“I think it more sensible and scientifically satisfying to recognise tobacco-smoking as a drug addiction from start to finish. It varies in degree from slight to serious. The euphemism “habit” should be discarded completely… no smoker derives positive pleasure and benefit from tobacco. The bliss of headache or toothache relieved is analogous to that of craving for tobacco appeased.”

It is immediately clear that Allen Carr’s later observations in The Easy Way To Stop Smoking have their origins here in Lennox Johnston’s view, although I doubt Carr had ever heard of him either. He certainly never mentioned him in any of his own writings to my knowledge.

So what did the medical profession think of Johnston’s insistence that tobacco smoking was a drug addiction in the 1950’s? Well, we have managed to find this frank repudiation by none other than the Honorary Secretary of the Society for the Study of Addiction, one H. Pullar-Strecker, in response to Johnston’s assertions:

“Much as one may ‘crave’ for one’s smoke, tobacco is no drug of addiction. Proper addicts… will stop at nothing to obtain the drug that their system demands imperatively.”

Smokers often tell me that they are puzzled by the fact that although they wouldn’t normally go for nine hours without a cigarette during the day, when they are on a plane it doesn’t seem to bother them until they land, or very shortly before they land. The only exceptions seem to be smokers who resent the restriction, or have a problem with flying anyway. Likewise we hear of smokers seemingly untroubled by cravings during a spell in hospital, or more ordinarily whenever they go anywhere where smoking is commonly accepted as being out of the question, such as Mothercare or the Finsbury Park Mosque. It seems that as long as the smoker accepts that restriction, there will be no urge to smoke until they leave that situation. That is certainly not withdrawal, and falling nicotine levels in the body during the nine-hour flight (for example) are clearly irrelevant. The “nicotine receptors” in the brain are hardly in a position to appreciate the smoking ban on aircraft – or observe it – so this certainly begs the question “Why are they not ‘going crazy’ – as the NRT advert would have us believe is the cause of smokers’ cravings – in all of the situations mentioned above?” For of course Pullar-Strecker was right: the heroin addict cannot do that. If a heroin addict gets on a plane and the heroin level in the blood falls low then they are ill, it doesn’t matter what they are doing or where they are situated. That’s withdrawal.

Lennox Johnston was a Glaswegian GP who had been a smoker himself and according to his obituary in the British Medical Journal (Volume 292, dated 29/03/86) he quit smoking twice. It relates how he pondered his compulsion to continue smoking and “wondered what would be the effect of stopping” – only to find that it proved easier than he expected. A year or so later, he started smoking again and after that it took him “two agonising years” to give up.

Later he became an anti-smoking campaigner and began to experiment with pure solutions of nicotine which he often administered to himself, once with near-fatal consequences. He also wrote to The Lancet describing an experiment he devised himself which involved about thirty smokers who apparently allowed him to inject them with nicotine whenever they felt the urge to reach for tobacco, which Johnston claimed then subsided. Although this certainly does not qualify as a bona fide clinical trial, it can be regarded as the first ever attempt to trial nicotine replacement as a concept. The Lancet published Johnston’s letter, and so began the biggest medical mistake of the 20th Century – though of course, everyone thought he was wrong at the time.

Well – not quite everyone. Throughout the history of tobacco-smoking in Europe there have been occasional voices calling it an “addiction”, though quite what those individuals thought that term really meant is not easy to determine now. Yet for most of that history nearly everybody simply regarded it as a filthy habit – which is pretty accurate. A complex compulsive habit to be exact – for a full definition of that see Chapter Ten in Volume One, where I spell out the key differences between that and true drug addiction.

It is only very recently, in fact, that the “nicotine addiction” interpretation has become the general impression, and not everyone believes it even now. There have always been voices in the scientific community who have pointed out the inconsistencies, but they couldn’t explain the compulsive element because they didn’t have the key knowledge of the normal operations of the human Subconscious mind and how it organises and activates compulsive habitual behaviour. So they got shouted down – as did the tobacco companies who tried to point out that other habitual behaviours that did not involve any substances – such as shopaholics and compulsive gamblers – seemed to be of a similar order, but eventually they too accepted the new doctrine and dropped the argument. Not because it was invalid, but because they were pretty much on their own at that point, the anti-smokers were on a roll and have been ever since.

Factually, the tobacco companies were right… but because smoking is damaging to health they didn’t have a chance of getting their point heard as the scientific proof of real harm emerged during the 1960s and has continued to be the justification for everything that has changed since. Every anti-smoking policy or restriction that has been introduced since then has been justified with a reminder of the enormous harm tobacco smoking does to human health.

