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.
"that is why I must point out the hipocracy of the vested interests and cynics who founded SUG."-saraXXX Well thank you for finally making it clear what your purpose and point is here Sara XXX. It serves no purpose to flame, be critical, or announce personal opinion of others, list their health ailments, or post a constant stream of links and copies of emails, that completely derails any credibility or integrity of the author, especially when written by a person who chooses to do this anonymously. ""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. 90 There we go....!!!! Posted by: Ana at May 24, 2008 04:35 PM"I think enough has been said for readers to draw their own conclusion on the discussion thread now." No! Stephany, I have no idea what is at stake here!
Sara wrote: Universal quantifiers (eg, "it is well known;" "it always happens;" "what the public want to see;" "the whole world knows;" etc, etc), rarely contain universal truth. To be accurate, even if "a lot" of people benefit, that still does not mean that the majority do. Indeed, the drug is really only regarded as being valuable for the severely depressed, even though it's more widely prescribed. Also, simply because Harvey (or the author of the piece quoted), regards withdrawing the drug as a "grandiose" idea, does not mean that it IS a grandiose idea, other than in the reality of the person who regards that idea as grandiose. No: no one idea is grandiose, but believing that one's is the only idea that is valid most certainly is. Stephany's right, I think: lambasting people for getting the PIL changed (and thus hopefully improving the quality of information available), on the basis that one will no longer be able to sue GSK for the withdrawal symptoms and suicidality that one has now been warned of, appears to be the purpose of your comments. Getting the PIL changed may have inadvertently benefitted GSK, but should Derek, et al, have left the PIL as was, in order that people who made the connection between their experience and the drug had a wallet to shoot at, via the vagaries of the civil justice system? At the same time, those who accepted that what they were experiencing was down to their "condition," rather than the drug, would carry on suffering in silence, completely ignorant of the issues that had been identified by others. Tell me, Sara: what have you done to help the people you claim to be championing (ie, "Seroxat victims")? I think you need to be clear on what hypocrisy amounts to. And I think Stephany's right, again: it's time to draw a line under this sordid exchange. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 24, 2008 05:00 PM92 - we are almost beating the record! I don't have time to read it all. If I had a serious explanation about what has happened I would take it into consideration. I see no reason why I should take it seriously. I prefer reading Kafka for it's wonderful and funny. BTW: I have a degree in literature and I like arts. What about you? I know you like the movie "Lorenzo's Oil" and I like it too. I believe it would be a good end to this post if we could say a few things we like. It would be a good way to beat the record! Posted by: Ana at May 24, 2008 05:01 PMseroxatusergroup.com (Commercial) The domain that you requested, seroxatusergroup.com, has already been registered by the organization below. Please click here to see other options for this name.
Information Source: seroxatusergroup.co.uk (United Kingdom) The domain that you requested, seroxatusergroup.co.uk, has already been registered by the organization below. Please click here to see other options for this name. Domain Name: Registrant: Registrant's Address: Registrant's Agent: Relevant Dates: Registration Status: Name servers listed in order: WHOIS database last updated at 16:15:00 09-Jun-2005 -- For further information and terms of use please see http://www.nic.uk/whois
-in this case the Sarah (note the h) is also a lawyer. Janice Simmons did NOT set up the seroxatusergroup but barrister Sarah Venn did. Sara xxx seroxatusergroup.org.uk (United Kingdom) The domain that you requested, seroxatusergroup.org.uk, has already been registered by the organization below. Please click here to see other options for this name. Domain Name: Registrant: Registrant's Address: THE REGISTRANT IS AN INDIVIDUAL WHO HAS ELECTED TO Registrant's Agent: Relevant Dates: Registration Status: Name servers listed in order: WHOIS database last updated at 16:10:01 09-Jun-2005 -- For further information and terms of use please see http://www.nic.uk/whois
Well there we have it straight from the mouth of babes - HUGH JAMES working with USA lawyers. Sara XXX http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:NA1b02vj3osJ:www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/Documents/newsletterissue1.pdf+derek+scott+seroxat&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&client=REAL-tb Issue 1 Sept 2002
Note too that Denni complains that Hugh James was monitoring the group. (see under post from Jon Bray paralegal at Hugh James)
Jeez, you're actually monitoring this newsgroup?! Last I heard, I either post your esteemed firm a £ 500 cheque or my case will be igignored. I have changed lawyers. Denni > --- In Seroxat_Users_Group@yahoogroups.com, "Jon Bray"
bray@l...> Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 24, 2008 05:00 PM Thank you Matt, you appear to accept that Mark Harvey, Derek Scott, Janice Simmons, Sarah Venn & all their associated camp followers and rabble rousers have done much to benefit GSK ! Sordid - indeed. Sara xxx BTW you also said " Universal quantifiers (eg, "it is well known;" "it always etc etc - Matt the same can apply to the hype placed in the media by Goodrelations acting for their client Mark Harvey.
