May 20, 2008Audio: Glaxo CEO Defends Its Handling of Paxil, Walks Out On BBCYesterday, I noted that outgoing GlaxoSmithKline CEO JP Garnier had walked out on the BBC after facing tough questions over the company's handling of various accusations around Paxil (Seroxat in the UK). I'll let the audio speak for itself. It's about a six-minute exchange between the BBC's reporter and Garnier and it's well worth listening to a Big Pharma CEO defend his company and claim that it's been open and transparent with the public in its handling of allegations that Paxil caused suicidality (among other things) in patients, that the company knew what was going on from its own clinical trials, that the company then hid this information from regulators in the UK (and the US), that they hid this same information from the public and that many, many patients needlessly took an anti-depressant of limited efficacy that did all manner of rotten things to them and that they had a bitch of a time withdrawing from. Think I am joking? Go look at these photos of a newborn in an NICU in Seattle four years ago. The baby is withdrawing from effects of Paxil that was given to her mother while the child was in utero. Some Paxil users have never been able to get off the drug. Keep these things in mind when listening to Garnier and the BBC do the hokey-pokey: People died from taking Paxil. There are over 800 reported deaths associated with the use of this drug in the FDA's adverse events database. There are over 8,900 other adverse events in the FDA's adverse events database associated with the use of this drug. Here's the audio which someone has superimposed a few points upon. Garnier begins by answering questions about Glaxo's new avian flu vaccine, then the reporter begins pressing him on Paxil (Seroxat) at about the 4:50 mark. Scroll forward and hear the sound of one CEO who flunked his PR classes. I haven't the faintest whom the BBC reporter is questioning Garnier, but he puts the boots to the evasive CEO in fine fashion. Thanks to my many British friends (you know who you are) for getting this radio moment online in listenable form. Are Americans as pissed off about this drug as are the Brits? So new readers know my bias on Paxil, here's how I once described my short stay on this drug many years ago: "When 80 mgs. of Prozac didn't fix what ailed me, my doctor dropped that in favor of Paxil and lowered my dose of Lithium. I am convinced that Prozac made me pretty damn suicidal, but Paxil was a whole other ball game. The shit gave me akathesia and spun me up. I wound up desperate and alone, sitting in my apartment night after night trying to figure out what the hell was going on with me. I didn't last long on Paxil. Even my sorry ass doctor figured it was not benefitting me so he took me off it, this at a time before the Paxil withdrawal syndrome business was acknowledged. Let me tell you: everything people say about how bad it is coming off of Paxil is true. Mostly, I felt like a dead lump as I was being weaned and had those lightning bolt zaps in my brain. Not pleasant. " BTW, everyone knows there are loads of Paxil documents out there in the US and UK that have never seen the light of day. It's time that they did. 
del.icio.us
Digg it
reddit
Comments
I think the Beeb's reporter is James Naughtie (pron: Noch (to rhyme with "loch")-tea) Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 20, 2008 03:53 AMI'm pretty thankful that I took Paxil on and off. I was supposed to be consistent in taking it every day but I would take it for two days and forget to take it for another two day. The side effects were instantaneous by the third day. I felt the brain zaps and many side effects similar to that of Effexor. I didn't feel all there. These side effects reminded me that I needed to get back on the drug. When I got back on Paxil, everything was fine again. I told my doctor — a PCP — that Paxil was making me feel weird and she berated me for not taking it consistently. After three months of the back and forth, my doctor finally got tired of my complaining and put me on Lexapro. The withdrawal wasn't as hellish as I thought it would be (probably because I wasn't taking it as consistently as most people) but I remember being at a baseball game feeling woozy and hazy. Everyone, from my doctor to my family, told me that the withdrawal effects were a result of my not taking the drug regularly. I'm not a fan of Lexapro's side effects but it sure as hell beats Paxil anyday. Posted by: Marissa at May 20, 2008 06:38 AMTry it everyday for 4 years.. Paxil seems to cause the worst side effects when taken regularly for a long time (two to three years and over) .. Personally I canot even describe in words the utter anguish torture and pain I suffered both on and coming off this drug... It affected me physically and psycholgically so badly, I can only compare it to what it must have felt like in the Nazi Death camps.. I puked, crapped and sweated my way through 9 months of sheer torture, with akathisa, depersonalization , nose bleeds, anus bleeds, muscle spasms, headaches, vertigo, insomnia, the works.. It destroyed and obliterated any semblance of sanity I had at the time, thankfully that was some years ago... Nasty fuckin Drug.. Should never have been licensed, that much is as obvious as JP Garnier is arrogant ...
When James Naughtie met his Waterloo The Today presenter asked his question seven times. Frustrated, Jean-Pierre Garnier hung up. Politeness had won The biter bitten ... Today's James Naughtie. Photograph: BBC Yesterday, listeners to Radio 4's Today programme heard the biter bitten, as GlaxoSmithKline chief executive Jean-Pierre Garnier took exception to James Naughtie's questioning. Garnier was there to talk about his company's bird-flu vaccine for humans. Naughtie kept asking him about the Seroxat row, and the availability of information about the anti-depressant's side effects after it was linked to suicidal impulses in young people. Garnier gave an answer he clearly felt was sufficient. Naughtie repeated the question - seven times - but Garnier refused to be cowed. Perhaps he was unfamiliar with the great British tradition that interviewees must cringe beneath the mighty sword of truth wielded by Radio 4 presenters but, over the course of the 10-minute interview, Garnier gave as good as he got. Politeness became a weapon. "If you don't mind, I think I have answered this question three times ... If you have other questions, please go on." Naughtie then lost ground by addressing his guest as "Jean-Paul". Finally, Garnier - not Naughtie - brought the interview to a close: "I am not interested in this question. We have dealt with this subject. Thank you ... for taking the time to hear about [the vaccine], and I wish you the best. Goodbye." Whatever the rights and wrongs of the Seroxat row, Garnier's performance felt like a useful corrective to our national willingness to accept mere hectoring as the Today programme's preferred method of debate. Did we learn anything useful after, say, the second repetition of the question? Do Naughtie et al really think that simply reformulating a question will cause a guest to spill the truth? Au revoir, M Garnier, and thanks for all the questions. http://blogs.guardian.co.uk/tv/2008/05/when_james_naughtie_met_his_wa.html
Hectoring gets you nowhere !! "Hectoring gets you nowhere !! Well that's an ironic statement "morse" , considering we are dealing with a massive corporate "Bully" like GSK.. Naughtie didn't "Hector" or "Bully" JP Garnier.. Naughtie may have resorted to harrassing him by the end of this interview but Garnier certainly gave as good as he got, and even at that came across lke an cold, unaring, arrogant, conceited , self absorbed **** (fill in expletive here) Please stop trying to undermine any progress in bringing awareness to Seroxat dangers , I don't understand why you do this.. Posted by: truthman30 at May 20, 2008 03:59 PMDear truthman30 at May 20, 2008 03:59 PM
Rightly or wrongly Garnier was there to talk about birdflu. I would have imagined if seroxat had of been mentioned before the interview was even scripted Garnier or his minders would not have allowed it to take place at all. Naughtie went unto the Seroxat point not once, not twice but about seven times !! Obviously truthman30 you have a limited understanding about manners. So Naughtie tried to hijack Garnier just like the Seroxat litigants led by their lawyer & their media relations company hijacked the entire SSRI class issue. You don't like it up you Sara xxx
Sara xx wrote: Well, I can only speak personally, but I don't find that I have been hijacked by the Seroxat litigants, although, to be fair, I'm only piggybacking on their campaign, given that my issue is with generic fluoxetine, made by any one 15 companies that are authorized to market the drug in the UK. The wider issues are identical for both me and them, however. Monty Burns is a lying, evasive fuckwit - that's already been demonstrated officially. He's also a bully, and a coward, which has been demonstrated officially, too (by the Senate Finance Committee (incidentally, I don't think the SFC likes Monty, very much!)). Now, Naughtie asked, quite pertinently, whether the Seroxat investigation docs would be released into the public domain. The evasive fuckwit said that they would be subject to FOIA request. GSK is not a public body, so, as I understand it, the FOIA has got fuck all to do with anything. Next, from a practical perspective, how the fuck does one request a document, when one doesn't know that it exists? We don't even have a list of the "million pages" that the MHRA looked at, so that we can cherry pick the stuff that we think is interesting to us. Let's put that a different way: "Erm, Mr GSK, can I have a document that may or may not exist that pertains to your withholding of SAE data, with respect to the treatment of depression in minors, please?" To which Mr GSK replies "I think you'll have to be more specific," but one can't be more specific, because one doesn't know what one is asking for. Garnier's a cunt, and no amount of blaming Naughtie for hectoring changes that. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 21, 2008 02:10 AM13 signatures. See who is second on that list.