It’s a pity it never occurred to Lennox Johnston to wonder why he found it surprisingly easy to quit the first time, but it took “two agonising years” the second time. Surely the role of nicotine was the same in both cases and what that gives us straight away is the clue that nicotine isn’t the difficulty: the perception of ‘ease’ or ‘difficulty’ – even ‘agony’ – results from other variables, and that’s why expert hypnotherapy can usually resolve the matter on a single occasion but NRT does not.

The medical establishment thought Johnston was wrong, in fact they ignored him for years and don’t even talk about him now. The tobacco companies thought it was just a habit, as did virtually all smokers at the time. Some still do, despite all this mad nicotine propaganda that is really just marketing for NRT dressed up as medical orthodoxy.

The irony is, the medical establishment were in fact quite correct in the first place. So now it seems as if I’m the mad eccentric, when all I’m pointing out is exactly what everyone knew anyway before Lennox Johnston came along. If they had only stuck to their initial assessment that he was the mad eccentric, then they could have remained quite correct all along and we could have avoided this crazy detour around and around and around the poison nicotine, which is not the real reason people struggle to quit through their own efforts, as I explained in Volume One.

Lennox Johnston lived until he was 86, surviving long enough to see his initially-scorned pronouncements adopted as the standard medical view. By mistake.

Doubt if I will live long enough to see it corrected. Probably won’t get the credit either – but then, neither did Johnston -which is why none of us had ever heard of him!

more info about hypnotherapy for smoking

86% Failure Rate for Champix

“In a multicenter, randomized, double-blind phase II clinical trial, 638 men and women aged 18-65 who smoked an average of 10 cigarettes per day during the previous year, without a period of abstinence of more than 3 months, where put on placebo, bupropion (another drug used as a smoking cessation aid, brand name Zyban®), or different treatment schedules of varenicline for 7 weeks. Subjects were tested for continuous quitting by measuring exhaled carbon monoxide. After one year, the success rates were 14.4%, 6.3% and 4.9% for varenicline, bupropion and placebo, respectively.”

That was from WikiNews, August 15 2006. Link to this article at the end of this post.

This is interesting because it demonstrates what we can expect in long-term results from new medications (boosted by hype and fresh expectations) compared to old ones which no longer are. Elsewhere on this site I have quoted results for willpower alone from various studies giving us figures of anywhere between 4% to 8% when the results are reviewed at one year. So the placebo (dummy medication) figure given above, 4.9%, is entirely consistent with that. But look how Zyban (bupropion) had also fallen within the normal placebo or willpower range by 2006, whereas earlier reports had suggested it had long-term outcomes of around 13% to 14% – same as the new varenicline (champix, chantix) scores here. So will Champix too fall back within the expected range for willpower or dummy pills once all the hype has passed?

It seems likely. We have certainly seen that with Nicotine Replacement products which were credited with 10% to 20% success rates when the University of Iowa study was carried out in 1992, but we now know from several different independent studies that the current outcomes at one year are a miserable 5% to 6%, once again well within the willpower range.

So this indicates that even in 2006, the long-term outcomes of this so-called “new wonder drug” were no better than the previous “wonder drug” Zyban, which is no longer even managing a miserable 14% success rate now that it isn’t regarded by anyone as a wonder drug any more. Clearly, the difference is entirely accounted for by suggestion and heightened expectation.

That’s not science. That’s marketing. And a complete waste of precious NHS resources.

WikiNews August 15 2006

Hypnotherapy works best, according to the study by the University of Iowa. Find out more in the Evidence section of this site, and here.

Meanwhile, the reports of bad reactions are piling up just as I predicted last year (link).

 

How the NHS can save Lots Of Money!

Scrap the smoking cessation programme. As I demonstrated with all the evidence from the various government reports in “The NHS Lie Exposed” there is no significant difference between what smokers can achieve by themselves using willpower and the long term outcomes of NHS help, ie. when followed up at one year after “treatment”. Independent corroboration of those facts here.

Notice how Amanda Sandford from Cash In On Smoking And Health (A.S.H.) tries to suggest that there is convincing evidence to the contrary. This is because A.S.H. is operating entirely to support drug company products in the smoking cessation field, that is all they do. They hammer on and on about “nicotine addiction” and got into legal trouble when they tried to rubbish success claims for the Allen Carr (non-drug) method. None of the drug company products have ever achieved the success rate that Allen Carr’s Easyway International Group proved in court (53%), and A.S.H. were forced to apologise and pay Easyway’s costs, YET THEY DO NOT ENDORSE THE EASYWAY METHOD – which proves they are not really a “public health charity” but a shop window for the drug companies posing as a public health charity.