"At the same time, those who accepted that what they were experiencing was down to their "condition," rather than the drug, would carry on suffering in silence, completely ignorant of the issues that had been identified by others." Many people still don't know they are suffering "side effects" and "iatrogenic condition" and not a real disease. Why the petition that is online since 2005 has only 9958 signatures?
http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?oky71&701 Posted by: Ana at May 25, 2008 04:48 AMI'm sorry for the jokes. "well obviously not you,(halftruthman15) but you'd be surprised who does & what they are prepared to do about it." Let's wait to see what these people are going to do and perhaps it'll be possible to have a real and enlightening discussion. For the moment I only see a circus of offensive and unjust allegations based on evidences that means nothing. Posted by: Ana at May 25, 2008 06:16 AMSara wrote: Sordid - indeed..." You have deliberately misinterpreted what I wrote, which was that the change to the PIL may have inadvertently benefitted GSK, but also presented a benefit to any future patients, too. Kindly try to balance your argument - it's relatively easy to find a negative interpretation to almost any event or act, dependent upon how one is positioned. What would you have SUG/OSSG do, in order to convince you of their bone fide? In other words, what are you doing to help "Seroxat victims," as I asked before? As to universal quantifiers: I quoted the Harvey piece prior to making comment - what did you think I was talking about? My dislike for unsubstantiated global claims is a universal thing - I don't differentiate, according to who makes them. Jesus, Sara, are you capable of reading anything, without trying to score points, or seeing it as an attack? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 25, 2008 09:54 AMre -Posted by: Ana at May 25, 2008 06:16 AM Dear Ana, you said "For the moment I only see a circus of offensive and unjust allegations based on evidences that means nothing. "
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/criticalpsychiatry2/ Perhaps you would care to join criticalpsychiatry2 & see if there is anything worth spying upon. Better still see the meaningful dialogue Fiddaman enters into when he joins properly run & professionally moderated groups. Sara xxx
see http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32539 From Cyndi re allegations made by Bob Fiddaman here @ Furious Seasons
"It would appear that Bob Fiddaman(Fiddy)(Serox. group) is saying they have me Tell me what I have sent ,when etc.How often etc all of it. I am extremely fucking angry! From Cornishcynders
Over to you Bob Oh yes Bob have you checked the integrity of your membership lately. Is it time for another cull, remember like the last time when 600+ names were deleted down to your current 332 ?
Be really intersting to see if Naughtie gets to interview Andrew Witty and to see how Witty handles himself. I'm guessing any future interviews on national radio or TV will be met with disdain by CEO's of Pharma, particularly if they are grilled about a subject they have not been briefed about prior to entering the studio.
UKSurvivors proudly boast "Mental health user/survivors, disabled people and allies in the UK to debate, get/give support and network together"
Re UK Survivors post 32541 Looks like it's your group that has the moles Bob. Sara XXX see - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32541 Start Topic Reply | Forward Message #32541 of 32553 Re: [uksurvivors] Re: Regarding Scotts' group ,and Jeremys' one.
Most of you know how terminally ill he is . I am so angry !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
THEY throw accusations ,but Faye (SHE co founded with Scott and they threw her out while she was suffering from cancer btw) and a lot more ,more than they know are having a laugh finally at their expense.