Fid Posted by: Fiddy at May 21, 2008 04:09 AMListen Morse (Saraxxx) I really couldn't give a fiddlers about your beef with the SUG, With Seroxat litigation, with Derek Scott, with Bob Fiddaman or anything else for that matter. I was prescribed Seroxat right, it affected me in terrible ways, I do what I do for myself because I want to bring awareness to this, so please, if you have an agenda , aim it at someone else, I have no beef with you, I don't know you nor have I had any contact with you. Please have some dignity and self respect and stop attacking anyone or anything to do with Seroxat which you see as your enemy. I am well aware that other SSRI's are just as bad as Seroxat, but what would be the point in me personally writing about other SSRI's when I have not had experience with them? It is no ones fault that Seroxat got more attention than the other SSRI's, do you think that us Seroxat campaigners are all happy we were prescribed Seroxat instead of Prozac or Effexor? Do you think we are all enjoying the experience of campaigning day in and day out for change and awareness about the danger sof these drugs?!? Do you think we choose this path ot something? Seriously, think about it man.. It seems to me that you are bitter about the SUG, well I have nothing to do with the SUG, so please leave me out of your scope of resentment. Thanks " think we can safely assume 'Sara' is actually Bryce "
"saw a few people on the plane that were confined to wheelchairs! " no doubt then that they were genuinely disabled "Face it Mr Bryce - you are pissed because you cannot get anyone to take your case on." do you know this for a fact or is it another one of your silly childish unfounded presumptions? "Now move on and find yourself a solicitor who is prepared to take your case on." you mean one like Mark Harvey who will most likely settle with GSK and gag you ? You see Bob you raelly don't have a clue but as a person reliant on social security benefits you will end up getting a weekly pittance from the GSK/Seroxat trust fund managed by Mark Harvey's company.
"Garnier's a cunt, and no amount of blaming Naughtie for hectoring changes that."
The trouble is Matt, Mark Harvey etc is no longer in a position to continually lever the media. The danger for these guys is that if he really had a strong case it would have been before the court ages ago. Trial by media is one thing but Goodrelations Ltd is hardly Judge & jury as it were in these matters. When people believe their own propaganda, it is known as a delusion. Quite apt considering the circumstances of the clients. Sara xxx
Morse/Bryce/Sara Were you on Seroxat? Can you explain to the readers here why you have such a beef with Seroxat related stuff, I don;t get it..Oh ..
Dear truthman30 @ truthman30 at May 21, 2008 07:04 AM you said "I really couldn't give a fiddlers about your beef with the SUG, With Seroxat litigation, with Derek Scott, with Bob Fiddaman or anything else for that matter" Sara xxx
You forgot to mention why you have sent documents about me to solicitors, MP's and mental health charity CEO's - not to mention phone calls to other 'govermental departments'.
Dear Mr Fiddaman As I said earlier - " You see Bob you raelly don't have a clue but as a person reliant on social security benefits you will end up getting a weekly pittance from the GSK/Seroxat trust fund managed by Mark Harvey's company."
Have you seen anything that confirms/denies that Mark Harvey's practice is to set up trust funds.? How do you feel in the knowledge that you will NOT get a large lump sum. No more "here we go, here we go yah booing expecting a holiday funded by GSK.
If I were you Bob I'd contact Google. Ofcourse they would be aware that at one time or another you took Seroxat, an antidepressant. Quite whether they would take you seriously is not clear to me. Actually Bob does anyone take you seriously- have you had a reply from Kent Woods? As I said earlier -"Hectoring gets you nowhere !"
...and phoning government departments gets you nowhere either Morse!
That's enough!
Sara, Prescription: Morning: 200 mg quetiapine Afternoon Night 400 mg quetiapine
Here you go Sara. Enjoy your 15 minutes of fame.
Sara wrote: I'm sorry: that's just a tasteless little ad hom. There is an issue, here. It concerns the skewing of the system, which permits the Worshipful Company to withhold key SAE data, doctor stats, misinform clinicians, etc, etc. As I pointed out to Kent (that's not a misspelling), recently, the upshot is that the Worshipful Company is doing precisely the opposite of what it claims: it produces shite drugs, which it claims are wonderdrugs, but it turns out that it knew that they were never wonderdrugs, but kept a lid on that. When the side effect information starts to leak out, we're told that "no drug is without risks". That may be legal, as perceived by the MHRA, but it that doesn't mean a great deal to me. I don't like the way that the Worshipful Company has duped patients, been found out, and been let of the hook by the Establishment. That just provides it with carte blanche to carry on doing what it's doing, and God knows where that will end. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 22, 2008 12:11 AM
I note your attempt to try and move the debate away from Furious Seasons and unto fiddaman.blogspot.com where it is well known that you refuse to let certain people post comments. As I said earlier people who believe their own propaganda eventually become deluded.
I said " How do you feel in the knowledge that you will NOT get a large lump sum. " I also said " Have you seen anything that confirms/denies that Mark Harvey's practice is to set up trust funds.? " & I now say - did you ever warn the members of SUG/OSSG that there would be no lump sums? I will also record here that this issue was raised on the network54 site by a person calling himself/herself " Mightman " post url =http://www.network54.com/Forum/281849/message/1211303473/Morse%27s+comments+on+Seroxat+publicity to which Morse replied thus -"Morses comments in regard to recent articles detailing some of the many thousand of UK claimants in the Seroxat/Paxil group action claim against GSK for damages are pathetic."