Sandford claims that:

“…studies into the benefits of nicotine patches and gums were ‘robust’ and that ‘all the evidence points to relying on willpower alone is not terribly successful.”

The unnamed Department of Health spokeman claimed that the Sydney University team’s anaylsis of 511 studies was:

“…inconsistent with a very well established evidence-base. Smokers that attempt to quit without assistance are significantly less likely to quit successfully than those who quit with support. The unsupported quit rate is around 4 per cent at one year. This is doubled when a smoker uses stop smoking medicines, and quadrupled when a smoker uses the NHS Stop Smoking Services – where smokers get both medicine and behavioural support.”

This is simply untrue. The claim of a 15% success rate which originates from the Fergusson report and is the supposed basis for the “four times more likely to succeed” slogan was only achieved by a process of cherry picking, weeding out all the participants that the report’s authors thought less likely to succeed because of socio-economic factors. That is bogus. The Borland report, on the other hand, found only a 6.5% success rate at one year follow up for NHS Smoking Cessation Services. Figures for willpower alone we have seen through several reports oscillate between 4% and 8%. In other words, the methods employed by the NHS Stop Smoking Services are an unjustifiable waste of precious public resources and must be scrapped. The Truth Will Out Campaign entirely agrees with this statement:

“Simon Chapman, a professor of public health, said that governments were also guilty of medicalising smoking cessation and of making giving up sound harder than it actually is.”

Yes, and so are A.S.H. The fact is, they don’t WANT you to quit. They want you to smoke, then try the gum, then smoke, then try the patches, then smoke, then try the lozenges, then smoke, then try the micro-tab, then smoke, then try the inhalator-thingy…

Quit Smoking In One Session With Hypnotherapy!

Of course I believe the money would be better spent on hypnotherapy based on my own experience as a hypnotherapist over the last decade, and also the evidence reproduced in the book and on this site. However I am no longer under any illusion that evidence will change these things. The opposition to change is ideological and has far more to do with money, power and influence than it has to do with evidence.

No, the thing which will really force a change is the fact that there isn’t any money – not for hypnotherapy, not for nicotine replacement poisoning, not for the Champix Suicide Pills, not for that freaky Zyban (it’s an anti-depressant! No it’s not, it’s an anti-smoking pill! No it’s not, it’s a cure for hiccups! No wait, it’s…)

There’s no money for any of it. All sorts of things are going to be cut, but the things that will be cut first are the ones that don’t work anyway, and EVERYBODY KNOWS THAT N.R.T. DOESN’T BLOODY WORK! And Champix is killing people, and damaging a lot more. Scrap the lot! Stop wasting prescious NHS resources on this bullshit!

Champix Chantix: Legal action, class actions, suing Pfizer

*Update: If you or a loved one has suffered a bad reaction to Champix and you are based in the U.K., you can report it to the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA) here.  The more people do that the clearer the true picture will become.  Protect others!  Report it.*

by Chris Holmes

Several times I have been asked about the options for suing Pfizer – the manufacturer of Champix Chantix – for damages over the horrific side effects some smokers taking the drug have suffered.  Such claims are already under way.  Lawyers in the USA and Canada are offering advice on this and this is only the beginning.

I cannot give any kind of legal advice, and I will refrain from commenting on the matter too because that is not my area of expertise.  I do believe that what we are now seeing is only the tip of the iceberg though, so if you have an interest in these matters you can expect the relevant facts to be changing as time progresses.  Just a few links that you might find useful to begin with, after which I advise you to use the search engines to find out more:

http://www.docken.com/

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Three+women+file+class+action+lawsuit+over+Pfizer+quit+smoking+drug/2686782/story.html

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/chantix-160/

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/topics/champix/

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2008/07/10/widow-sues-pfizer-over-chantix-after-husbands-suicide/

http://www.furiousseasons.com/movabletype/mt-comments.cgi?entry_id=1134

http://www.uslaw.com/lawsuits/Chantix+Suicide?itemid=5

http://www.topix.com/forum/health/bipolar-disorder/THQ07G6LQAHTSM8OV

Other Useful Stuff:

Central Hypnotherapy

The Drug That Never Was