Re MHRA Meeting.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32533
Well Bob why are paralegals members of the group you moderated. Trawling for clients? see - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32533 & all clearly in HTML ! Posted by: sara at May 25, 2008 01:40 PMOh look ! Paul Flynn MP (New Labour) Newport West, Wales. Now why is he in the Online Seroxat Support Group? see UK Survivors post 32537 http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32537
well pray do tell us Bob,Paul Flynn is not your MP, Flynn is not Derek Scott's MP, Flynn is not Jo Josephs MP So why is he in on your group.? I'm sure lots of folk would love to here, afterall MP's are not allowed to represent people who reside outside their constituency area. Is Flynn bent too? I thought the only drugs he was interested was the WEED? Posted by: sara at May 25, 2008 01:49 PMI will answer you if you clearly state your full name.
Bryce wrote:
@ Posted by: BOB FIDDAMAN at May 25, 2008 02:45 PM "I will answer you if you clearly state your full name." So you don't deny that Paul Flynn MP (New Labour) Newport West is a member of the Online Seroxat Support Group ! Are you guys going to put him in a compromised position just like poor old Richard Brook of MIND ?
Sara XXX
@ Posted by: BOB FIDDAMAN at May 25, 2008 02:45 PM "I will answer you if you clearly state your full name." So you don't deny that Paul Flynn MP (New Labour) Newport West is a member of the Online Seroxat Support Group ! Are you guys going to put him in a compromised position just like poor old Richard Brook of MIND ?
Sara XXX
Exchange of e-mails between Jeremy Bryce & Mark Harvey, solicitor to UK Seroxat litigants see post 32531 UK Survivors http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32531
Why couldn't he have got Jonathon Bray or one of his other paralegals to post for him? Afterall Hugh James employees regularly post on support groups.!! So can we assume that Mark Harvey was happy with the legal points raised? Or does Jonathon Bray only post when trawiling for clients? Sara xxx or does Mark Harvey try to manipulate things via the back door as it were- tries to manipulate vulnerable people. Posted by: sara at May 25, 2008 03:25 PMMark Harvey's reply to Jeremy Bryce ...note he did not post @ UK Sur Message #32535 url - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32535
Actually you are wrong re insurance. The members of the Group have Public Funding (which carries costs protection) for the generic case, namely proving the drug is defective in law and After the Event Insurance Cover for their individual case, namely proving they have suffered an injury from the defect. Secondly so far as losing means related benefits is concerned this is not strictly true either. First of all compensation awarded below the capital threshold will have no impact. However more importantly where it is to be paid in excess of the threshold it is our invariable practice in compensation claims to encourage the establishment of a Special Needs Trust into which the compensation is paid. Then it is disregarded by the DSS in the calculation of benefits whilst still being accessible for use by the victim. Of course if the benefits have replaced work related income and by definition arise from the drug then the claim will have included a loss of employment and income (past and future) claim to try and correct the situation. Best wishes Mark Harvey
Sara XXX
Did Mark forget to tell you? Never mind you won't get a lump sum so you shouldn't loose too much of your state handout from social security. Pity though for those who were hanging in their for a GSK lump sum to pay off their debts and prevent their houses being repossessed. Bob, Because Sara's refusing to identify herself, you're playing into her hands by assuming her identity as Bryce (even if you have significant circumstantial evidence to bolster that assumption). In the event, this is a meaningless argument to all but you and Sara - she's said nothing that means anything. She might as well claim that now that we know that grass is green, this is firm evidence of malfeasance on the part of SUG. Thus the "evidence" of the trust fund: so, what? If people want to play the civil law lottery in the hope of getting rich, then they don't know what the Law's about. The purpose is compensation for wrongs done (to the extent that money can accomplish that), and not to enrich oneself. Quite what Sara believes she has demonstrated with this "revelation" is beyond me, but still. Anyway, the point is this: Sara has no interest in giving you an "in," by revealing her true identity, even supposing you'd know her from Adam (or Eve). Moreover, she's evidently determined not to be sidetracked from her objective, whatever