What comments in what groups & what was the context in which the comments (if any) were made ? Remember I am the listowner of SSRI Crusaders, a moderator of Prozacawareness, a moderator of Withdrawal&Recovery & list owner of Criticalpsychiatry2
as for the "many thousand of UK claimants in the Seroxat/Paxil group action " well that's a work of fiction for a start for many thousand in reality read a few hundred
"Hugh James Solicitors and Mark Harvey will almost certainly win the High Court Case ......." no they won't, they will at best settle - there will be no publicity - & anyone who gets a settlement will be gagged. Then you lot will vanish from the net. .........how pathetic is that !
"GSK themselves have used publicity many times to promote their defence and continue to lobby politicians and many in the medical profession " as indeed has Mark Harvey / Hugh James who used Goodrelations a division of Lord Tim Bell's chime communications ...............but above all Mark Harvey has USED people like you !
"just follow the London High Court case and just watch GSK get sued as they incur more and more bad publicity as the truth comes out and the overwhelming evidence against Seroxat is revealed."
nothing will be seen in the public eye, Mark does not have a lions heart. as for any lump sum from GSK ..............I do hope you'll be happy to learn that it is his normal practice to set up a trust fund, a little on the drip every few weeks otherwise the DHSS compensation recovery agency might be on the case.
Dear Ana
@ Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 22, 2008 12:11 AM "There is an issue, here. It concerns the skewing of the system, which permits the Worshipful Company to withhold key SAE data, doctor stats, misinform clinicians, etc, etc "
Several members of the group are hanging in there fully expectant of large lump sum payments to clear their personal debts. It's not going to happen, these people need their expectations managed. There is a duty of care. You may not like the way the MHRA has duped the patients & frankly neither do I. What make you though of the way the lawyers have duped their clients.? What make you of the way the Lawyers have duped the MHRA via placing hyped stories in the media? For God's sake Matt we are talking about vulnerable people exploited by professionals. SUG is a business - Mark Harvey set it up. Sara XXX read their newsletter issue 1 it's even printed on Mark Harvey's (Hugh James) letter headed paper http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/Documents/newsletterissue1.pdf Posted by: sara at May 22, 2008 02:52 AMSara wrote: Sorry to butt in on your piddling confrontation with, erm, everybody, but: debate what, exactly? You haven't made a single point in either this, or the other thread (which Philip closed). As far as I can tell, you're going round and round in circles, ad homing, and criticizing the approach that people are taking, in turn. And your objective in doing this is as unclear to me now as it ever was. State your purpose (if only to yourself), and then measure your conduct against that - you'd be doing us all a favour, I think. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 22, 2008 02:55 AMPhilip, I would like to some explanations about people who attack bloggers. Just another topic that I'm finding difficult to understand. :o) I've searched the "Shrink Rap" site. "Psychotherapy is often about finding and elucidating patterns for people. Have you noticed you always feel badly at this time of year? That you've been feeling worse since we stopped the medicine? How you talk about your boss the same way you talk about your mom? How you make assumptions about the reactions of strangers that keep you from even trying to get what you want? Maybe it resonates, maybe it doesn't, I can always try again." "Psychotherapy is often about pointing out things that would be difficult or painful to hear in ordinary conversation. Something about the setting makes it safe to hear hard things, to learn about oneself in a way that enables the patient to effect change. "Clinically, the question of SSRI-induced suicidal/homicidal behavior has always been a tough one: these medications aren't prescribed to people who are trooping along Just Fine. Suicidality is a very common symptom of Depression and SSRI's are prescribed for depression; we're left wondering if the SSRI caused the suicidality, began working and lifted the patient to the point of being able to act on the thoughts, shifted the patient into a bipolar mixed state, or simply was ineffective in treating the depression and was incidental to the final act." Links of this site: * DSM-4 Code Finder The word "therapy" is being used as a way to cover what "psychological" help is really about. The more confused the better! As far as "Sara" is concerned I believe we need Sara xx. LOL What about a Jacob? Posted by: Ana at May 22, 2008 05:56 AM Dear Matt @ Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 22, 2008 02:55 AM " Sorry to butt in on your piddling confrontation with, erm, everybody, but: debate what, exactly? "
You are not interested in reading what Derek Scott or Fiddaman etal said in these forums when they were members there long before SUG or OSSG You just take 'em on face value, but you don't know all their faces. Morse is the listowner of SSRI Crusaders, a moderator of Prozacawareness, a moderator of Withdrawal&Recovery & list owner of Criticalpsychiatry2. Any or all of those groups promote, amongst other things a very strong anti SSRI/pharma agenda. http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SSRI-Crusaders/ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ProzacAwareness/ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Withdrawal_and_Recovery/
Sara wrote: Yes, that appears to be a recurrent theme, where "experts" are deemed to hold information and knowledge of great mysticism: as long as people continue to believe that to be true, then they may be fed any old guff. However, I don't know that the Seroxat campaigners have been exploited by their lawyer(s). I've built up an interesting fund of knowledge, with respect to the way that the Worshipful Company does business (via critical professional opinion, cross-referenced with investigative journalism, law reports, and so on), and the MHRA was disinclined to disabuse me as to any of the conclusions that I drew, the majority of which were based on its utterances. I'm particularly concerned that the MHRA chose not to elaborate on the way that it assesses drugs, but that's beside the current point. I don't think that it does you any favours to attack people as "delusional," simply because they've accepted the word of people (if you want to regard lawyers as people, that is!), that they ought to be able to trust. We've all been stiffed, in that way - we ought to be able to trust Martin Keller, but we would be foolish if we did, I think. Put another way, Derek, Bob, Janice, et al, are far from stupid people, but there has to be a point when they accept the information that they are given without question, because it would be a very tiring (and time-consuming), exercize to validate everything that one was told via an independent source. Let's assume that they were given duff information, and deliberately. Who does that reflect on? Them, or the people who gave knowingly the duff information? On the other hand, how do we know that the information is duff? Have you checked? I bow to your superior knowledge on this, because I have no understanding of the way in which settlements are paid across, nor what the Seroxat patients' lawyers have promised them, nor what the lawyers and others have caused to be said about the case (probably not the lawyers, because they wouldn't want to be held in contempt). In summation, if your gripe is with the PR company and the lawyers, I think it would look better if you made that clear, rather than attacking the people who have been placed in a position where they have had to consult these professionals, in order to seek recourse. However, even if the patients have been sold a line, how does that impact on you? That is, what motivates you to warn them that they've been had by the Worshipful Company, only for the next pack of scavengers to come along, in order to finish the job? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 22, 2008 10:00 AMSara wrote: No, not really - I would be surprised if it impacted upon me, on any level, and, as I wrote, before, it wouldn't influence my view of Derek, Bob and the rest, one iota. If you think it's pertinent to achieving the objective (which for my purposes is to ensure that what happened to me never happens to anybody else, again), then feel free to quote them. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 22, 2008 10:54 AMWhy do you speak of Morse in the third person 'Sara'?
Yeh, Morse is on the right track alright.
Fid "I am working and paid by an ambulance chasing firm of solicitors? "
Did you as moderator of OSSG warn the FEW members that the group actually had ? Oh I know Janice of SUG LIED when she claimed she represented 10,000, would that be "dressing up his case" as Mark Harvey says, or just another illusion punted by Goodrelations. Illusions/delusions but nobody including Sara Richards of Hugh James, an avid reader of this blog has tried to correct me.
the CEO of a mental health charity ? oh I'm sure they talk to people claiming to be Chief Inspector Morse everyday of the week. XXX Posted by: sara at May 22, 2008 12:06 PMPersonally, I don't know why any of us are entertaining "Morse-Sara-Bryce" , it's obvious he came here to stir shit and he's getting just the reaction that he wants...
"its basically a load of bolllox "
Sara XXX Here are some real activists groups & not businesses set up by vested interests like Mark Harvey http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SSRI-Crusaders/ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/ProzacAwareness/ http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/Withdrawal_and_Recovery/
Quite strange behaviour for someone with such a passion about mental health.
re -Posted by: Fiddy at May 22, 2008 01:36 PM
To restate - . what of the Trust fund Bob & the FACT that people on benefits will not get a lump sum. . Did you as moderator of OSSG warn the FEW members that the group actually had ? Oh I know Janice of SUG LIED when she claimed she represented 10,000, would that be "dressing up his case" as Mark Harvey says, or just another illusion punted by Goodrelations. Illusions/delusions but nobody including Sara Richards of Hugh James, an avid reader of this blog has tried to correct me. Strange behaviour & no Goodrelations here to manage this forum & prevent free speech. http://www.goodrelationswales.co.uk/people.html
" Personally, I don't know why any of us are entertaining "Morse-Sara-Bryce" , it's obvious he came here to stir shit and he's getting just the reaction that he wants...
I second truthman30. Enough! Posted by: Ana at May 22, 2008 03:25 PMwhat of the Trust fund Bob & the FACT that people on benefits will not get a lump sum.
OK
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/criticalpsychiatry/message/46338
Fid Posted by: Fiddy at May 22, 2008 05:08 PM@ Posted by: Fiddy at May 22, 2008 03:41 PM Bob Fiddaman said " As far as I am aware, SUG has no members " Thank you Bob for confirming this. you also said " I think you will find that SUG has received over 10,000 emails " who said that Bob - Janice Simmons the proven liar ? " Goodrelations? Again I don't know what you are talking about. Are you suggesting a firm of solicitors hire a PR firm just so they can win a case? "
How many members does it really have ? Why did your moderators suddenly cull the membership list from well over 1000 to about 332? And of the 332, how many of them are real ?
Seroxatusergroup is a scam exploiting the victims of Paxil/Seroxat in a manner at least as bad as GSK/MHRA Bob Fiddaman confirms SUG has no membership Posted by: sara at May 23, 2008 01:20 AM...and the answers to my questions Jeremy?
"...Seroxatusergroup is a scam exploiting the victims of Paxil/Seroxat in a manner at least as bad as GSK/MHRA Bob Fiddaman confirms SUG has no membership" Sorry to butt in, again, Sara, but seeing as how you haven't replied to my last comment... Erm, if SUG has no membership, then who, exactly, is it exploiting? The so-called (by you), "victims of Seroxat"? Let's suppose that Janice has lied about the 10,000 emails, and has done nothing concrete for any of the senders. So, what? What have you done to improve the paucity of support offered to people impacted by the drug? Alternatively, let's consider the possibility that the 10,000 emails are real, and that Janice has made a bunch of overblown promises to the senders, which she has been unable to follow through on. So, what? That would only mean that Janice is not an expert in expectation management. Furthermore, when the people realized that Janice could not deliver, they would, no doubt have made other arrangements, unless you're suggesting that they are so helpless and confused that they continued to believe that Janice could produce for them, when she couldn't. I think that in order for your diatribe against SUG/OSSG to have any credence, you will have to explain how "Seroxat victims" have been disadvantaged by running with SUG/OSSG's approach. That is, even in the worst case scenario, where SUG/OSSG have been lying their heads off willfully, how exactly has that impacted negatively on anybody; or, alternatively, how have SUG/OSSG taken a benefit from continuing to dupe people (who may or may not exist, according to you), such that SUG/OSSG have been unjustly enriched, in some way, whilst the victims have been left with nothing? You see, it seems to me that you are making some very serious allegations against these two groups (and the individuals who run them), which appear to amount to allegations of fraud. Unless you can demonstrate these things more clearly, then you are skating very near the thin ice flagged "Defamation". You may not care about such things, but I do: you will not purport fantasy to be fact, around me, and expect me to swallow what you have to say, without question. Justify yourself, or leave the discussion. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 02:44 AMJesus Christ Jeremy .. Give it up already.. re -Posted by: truthman30 at May 23, 2008 05:11 AM
@ truthman30 at May 21, 2008 07:04 AM you said "I really couldn't give a fiddlers about your beef with the SUG, With Seroxat litigation, with Derek Scott, with Bob Fiddaman or anything else for that matter" Sara xxx
re Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 02:44 AM "You see, it seems to me that you are making some very serious allegations against these two groups (and the individuals who run them), which appear to amount to allegations of fraud. Unless you can demonstrate these things more clearly, then you are skating very near the thin ice flagged "Defamation"." Dear Matt Holford I believe the word used was SCAM. As I recall Dr Sarh Richards (solicitor) of Hugh Jasmes, solicitors for the litigants is a reader of this forum. No doubt if she is in anyway unhappy about claims made here then I would expect her to comment / take action. While your reading Dr Richards, comment too please on alegations that SUG fraudulently claimed to be a charity. Do tell us all how much money was raised? Can we see the accounts given to the Charity Commissioners? roll on the rollback machine & enter the world of bogus charities - Sara xxx Posted by: sara at May 23, 2008 08:12 AMTEXT from SeroxatUserGroup Newsletter issue 2 - Now exactly how much did they lift via various ways including PayPal.? Where are the accounts published? Afterall SUG promised in the document created 8/04/2003, 11:32:00, by Ernest venn to publish same in future editions "All donations will be gratefully accepted. A one-off payment of Accounts will be published in future editions of the source- http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/Documents/newsletter2.doc
Committee Andrew Isaac andrew@... I took Seroxat for approximately four years and have now Maddie Leighton maddie@... I have suffered extensively during withdrawal from Seroxat and had Janice Simmons janice@... I am the wife of a long term Seroxat user. I am therefore interested Sarah Venn sarah@... I have been taking Seroxat for over five years. I am currently
Developments Government News The Group's first achievement is an intense review of Seroxat by the BBC Panorama is planning to broadcast a follow up to the `Secrets of Updates Answers by Dr David Healy to your most frequently asked questions Our media campaign continues, with members of the Group featuring in Now that the committee is up and running, we will be in touch with
Funding We are a self-funding, non-profit Group and hope that if you are We currently accept donations through the website and will provide All donations will be gratefully accepted. A one-off payment of Accounts will be published in future editions of the newsletter.