that is, by answering questions about her own conduct. Why she should imagine that you will (answer her questions), in the circumstances, I have absolutely no idea. Bob, I say this as a friend: just walk away, because I don't perceive that anybody really gives a fuck whether or not you or Sara wins this argument, to the extent that there's even an objective that can be achieved, of course. Stephany's right: the key issue is the fact of those patients who have experienced SAEs having taken Seroxat, and continue to be affected by the drug, and then what one does to assist them. This argument does not further anybody's understanding of how to achieve that. Besides which, I perceive that Sara satisfies a need for release (from what, I've no idea), by goading you. You please yourself whether you permit her to do that. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 25, 2008 05:11 PMFid, this is one fight not worth the time and energy, because the ones who support you (like me) don't need to know who 'saraXXX' is--clearly, the person has stated in their own words that they are 'angry' and appear to be escalating, and using this as a forum to vent. You are above it all. Keep on the good work, and the good fight, you are respected by many,many people, and XXX cannot and will not take that away. Be well, and close this conversation. Stephany Posted by: Stephany at May 25, 2008 09:56 PMre Could Bob Fiddaman explain why Hugh James felt it necessary to - "seek the head of (Jeremy Bryce) on a silver platter" wanted his blood too ! What is disturbing about this that the person who originally placed this information on the net (Sarah Venn) is actually a qualified lawyer, a barrister. Still if there was something iffy about message Sarah Venn would be best placed to sue Bryce. You remember Sarah Venn Bob, don't you - http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/Documents/newsletterissue1.pdf Sara XXX see Message #32556 url http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32556 Hugh James wanted my head on a silver platter ...said Sara Venn Message List Reply | Forward | Delete Message #32556 of 32557 Name: SarahV (213.104.164.169, 213.104.164.169, 213.104.164.169) You Sarah Venn also said........ That the said remarks are available NOW for public inspection at the following url's http://forum.onecenter.com/cgi-bin/forum/forum.cgi?c=msg&fid=ssrihelp4u&mid=143
Bob Fiddaman take a look at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32556 Tell us Bob why ever would your lawyers, Hugh James want (Jeremy Bryce's) head on a silver platter? why would they want his blood?
http://www.seroxatusergroup.org.uk/Documents/newsletterissue1.pdf See it is printed on Hugh James letter headed paper. Nice photograph of Mark Harvey, expensive sun tan too. Did he get it in America.? Lookie too Ms Venn gives her manifesto and it's all on Hugh James paper. So Mark Harvey can hardly say he does not know Ms Venn. So why the DEATH THREATS to the list owner of SSRI Crusaders why the death threats Bob? see also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32557 Jeremy Bryce has challenged Ms Venn to sue him if he has made a mistake. Go on then Bob Fiddaman tell us why SUG issues death threats to genuine activists??
I'm just a girl who lost her reputation a long time ago & and can't be arsed to go looking for it. Posted by: sara at May 26, 2008 02:31 AMSara wrote: ...I'm just a girl who lost her reputation a long time ago & and can't be arsed to go looking for it." Well, at the risk of butting in, again: I don't know, Sara, why has SUG issued death threats to genuine activists? More to the point, why would you take those threats seriously? Even more pertinently: does your justification for taking those threats seriously hold any water, in the cold light of day? Everybody's reputation takes a battering, on a regular basis, Sara: it's how people seek to make themselves look more valuable (ie, if there's somebody shittier than one, then one can't be the worst person in the world, despite what one has been told). Listen, by some accounts, I'm an Evil Machine, and a Twister Of Words. On that basis, you would do well to avoid me. However, what if the person who made those claims of me was projecting, and I'm actually just a mirror for that projection? And what if that's true of everybody? There may be evil in the world, Sara, but I doubt that it's personnified by either you or the people you've been attacking, on this thread. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 26, 2008 04:43 AMJeremy.. You do yourself no favors by ranting and raving incoherently like some kind of rabid unhinged lunatic.. Personally, I think its totally sick and twisted that you go around sabotaging anything Seroxat related, such as petitions etc, there are many people involved in this (such as myself) that have nothing to do with the SUG or any online groups, we do this because we wan't others to be aware about the dangers of Seroxat. You are doing a grave disservice to those who were harmed by Seroxat by your behavior, if you have a problem with Fid, Derek Scott, Janice Simmons, Mark Harvey , hugh James etc then you should take your issues up with them individually. It is totally out of order to attack all Seroxat victims on the basis of your petty grudges. Posted by: truthman30 at May 26, 2008 05:34 AMSo can someone please tell me why a UK Member of Parliament (Paul Flynn) is a member of a so-called activists group that issues death threats on the internet. Paul Flynn (New Labour, Newport West)- you know there has been no denial that he was a member of OSSG despite invitation to Mr Fiddaman for comment. (but how could there be a denial given the evidence) So can we have an explanation
Is this what they normally do when longer standing and genuine activist movements point out that SUG/OSSG is a scam. So far there has been NO DENIAL that Sarah Venn has made this threat. Posted by: sara at May 26, 2008 08:49 AM@ Posted by: truthman30 at May 26, 2008 05:34 AM
"It is totally out of order to attack all Seroxat victims on the basis of your petty grudges. "
You know for someone who calls himself truthman30 you are real big into sweeping statements. I'd stick with halftruthman15 if I were you, more fitting Sara xxx
Where is the evidence of this, actually I'll help you where is the evidence I attack ALL seroxat victims. You know for someone who calls himself truthman30 you are real big into sweeping statements. I'd stick with halftruthman15 if I were you, more fitting Sara xxx _____ Well that's rich coming from someone who goes under several different aliases .. Sara, As I have already told you many times: I agree Ana.. Mark Harvey's firm takes legal aid funding then drops depression drug case !!!! Sara XXX
British firm of solicitors that received legal aid to pursue litigation against Roche five years ago has now dropped the actions,believing that the cases would be impossible to prove. Copyright 2004 Times Newspapers Ltd Roaccutane. Campaigners against the drug believe that the exercise would However, a British firm of solicitors that received legal aid to "About 80 or 90 claimants came forward but we had to report that
Mark Harvey posts openly on Online Seroxat Support Group see - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/32580 All in HTML !!
Perhaps Bob Fiddaman can explain why his lawyer posts openly on a support site for seroxat users? Is he a patient himself Bob? Seems that poor old Bryce character has wound him up ! Does he need treatment. Posted by: sara at May 26, 2008 02:25 PMJust to show people what kind of character this Jeremy-Bryce-Morse-Sara xxx character is.. Take a look at the crap he posted on TWO Seroxat petitions to the UK prime minister.. http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/Withdraw-Seroxat/ "Derek, are you still recomending Prozac?" "Single issue tubthumping – IT’S A DRUG CLASS PROBLEM!!!" "Derek, are you doing better on the antipsychotic instead of the Seroxat? "seroxatUSERSgroup was set up by lawyers litigating against GSK" "SeroxatUSERSgroup was created by lawyers litigating against GSK" Well I hope you enjoyed yourself there Jeremy, you weren't content with destroying one petition so you posted your crap on two of tme... Sara XXX, Explain to me again what your purpose is here, I've forgotten! Anonymous dribble ends up being wiped away eventually, and I agree, get a blog, call it "Sara XXX Exposed." You can even moderate and delete comments! It's perfect for your agenda. Because right now you are falling on deaf ears. Have a nice day girlfriend!:) Posted by: Stephany at May 26, 2008 07:12 PMlet us take a look at and your various points (a)"Derek, are you still recomending Prozac?" Derek Scott regularly recomended other people to take prozac as part of, or full replacement to, Seroxat in a withdrawal stratagey. That is until he took it himself & had a dissaster. (b) "Single issue tubthumping – IT’S A DRUG CLASS PROBLEM!!!" That comment is usually made by a person who regularly posted in OSSG using the name "Tuesday" Yes Tuesday is right, it is a DRUG CLASS PROBLEM (c) Derek, are you doing better on the antipsychotic instead of the Seroxat?
turning to (d) "seroxatUSERSgroup was set up by lawyers litigating against GSK" This is an example of the TRUTH dear man. So you said - "Just to show people what kind of character this Jeremy-Bryce-Morse-Sara xxx character is.. Take a look at the crap he posted on TWO Seroxat petitions to the UK prime minister."
show us your proof !!!