Following a suggestion by Dr Healy, some members of the Group tried Group Website Please take a moment to visit the Group's website. It is the only Suggestions for the website are welcomed and should be directed to
As the Group now exceeds over 4,000 members, we regret we are not Up-to-date information (including all issues of the newsletter) and Hugh James solicitors will continue to correspond with their clients It is in the interests of the Group that communication with the SEROXAT http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk
Helping patients to safely withdrawal from Seroxat, sharing Working towards: Please do not fly-post: ask for permission to display this poster.
Dear Dr Sarah Richards Here we have web page from Maverick Marketing Solutions Ltd http://www.mms-ltd.co.uk/testimonials.htm Please scroll to the bottom & note Janice Simmons reports herself to be Director I'll keep a copy just in case someone tries to pull it off. http://www.mms-ltd.co.uk/testimonials.htm Sara XXX Sara, I am new to this discussion and would be interested to learn exactly what you want others to understand about the SUG. Please, you are making some serious allegations in a way in which the readers are left "assuming" you mean this or that. Further you are making others try and defend something that I'm not (maybe its just me?)anyone is clear as to what they are really trying to defend. Maybe you and the "defenders" know exactly what it going on, but the rest of us left scatching our heads. If there is something here you want all of us to know, please come out with it already. If you are saying the SUG is running a scam, everyone invovled with paxil has a right to know what information you have and where you have obtained said information. Posted by: Jane at May 23, 2008 09:04 AMGroup press release prepared by lawyer Sarah Venn dated 08/09/2003, 16:49:00, http://web.archive.org/web/20040803014254/www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/what's_new.htm click on link -
Sara XXX
Representatives from the 6,000-strong Seroxat Users Group are meeting with the Committee on Safety of Medicines SSRI Expert Working Group on 10 September 2003. Notes for Editors: For further information please contact: I think this is an example of someone who has clearly lost the plot.
Lawyer Mark Harvey claims to have orchastrated campaign to change Seroxat Patient Information Leaflet (P.I.L) source http://web.archive.org/web/20040803142947/www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/litigation.htm People who have been harmed by Seroxat have a RIGHT to know that if they are so-warned about "withdrawal" in the amended P.I.L. then they will no longer be able to take legal action against GSK. What I'd like to know is w.t.f. a lawyer thinks he's doing REDUCING the potential number of claims against GSK!! Why also is he saying - "Because of the sheer volume of people still joining the Group Action I am unable to communicate with everyone as frequently as I would like" when in reality the number of cases brought against GSK is only a few hundred.
Litigation
Mark Harvey of Hugh James solicitors is co-ordinating possible litigation on behalf of UK users. For more information, please visit http://web.archive.org/web/20040803142947/http://www.hughjames.com/dsp_home.cfm or email seroxat@hughjames.com. Message from Mark Harvey, Hugh James Solicitors Because of the sheer volume of people still joining the Group Action I am unable to communicate with everyone as frequently as I would like to. With a combination of the preliminary form of self-administered public funding, legal expense insurance and private funding we are progressing I will endeavour to keep you informed both through the web site and wherever possible in individual communications. Best wishes Message 18274 @ the Online Seroxat Support Group Notice that according to Derek Scott the poster, group members must only speak to the media with prior approval of the Hugh James public relations dept. Quite why Derek Scott copied this message to UK member of parliament Paul Flynn remains to be seen. Since Derek copied Fiddaman into the loop perhaps he would care to enlighten us? Note also that Jonathon Bray a paralegal at Hugh James is clearly a member of Scotts group. Sara XXX Message 18274 of 21606 | Previous | Next [ Up Thread ] Message Index Msg #
Hi Jonathan, sorry for the delay getting back to you, yes I was made aware yesterday that there would likely be media frenzy over the lawsuit in NY Vs GSK & Paxil and had already written a letter to Mr Iain Luke MP for Dundee East regarding the matter prior to the Guardian newspaper etc., getting wind of it today of which he will receive by Royal Mail First Class Recorded delivery tomorrow. We do have several adolescents within the group under the age of 18, including parents of children affected by the dangerous antidepressant Seroxat. I will inform the group of your wish for anyone involved to partake in speaking to the media regarding the matter through Hugh James PR. Would you be interested in sufferers outside our group as I have several contacts within the United States.
Derek.
-----Original Message-----
Derek
I’m sure you are aware that the press has really got hold of this story about the lawsuit in NY. Do you know of any people in your group who were under 18 when they were prescribed Seroxat (or parents) who might be willing to speak to the media today? We can provide the usual PR support.
Thanks Jon.
HUGH JAMES @ Posted by: Fiddy at May 23, 2008 10:10 AM Fiddaman said "will make 'her' bitter and twisted until 'she' seeks some form of counselling." It is the case is it not Mr Fiddaman that you claim on the net that you have qualifications in counselling? I find it rather odd that you use stereotypical discriminatory language directed towards someone you say is "an example of someone who has clearly lost the plot." someone " 'Her' claims are based purely on what is in 'her' head " Actually Bob, I'll stick to points that have clear current URL's on the net and/or where you lot have tried to cover your tracks I'll use the "wayback machine" internet archive. Sara xxx
http://counsellingresource.com/forum/viewtopic.php?t=2511&sid=51b3806a675458d78a04365f2e51431f Robert Fiddaman MOC and MSFTR Posted by: sara at May 23, 2008 11:42 AMterms of use © Copyright Hugh James Solicitors 2002. http://www.hughjames.com/dsp_callback.cfm url via internet archive http://web.archive.org/web/20021121121915/http://www.hughjames.com/dsp_callback.cfm
Perhaps you could explain why the terms of use / aims of the group are copyright Hugh James ?
*******
SSRI’s work by inhibiting serotonin re-uptake transporters thereby increasing serotonin levels in the brain. Serotonin is a chemical which affects the mood. By boosting that chemical the patient should feel better.
Manufactured by Glaxo Smith Kline (“GSK”) it was first licensed in the UK on 11th December 1990 and was re-licensed on the 9th January 1998.
Seroxat’s original licence was simply to treat episodes of mild to moderate depression. It is now licensed for the short term treatment of symptoms of depressive illness of types including:-
· Depression accompanied by anxiety. · Treatment of symptoms and prevention of relapse of obsessive compulsive disorder. · Treatment of symptoms and prevention of relapse of panic disorder with or without agoraphobia.
It is said to be useful for people who find social situations bring on these symptoms.
Two major concerns have been expressed by the people who have contacted us:
1. That Seroxat during treatment can cause psychiatric problems that previously were not there and in some cases this had led to violent behaviour towards others and suicide.
2. That the drug causes dependency (despite claims to the contrary) the withdrawal from which has caused the occurrence of new symptoms and an exacerbation of previous symptoms.
Seroxat was said by Smith Kline Beecham to be non-addictive (see patient information sheet). However patients world wide have described serious and long term side effects that make it very difficult to come off the drug after using it for as little as two days. Other complaints include the development of aggressive tendencies.
Concern over the drug has gained momentum since June 2001 when a jury in the US ordered GSK, in what has become known as the Schell case, to pay substantial damages of $6.4million (£4.6 million) to the family of a man who killed his wife, children and then himself after he had been taking Paxil (the US trading name of Seroxat) for just two days.
A World Health Organisation league table of the drugs that have difficulties on withdrawal puts Paroxetine (Seroxat) at the top spot with twice as many reports as the next highest, another SSRI called Efexor. The benzodiazepines Ativan and Valium come 11th and 13th.
The World Health Organisation has said there is “a need for repeated doses of the drug to feel good or avoiding feeling bad”.
Drug company’s response.
That suicide was a recognised occurrence in people suffering from these depressive illnesses.
The symptoms suffered on cessation of the medication was simply a reoccurrence of the original problems which indicate they should resume taking it
GSK have said “you cannot become addicted to Seroxat. These tablets are not addictive”. As for withdrawal symptoms they say “they are not common and they are not a sign of addiction”.
In the US it has been marketed as “talk to your Doctor about non-habit forming Paxil today”.
Recent developments
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in the United States published a new public warning about the drug in December 2001. In the same week the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations declared GSK guilty of misleading the public about Paroxetine on US television during the year 2000.
In the early part of 2003 the government announced a full review of drugs within the SSRI category but with particular emphasis on Seroxat. Shortly after the institution of the review, the MHRA announced a ban on the prescription of Seroxat to under 18s because of the significant risk of suicide which had been elicited from GSK’s own data.
In April 2003 for the first time GSK agreed to remove from the Patient Information Leaflet the references to the drug not being addictive.
In June 2003 GSK have confirmed that there is a withdrawal reaction in 25% of patients (this contrasts with earlier leaflets that demonstrated a 7% reaction)
Aims of the Group
Amendment with more detail of the patient information sheet and information to doctors in relation particularly but not exclusively to withdrawal.
To notify individuals who take Seroxat and who desire to withdraw from the drug about the means and methods to do so.
Provision for the accumulation and analysis of relevant medical facilities who can withdraw Seroxat from users safely.
Provision for the individual funding of safe Seroxat withdrawal.
Provision for medical research concerning any long terms effects of Seroxat.
Compensation, where appropriate, for individuals who have suffered with the drug.
Disclaimer This written material is provided for information purposes only and is not intended to constitute advice of any sort. Any use you make of it is at your own risk. We recommend you seek legal advice in all specific situations. All implied warranties and conditions are excluded to the maximum extent permitted by law. © Copyright Hugh James Solicitors 2002. Jane, "All donations will be gratefully accepted. A one-off payment of Accounts will be published in future editions of the newsletter." What a SHOCK! LOL I can see that the group was already online on 2003. My life would be very totally different. Posted by: Ana at May 23, 2008 12:49 PM Sara wrote: By whom, and in relation to what? Anyway, what you appear to be saying is that SUG (and possibly OSSG, too?), have been misrepresenting their status, for the express purpose of having Seroxat patients donate cash, thus unjustly enriching themselves? The question being, of course, whether or not these groups (and the individuals within them), have been enriched by this "SCAM" (and also when and where they expressed this purpose). Have you any evidence as to how the money has been spent, and by whom? For example, has money been spent by the group on the retention of lawyers for the purpose of research and preparing a case against GSK? Such expenditure, it strikes me, is for the wider benefit of Seroxat patients. On the other hand, do you have any evidence that donated funds have been subject to personal expenditure, completely unrelated to the business of helping Seroxat patients, in one way, or another. Proving fraud is not as straight forward as it would appear, initially. You see, a great deal of emphasis is placed upon the mens rea (the mental element) of the crime, too. That is, there has to be an intention to unjustly enrich, by deception. If you are able to demonstrate that, without documentary evidence, then please let the SFO know, because it was set up quite expressly because of the complex technical issues involved. However, let's assume, for the sake of argument, that SUG/OSSG and the people who operate those organizations, have deceived vulnerable people, for the purpose of lining their own pockets. How has this impacted upon you, to your detriment? Matt PS I didn't read the materials you sourced, as I wasn't sure what they were supposed to illustrate. Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 12:59 PMSara wrote: Because it drafted them, pursuant to a request by the Group, which it had retained as a client? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 01:04 PM@ Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 12:59 PM
@ Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 01:04 PM
pity you DON'T read all the documents otherwise Matt you would understand that the lawyer set up the group to trawl for clients. Besides Matt, the lawyer has applied for & received (so he claims) public funds (legal aid) from the Legal Services Commission - so why then look for donations from the members. Sara xxx BTW - where are the accounts - don't hold your breath
Jeremy .. I'll tell you what I think, shall I? The Hugh James litigation was whittled down from thousands of people to a few hundred! The Seroxat users group has no members, the Seroxat users group has a billion members the seroxat users group is a bunch of aliens from Uranus!!!