Well you know when I listened to the clip. I was predisposed to intensely disliking the GSK guy. By the end of the clip I felt like he had maintained his defense and made the reporter that hijacked the vaccine interview look pretty weak. Nevertheless the stories about paxil and the side effects going on it, staying on it, coming off it. Just makes me so sad. It twists my guts to hear about people self injuring or attempting suicide. From the age of 18 to about the age of 25 or so I was on meds for my depression. I took them in the morning and the evening. The side effects, not entirely unheard of with other meds. A little dry mouth, some spacing out sometimes. A little forgetfullness on occasion. Like with most meds it took a bit of experimenting to see what the best dose was for me to be on. It took a bit of lifestyle adjusting once I accepted taking my meds everyday. The effects were strong until I had leveled out for awhile and become use to it. There was no violence urges or suicidality or brain disturbances when I started on those meds, nor was there any problems with withdrawal. I had a harder time quitting smoking cigarettes than WDing from this med. It was quite effective in relieving my daily depression and it left me without the will or desire to self injure or hurt myself. It amplified my creativity and did not crush it into the ground like other meds I had tried.
I guess things have changed quite a bit now. You can get your anti depressants from teenagers at school. Alternately you can take your cannabis prescription and go to a well lit licensed cannabis dispensary run by professionals listed in the phone book. In California, we even pay sales tax on it. Some folks threw out their papers and pipes after college but it works just fine as a bottled beverage, a carrot cake or muffin. No need to endanger the lungs. If you really have to have the pill and bottle versions to feel comfortable with drug use, you can ask for Marinol. Studies have proven that cannabis consumption will not kill or cause death. I had no problems tolerating even high doses of that med for when I was in distress. Overall I was quite satisfied with it and if I had depression again, I might consider going back on that med. ;) Posted by: Jane at May 27, 2008 12:43 AMSara wrote: show us your proof !!!" Do you approve of the "steaming" that Truthman has just brought to your attention (that's a general question, not just for Sara)? Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 27, 2008 04:43 AMWell Morse-Bryce-Saraxxx-Tuesday-Jeremy It seems that you have more aliases than we thought.. @ Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 27, 2008 04:43 AM Matthew Holford wrote - """ Sara wrote: show us your proof !!!" Do you approve of the "steaming" that Truthman has just brought to your attention (that's a general question, not just for Sara)? Matt """ So it is reasonable to conclude that you have NO PROOF Sara XXX """Well Morse-Bryce-Saraxxx-Tuesday-Jeremy It seems that you have more aliases than we thought.. Obvious to who? """ We are all well aware that it is a drug class (SSRI) problem """
Here it is again - http://petitions.pm.gov.uk/SS-SNRI-Anomaly/ I note the creator's name given as Mardi Bennett. Sara xxx Posted by: sara at May 27, 2008 07:57 AM Obvious to me Jeremy (and anyone else with half a brain) And anyhow, I am not resident in the UK nor from the UK, so I cannot sign any of the petitions, but if i could I certainly wouldn't desecrate them for a petty grudge or agenda like you did..