Sara wrote: Huh? On the contrary, I was trying to prompt you to do that! There are no conclusions that I can draw from the information that you have put forward, thus far: everything appears to be vague allegation, supported by hyperbole. So, SUG is some kind of lightning rod for "Seroxat victims," which was set up by a lawyers firm, in order to drum up some business? In other words, it's already served its purpose, because the statute of limitations in tort (6 years) has already been and gone, such that no further claims may be registered. In which case, SUG will be quietly closed, shortly? Except that SUG has been named by the MHRA to contribute to the consultation process, pursuant to the amendment of the Clinical Trial Regs. I think you should warn the MHRA that it, too, is being duped by a shell organization. Anyway, I have no idea why lawyers would need to appeal for donations to fund the case he was pursuing on behalf of his clients, particularly as it was able to claim from the Legal Aid Board for work carried out. Perhaps SUG has "legitimate" objectives, aside from securing new clients (funny that: barristers used to regard solicitors as a necessary evil, because it was the solicitors who brought the clients to them (barristers may not meet a client, without his/her solicitor being present, you see) Indeed, until recently, solicitors were not permitted to advocate, even in the lower courts)? I dunno - lobbying MPs, meeting with the MHRA, that kind of thing? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 03:05 PM@ Posted by: truthman30 at May 23, 2008 02:07 PM " WHO CARES! "
I believe we need Elle Woods to advocate here! Posted by: Ana at May 23, 2008 03:15 PMSara, I assume that David Healy became rich! I'll let everybody know what was his answer. You see Sara? That's the way Elle Woods works! Wow! I knew you didn't pay him! Now I'll go shopping. Ana XXXXXXX We are almost there PHILIP. We'll beat the other post. 120 comments!!!! Posted by: Elle Woods at May 23, 2008 03:51 PMBryce wrote: "well obviously not you,(halftruthman15) but you'd be surprised who does & what they are prepared to do about it." Oooooh scary stuff! Does this mean 'Sara' is actually going to use 'her' real name and make an official complaint? Boo Hoo Fiddaman went to Australia. Boo Hoo Fiddaman works for ambulance chasers Boo Hoo Fiddaman writes poetry about tampons Boo Hoo SUGS Boo Hoo Derek Boo Hoo Litigation Boo Hoo Media relations Boo Hoo give me a platform to make a complete dick of myself Boo Hoo I'm from Norn Ireland I'm quite liking the delusional rants of Bryce. Hope Phil allows him to continue posting. Fid Posted by: BOB FIDDAMAN at May 23, 2008 04:05 PMSara wrote: Nothing surprises me, anymore. However, there is nothing to do anything about, at least nothing that you've identified, on this thread. You've written that SUG (or the people who run it), has defrauded (or embezzled? I'm unclear), funds from Seroxat patients. However, the only evidence that you have put forward to support this is the "fact" that no accounts have been filed with the Charities Commission. But if SUG isn't a charity, that's not a surprise. You have stated that SUG claimed to be charity, which I think(?) was a central plank of your misrep argument, but I haven't seen anything to back up that statement - where did SUG make this claim? And, for that matter, where are the Seroxat patients, complaining of the conduct of SUG? Are you one of them? Seriously, Sara: from what I've read, thus far, you've taken a bunch of stuff that you don't like the look of, and built a story around it. Why you've chosen to do that, I have no idea. Did you not like what you saw, and decided SUG/OSSG were bad eggs, or did you dislike those groups, and the people who run them, and then decide that you would dig some dirt, in order to validate your gut feeling? Either way, you really need to be a lot more careful about the way that you construct your arguments. Given the way that you have evaded most of the questions that I have put to you, during the course of this thread, I wouldn't be surprised to find that you have engaged tunnel vision, and ignored any information that might distract from your objective, which appears only to be to "get" SUG/OSSG. As such, you have concocted a distinctly one-sided argument, which is relatively easy to dismantle. Incidentally, if you're Bryce, I understand that you steamed my Downing Street petition? That really wasn't very fucking wise. You may know people who are prepared to do stuff to right whatever wrongs that you perceive have been done, or you may not. I think that's irrelevant, as it happens. Just be sure that you don't cross me. OK? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 23, 2008 05:39 PMBryce wrote:
@ Posted by: Ana at May 23, 2008 03:38 PM said "I assume that David Healy became rich!"
So if Janice Simmons is telling the truth about the group representing 10,000 persons £500 x 10,000 = £5 million, I don't know if you call that getting rich, but what is rich is that the lawyers have received funding from UK taxpayers i.e the Legal Services Commission. So why are the clients having to fork out £££££££'s to Healy.? No doubt Fiddaman will explain all ?? Won't you Bob Sara xxx & BTW if the clients can't afford the £500 to Healy all in one go they can pay it off in installments. How nice. That is until they loose the case, which they might, will they get their money back? Will they be liable for GSK's costs? Let us all hope they don't loose, but it is a concern all the same. (if the clients didn't go for Healy they could opt for Dr Ben Green @ a slightly cheaper £350) Posted by: Ana at May 23, 2008 03:48 PM
MARK HARVEY - (he) acknowledges that a lot of people benefit from Seroxat.
with friends like Harvey, who needs enimies !! http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2002/apr/28/mentalhealth
re - Sara xxx
Transient dystonias and dyskinesias of the jaw have presviously been described with SSRIs (Fitzgerald & Healy, 1995). This report considers four patients on SSRIs who all suffered prolonged neurological symptoms for months after discontinuing their medication.
Mrs A. a 29 year old married lady with a moderate depressive disorder was switched to paroxetine by her general practitioner after an initial prescription of dothiepin. She had found the tricyclic dothiepin too sedating and after a week or so of this medication requested a change. After two weeks on paroxetine 20 mg daily she was reviewed by a consultant psychiatrist who increased the dose to 40 mg daily. The patient suffered a dystonic reaction to the paroxetine that required physician review and admission, but apparently responded well to procyclidine. The paroxetine was discontinued. Unfortunately the dystonic reaction persisted off all medication and required further medical admission and the re-prescription of procyclidine. The depression continued unabated and a tricyclic was started with some improvement in mood. Seven months after the paroxetine had been stopped the tardive dystonia was noted to be present and to vary with anxiety levels, body posture, alertness, and emotional state. A 35-year-old man (Mr B) was prescribed paroxetine 30 mg daily for depression. The depression resolved and the paroxetine was continued at the same dose for two years. The medication was discontinued in a staged way, with reductions to 20, then 10 mg, managed over six weeks or so. Symptoms of withdrawal occurred throughout this period and comprised vivid nightmares, lability of mood, irritability, hypersexuality, episodic lightheadedness, episodic electric-shock like sensations, glove paraesthesiae, and ataxia. These symptoms ended two weeks after the withdrawal regime was finished. Nevertheless the patient continued to describe problems of an episodic nature well after the paroxetine had been discontinued. These episodes lasting hours to days at a time and comprised paraesthesiae, dizziness, mild ataxia, and slurred speech. These episodes have occurred intermittently throughout twelve months of follow-up during which time the patient has been drug-free. There are no focal neurological signs or any features suggestive of progressive neurological disease, nor was there a family history of neurological disease.
Mrs C., a 29-year-old mother of one, became ill with depression when her son was aged eight months. She was suicidal and required hospital admission where she was started on fluoxetine 20 mg daily. The antidepressant worked well and her mood was restored within four weeks of admission. She was discharged home, but commented that her sleep was occasionally disturbed by bad dreams and she was aware of twitching in the bed. She was kept on the fluoxetine for a further twelve months and at outpatient reviews mentioned that her sleep was still occasionally disturbed by nocturnal twitching. She said that her husband had started to sleep separately, because he was 'tired of being kicked' in the middle of the night. The fluoxetine was discontinued eighteen months after the admission. Mrs C described no worsening of her mood and was euthymic and outpatient review. However, she was distressed to report that her nocturnal twitching, which took the form of sudden myoclonic jerks of her limbs, had actually worsened off fluoxetine. During the day these abnormal involuntary movements were less marked and more easily disguised, but nonetheless problematic for the patient. At follow-up eight months after discontinuation the untoward myoclonic jerks were continuing. There are no focal neurological signs or any features suggestive of progressive neurological disease, nor was there a family history of neurological disease.