Just ignore him. He posts the same drivel on his own message boards and the three or four members alive in there ignore him. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/messages Fid Posted by: BOB FIDDAMAN at May 27, 2008 08:58 AMhttp://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/ messages Jan 2008 = 1054
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/seroxat/ messages Jan 2008 = 24
& for the record Jeremy Bryce is neither the list owner or moderator of UK Survivors & never has been. Posted by: sara at May 27, 2008 09:29 AMThere are some good messages on other yahoo groups on SSRI. Since this post became copy/paste from Yahoo groups it's more profitable to copy good data from other groups than copying administrative messages that all groups have and are all similar. I also want to remember that there are many petitions to be signed. The Prozac petition has been destroyed with lots of signatures like these: 18595. viagra sale "viagra sale online viagra sale (ZIP) Antalya Turkey http://www.petitiononline.com/mod_perl/signed.cgi?lilpro&1 Sara, SUGGATE Now it's easier. Don't try the username "Sara" for it obviously has already been taken. Go with Sara200868945260982467829038 and you will succeed. Good luck with your Blog! I believe that Philip is afraid of the competition and that's the reason he doesn't ban you. The second reason is because he's a gentleman. See you later! Posted by: Ana at May 27, 2008 09:45 AM Neurotransmitters are not well known: A considerable number of chemical substances are believed to act as neurotransmitters, but the identification of only a few have been widely accepted. Among these, the earliest to be discovered was acetylcholine, which was first broadly recognized as a neurotransmitter in the 1920s largely due to the work of Austrian researcher Otto Loewi, who produced direct evidence of a sympathetic neurotransmitter by stimulating the autonomic nerves of a frog heart, resulting in the release of a chemical that decreased the beat rate of a second heart suffused with fluids from the other organ. Loewi's achievement was largely inspired by the earlier efforts of British physiologist Henry Dale, and a number of other scientists are also believed to have contributed significantly towards the modern understanding of neurotransmitters. Gaining knowledge about neurotransmitters has been a relatively slow, difficult process, however. Many of the early concepts regarding the chemicals have since been proven wrong. For instance, Dale purported that a neurotransmitter released at one axon terminal of a neuron was also released at other axon terminals of the same cell, though subsequent studies suggest that this is not necessarily the case. Nevertheless, over time a serviceable amount of knowledge about neurotransmitters has been accumulated, some of the most heavily researched of the chemicals being serotonin, dopamine, epinephrine, and norepinephrine. http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/micro/gallery/neurotrans/neurotrans.html There are other neurotransmitters to be discovered and all is known about these four is still not proven exact. :o) Your turn Sara!!!!!!!! Other addictive drugs also influence the circuit linking the VTA, nucleus accumbens, and frontal cortex. This circuit is rich in neurochemicals, regulating its normal activities via numerous neurotransmitters and their receptors. Its normal neurotransmitters include those targeted by major classes of addictive drugs, including opioids (heroin, morphine, and their relatives), sedatives (alcohol, barbiturates, and benzodiazepines), and nicotine. The working hypothesis described above has been expanded to suggest that these drugs exert addictive actions by regulating the release of dopamine in the circuit, often by complex interlocking mechanisms. Wow! Let's wait 20 years! Sorry again! Go on girls!!!! Posted by: Ana at May 27, 2008 10:00 AMDear Ana see - http://www.furiousseasons.com/about.html "COMMENTS I moderate comments. Anyone who in any way derides someone else’s illness and hectors them into irrational behavior will have their comment removed. Next, they will be banned from the site. Everything else goes"
Sara XXX I'm sorry that you are troubled by my dissenting positions on certain topics. I do like the name SUGGATE & if I recall correctly there is a blog on the net somewhere featuring photographs of Fiddaman going walkies in Singapore & Australia. How is Donna by the way Bob ? Posted by: sara at May 27, 2008 10:06 AMI've come to the conclusion that Bryce gets a much bigger audience on here hence his inane posts. One only has to look at his rantings on survivors, they take up the majority of the figure he quoted above... thing is... nobody replies.
Sara wrote: Proof of what, Sara? I was just throwing the subject matter open for general discussion - I was accusing neither you, nor Bryce. In any case, as you have already demonstrated so ably, yourself, this discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with offering up proof of anything. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 27, 2008 12:50 PMSara wrote: That's a dangerous game of brinksmanship, when one is not sure as to whether one is out of one's depth, or not. I strongly recommend politeness, on the ground that there are people on here with knives more subtle than yours. Matt Posted by: Matthew Holford at May 27, 2008 02:21 PMSara, The only problem is that I never heard about Jeremy, Bryce and all these people involved. She hasn't "...read the news today, oh Boy!" A Day In The Life I read the news today oh boy My teenagers days!!!! Jesus! Melancholic Fury May 13, 2008 As hunger is cured by food, so ignorance is cured by study. "I encountered a comment made in another blog today that got my hackles up. The comment was made by someone posting as Sara, in response to an article in the Furious Seasons blog, titled GOP Swipes Effexor Marketing Slogan, an article in which the author points out an advertising commonality between the US Republican party and the Wyeth pharmaceutical company. The very first comment to the article, in a half-cocked attempt to insult President Bush, his wife, and Hillary Clinton, assigns blame for “every idiotic, bizarre bit of behavior” on psychiatric medications. Ignoring a desire to follow Sara’s line of reasoning to its logical conclusion and ask her what medication explains the idiocy of her comment, I have to wonder what goes through someone’s mind when posting something like that in a blog focused on mental health issues? People who are taking “psych drugs” are doing so in an attempt to eliminate the kinds of bizarre behaviors that make most people uncomfortable with us, and endanger us. We often endure hellacious side effects, and sometimes it seems like every single pill is just another reminder of individual malfunction … but each dosage taken is also an affirmation that we are working on our problems. Taking these medications does not make an idiot of any of us, Sara; but in my opinion, your expressed inability to understand that makes you, and others like you, an ignoramus. I've called her "stupid" and she didn't like! I believe it's becoming more and more obvious that you're ignorant! And I start to rethink what irrationality really means after reading this: "Sara’s line of reasoning to its logical conclusion and ask her what medication explains the idiocy of her comment, I have to wonder what goes through someone’s mind when posting something like that in a blog focused on mental health issues?" Posted by: Ana at May 27, 2008 04:03 PMhi this thread is now closed at my discretion. sara xxx was simply getting out of hand. sorry about that folks. Posted by: Philip Dawdy at May 27, 2008 05:15 PM |
Patient Blogs. Sites.
The Trouble With Spikol
Icarus Project Blog John's Bipolar Stories Seroxat (Paxil) Sufferers Stand Up! Seroxat (Paxil) Secrets The Bipolar View Writhe Safely soulful sepulcher Electro Boy Spiritual Emergency Mental Nurse Deborah Gray Mental Mommy The Splintered Mind bipolar.and.me Nurse Ratched Psych Person Trick Cycling for Beginners depression introspection Salted Lithium Living With A Purple Dog Polar Trippin' Mercurial Scribe Bipolar Chicks Blogging Beyond Meds Off Label Jung At Heart Graphic Truth Joysoup Apesma's Lament Soapy Water Outlaw Psychiatry Empirical Insanity Patient Anonymous Beyond Blue Psych Survivor Postpartum Progress The Happiness Project Finding Optimism The Gimp Parade Midlife and Treachery Secret Life of a Manic-Depressive Psych Tech Going Through Hell
Doctor Blogs. Sites.
Clinical Psych
World of Psychology CorePsych The Last Psychiatrist Carlat Report Blog Intueri Emotional Well-Being Scientific Misconduct Aaron Beck Cognitive Therapy Today Treatment Online Shrink Rap David Healy Dr. Dork NHS Blog Doctor Dr. X's Free Associations Dr. Sanity Anxious Mind Everyone Needs Therapy Counselling Resource
Activists. News.
Charlottesville Prejudice Watch
The Icarus Project MindFreedom AHRP Blog SSRI Stories Healthy Skepticism Psych Rights Treatment Advocacy Center Peter Breggin Schizophrenia News eDrugSearch Blog Nuts R Us News Disapedia WSJ Health Blog Alison Bass
Social Networking. Forums.
Beyond Meds Social Network
Mood Garden Paxil Progress Crazy Boards Forums Psych Central Forums Icarus Project Forums DepressionTribe MySpace Bipolar Group Bipolar World Pendulum.org Bipolar Planet About.com Bipolar
Science. Big Pharma. Ethics.
PharmaLot
Pharma Gossip Science Blogs Mind Hacks GoozNews Integrity in Science Neurophilospohy bioethics.net Drug Wonks Pharma Marketing Blog Pharma's Cutting Edge On Pharma Health Care Renewal
Current Affairs
Buzz Machine
To The People Andrew Sullivan Michelle Malkin Daily Kos Reason's Hit&Run The Agitator Press Think Jim Romenesko Rough Type Gawker The Graphic Truth Tail Rank Huffington Post Instapundit Little Green Footballs Talking Points Memo MoJo Blog
Seattle Stuff
Smoking. Stuff.
|