Mrs D., a 49 year old health professional was prescribed 20 mg paroxetine daily in April 2000 for a depressive disorder. This relieved the depression, but aftr three months the patient started to develop paresthesiae in the right hand, and some weeks later experienced her fingers being 'fumbly'. She visited her GP and complained that although her mood was satisfactory there were unpleasant side effects. He asked her to reduce the dose to 10 mg daily. Mrs D began to experience painful, restless legs at night and vivid dreams. The tingling in her hand spread into her body and head. After a week of the 10 mg dose the patient discontinued the paroxetine altogether in the belief that the paroxetine would be out of her system in a few days and her symptoms would subside. The symptoms however persisted. She took a week off work, but the following symptoms persisted for the next three months: paraesthesiae in hands and feet spreading up arms and legs intermittently
Mrs E., a 48 year old woman was prescribed citalopram by her GP for eleven months. The indication for the prescription was chronic anxiety. For fifteen months folowing the discontinuation of this therapy she suffered headaches and dizziness. She also complained of a fluttering sensation across her scalp. To date there has been little improvement. Discussion Fitzgerald K, Healy, D. (1995) Dystonias and dyskinesias of the jaw associated with the use of SSRIs. Human Psychopharmacology, 10, 215-219. Raap DK; Garcia F; Muma Na et al. (1999) Sustained desensitization of hypothalamic 5-Hydroxytryptamine1A receptors after discontinuation of fluoxetine: inhibited neuroendocrine responses to 8-hydroxy-2-(Dipropylamino)Tetralin in the absence of changes in Gi/o/z proteins. J Pharmacol Exp Ther, Feb, 288:2, 561-7. See also Venlafaxine - long-term adverse effects (2002)
Version 1.0 published Spring 2000 Version 2.0 published November 2000 Version 2.0 published December 2000 Version 2.1 published September 2002 Version 2.2 published January 2003 Posted by: sara at May 24, 2008 02:49 AM "He acknowledges that a lot of people benefit from Seroxat, and he has a moderate suggestion that falls well short of any grandiose attempt to have the drug withdrawn"
Hope you used a better one when you sued the Car factory. You threaten & sue a lot of people Bob, is that how you make a living. How's your gout Posted by: sara at May 24, 2008 02:58 AMMr Harvey says he has never called for Seroxat to be "It's a question of proper, informed choice. If doctors and patients are told the risks involved they can make an informed choice about whether to use the drug or not." Sara XXX (Seroxat MARK HARVEY - (he) acknowledges that a lot of people benefit from Seroxat.) !!
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp? source- © 2004 Independent By David Hellier
The legal case, which is being spearheaded by Mark Harvey, a partner Already, concerns over the addictive properties of Seroxat have led On Monday, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory The drug is also facing challenges in the US, where it is marketed Mr Harvey says his 1,700 clients are of different age groups and Mr Harvey is bringing the claim under the Consumer Protection Act Mr Harvey says he has never called for Seroxat to be Mr Harvey said he could not say what scale of damages he would be A statement from Hugh James Solicitors notes that a World Health GlaxoSmithKline said yesterday it had received a letter of claim The pharmaceuticals giant's chief executive Jean-Pierre Garnier has Legal | Contact us | Using our Content | © 2004 Independent
By David Hellier Mr Harvey says he has never called for Seroxat to be "It's a question of proper, informed choice. If doctors and patients are told the risks involved they can make an informed choice about whether to use the drug or not." Sara XXX (Seroxat MARK HARVEY - (he) acknowledges that a lot of people benefit from Seroxat.) !!
http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp? source- © 2004 Independent By David Hellier
The legal case, which is being spearheaded by Mark Harvey, a partner Already, concerns over the addictive properties of Seroxat have led On Monday, the UK's Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory The drug is also facing challenges in the US, where it is marketed Mr Harvey says his 1,700 clients are of different age groups and Mr Harvey is bringing the claim under the Consumer Protection Act Mr Harvey says he has never called for Seroxat to be Mr Harvey said he could not say what scale of damages he would be A statement from Hugh James Solicitors notes that a World Health GlaxoSmithKline said yesterday it had received a letter of claim The pharmaceuticals giant's chief executive Jean-Pierre Garnier has Legal | Contact us | Using our Content | © 2004 Independent
By David Hellier Dare I dip my toe in this typhoon? Sara, unfortunately in the UK's legal system, like in the US, if you recognize that you could improve information you are confessing moral and legal responsibility and thus assuming moral and legal liability. Glaxo should take moral and legal responsibility for it's moral and legal crimes. These drugs play a large role in the destruction of human life in the "modernized" world. Imagine what would happen if all of the lawyers involved stoped taking ssris? Their sense of morality would return and the world would be much better off. Posted by: Sally at May 24, 2008 06:58 AM72... We will go till 120. Well, I will really write to David Healy. In Brazil psychiatrists are being paid the same amount to prescribe these drugs. And Sara! But I have nature on my side at.... Posted by: Ana at May 24, 2008 07:20 AMI really want to beat this record. I have nature on my side. And when I say I'm 49 people still say it doesn't show. But... Posted by: Ana at May 24, 2008 07:23 AM
Now I'll write to David Healy asking him how much does it costs and when or if he can see me. He has 10,000 patients! :( Posted by: Ana at May 24, 2008 07:28 AMBryce wrote: "Hope you used a better one when you sued the Car factory. You threaten & sue a lot of people Bob, is that how you make a living."
You know what whoever-youare? It's not with the wrinkle of your face that you should care about. I don't know if you realize that you're disrespecting everybody here. The show is over for me. I believe that nobody should answer anymore. I will not come to this post any longer. No time to loose. This one is for you Morse From one Internet Troll to another http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZ7QVCVshlw Posted by: SillyTroll at May 24, 2008 09:23 AMWell Bob have you managed to pay Healy his monkey? £500 is a lot of money to someone getting by on state handouts. Or did he take in bootleg CD's & DVD's "Seroxat MARK HARVEY (he) acknowledges that a lot of people benefit from Seroxat." Sara xxx "He acknowledges that a lot of people benefit from Seroxat, and he has a moderate suggestion that falls well short of any grandiose attempt to have the drug withdrawn" are you still GRANDIOSE Bob? Posted by: sara at May 24, 2008 10:05 AM"It's not with the wrinkle of your face that you should care about.
Mr Harvey says he has never called for Seroxat to be source - http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp? SeroxatUserGroup MAKE A DONATION http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/five_ways.htm Posted by: sara at May 24, 2008 10:15 AM@ Posted by: Sally at May 24, 2008 06:58 AM
So you think Mark Harvey is taking SSRI's ? Does that make you think he is amoral? Could that why he said in the newspaper-
Sara XXX
That shows real moral leadership(not)
I think it's important to remember and focus on this: "People died from taking Paxil. There are over 800 reported deaths associated with the use of this drug in the FDA's adverse events database. There are over 8,900 other adverse events in the FDA's adverse events database associated with the use of this drug." --Dawdy Posted by: Stephany at May 24, 2008 10:37 AM"People died from taking Paxil. There are over 800 reported deaths associated with the use of this drug in the FDA's adverse events database. There are over 8,900 other adverse events in the FDA's adverse events database associated with the use of this drug." --Dawdy"
Sara XXX
Mr Harvey says he has never called for Seroxat to be source - http://news.independent.co.uk/low_res/story.jsp? Sara XXX
What a bastard Posted by: sara at May 24, 2008 01:50 PMBryce wrote:
Oh that's the DVD comment Thomson - Head of Depression Alliance made. Try joining a bootleg hub to see what 'seeding' is all about.
|