Re: Seroxat linked to breast cancer deaths
http://www.paxilprogress.org/forums/showthread.php?t=46303
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That's old news, Fiddy. Tamoxifen and ADs have never mixed and in fact, Tamoxifen shouldn't be used with many drugs.
The title of your thread is being changed, as Paxil is NOT linked to breast cancer deaths. This is totally misleading and sounds as though Paxil alone, causes breast cancer deaths.
There is a warning with ALL SSRIs and Tamoxifen in women who have been, or are being treated for breast cancer.
__________________
aka LC
aka Laurie C.
Tuesday, 9 February 2010
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: avoid Prozac & Seroxat with Tamoxifen NHS warn in 2005 !!!
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: avoid Prozac & Seroxat with Tamoxifen NHS warn in 2005 !!!
avoid Prozac & Seroxat with Tamoxifen NHS warn in 2005 !!!
http://www.ukmicentral.nhs.uk/
Medicines Information Web Site
Trent and West Midlands regional Medicines Information services
http://www.ukmicentral.nhs.uk/headline/database/printstory.asp?NewsID=3854
News Story 05 January 2005
Adverse SSRI - tamoxifen interaction?
Tamoxifen is metabolised to a potent active metabolite (endoxifen) by cytochrome P450 2D6, which is subject to genetic variation. Plasma levels have been shown to depend on CYP2D6 genotype, and this study showed that drugs that inhibit this enzyme accentuate the variation. In an open-label, prospective, observational study, 80 women taking tamoxifen for breast cancer were followed. For those women with the most common genotype (homozygous wild-type), administration of an SSRI reduced endoxifen levels by a mean of 58%; in heterozygotes the mean reduction was 38%. Paroxetine was the most potent CYP2D6 inhibitor, followed by fluoxetine. The authors suggest that according to their data, women taking tamoxifen should avoid paroxetine and fluoxetine, and other potent inhibitors of CYP2D6.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 30-9 - JNCI website; from Reuters Health for 4th January 2005, via Medscape (free registration required)
avoid Prozac & Seroxat with Tamoxifen NHS warn in 2005 !!!
http://www.ukmicentral.nhs.uk/
Medicines Information Web Site
Trent and West Midlands regional Medicines Information services
http://www.ukmicentral.nhs.uk/headline/database/printstory.asp?NewsID=3854
News Story 05 January 2005
Adverse SSRI - tamoxifen interaction?
Tamoxifen is metabolised to a potent active metabolite (endoxifen) by cytochrome P450 2D6, which is subject to genetic variation. Plasma levels have been shown to depend on CYP2D6 genotype, and this study showed that drugs that inhibit this enzyme accentuate the variation. In an open-label, prospective, observational study, 80 women taking tamoxifen for breast cancer were followed. For those women with the most common genotype (homozygous wild-type), administration of an SSRI reduced endoxifen levels by a mean of 58%; in heterozygotes the mean reduction was 38%. Paroxetine was the most potent CYP2D6 inhibitor, followed by fluoxetine. The authors suggest that according to their data, women taking tamoxifen should avoid paroxetine and fluoxetine, and other potent inhibitors of CYP2D6.
J Natl Cancer Inst 2005; 97: 30-9 - JNCI website; from Reuters Health for 4th January 2005, via Medscape (free registration required)
Monday, 8 February 2010
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: The “Addiction” Issue & Hugh James’ need to change the P.I.L..
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: The “Addiction” Issue & Hugh James’ need to change the
The "Addiction" Issue & Hugh James' need to change the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL)
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/02/addiction-issue-hugh-james-need-to.html
Patient safety, accurate honest comprehensive information, instructions and warnings to enable patients to make informed choices about treatment is and should be paramount in any discussions with regard literature issued to patients and primary health care providers.
"A product is defective if, at the time of circulation, it is not as "safe as persons generally are entitled to expect," taking account of a number of factors including any instructions or warnings provided with the product and the manner in which it has been marketed. "
Access my Library: Mass tort treatment pharmaceutical
"Mark Harvey, solicitor for the Seroxat Users Group, told BBC News Online: "We would welcome the removal of the suggestion that the drug is not addictive."
BBC: Seroxat safety advice to be changed
"Message from Mark Harvey, Hugh James Solicitors ………
c) For the first time in the 13 years of this drug, the manufacturers have agreed to change the Patient warning sheets to deal with the question of addiction."
Hugh James Solicitors
The Seroxat Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) was predominant in the Seroxat Group Litigation Solicitors and Seroxat User Groups discussions and media coverage, as Mark Harvey of Hugh James Solicitors confirms in the above quotes.
The first of two changes to the SSRI PILs only related to the GSKs Seroxat, the addiction issue and the sentence 'Remember that you cannot become addicted to Seroxat' which was removed from the document in 2003 – an action that Mark Harvey of Hugh James and the Seroxat User Groups took and deserved full credit for – although an empty platitude.
Removal of the Seroxat "addiction" sentence from the PIL was not an admission of guilt – i.e. by doing this GSK were not saying that you could become addicted to Seroxat - although this was the inference in any reports made by or on behalf of those accredited for the action.
Unfortunately bringing the "addiction" issue to the notice of the UK licensing authorities the MHRA in 2002 brought no change to The World Health Organization's (WHO) criterion for addiction, therefore Seroxat and all SSRI, SNRIs remain outside that ruling - despite considerable discontinuation problems.
Had the "addiction" issue been upheld and / or the WHO criterion for addiction changed to encompass any discontinuation problems – the Seroxat Group Litigation would have been proved on "Failure to Warn" in marketing "instructions and warnings" provided with the product.
In real terms the GSK statement 'Remember that you cannot become addicted to Seroxat' although removed from the PIL - still stands – however, GSK, the MHRA and WHO have all been seen to listen to patients complaints & concerns - and have been seen to act promptly on their behalf in a professional & responsible manner
The "Addiction" Issue & Hugh James' need to change the Patient Information Leaflet (PIL)
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/02/addiction-issue-hugh-james-need-to.html
Patient safety, accurate honest comprehensive information, instructions and warnings to enable patients to make informed choices about treatment is and should be paramount in any discussions with regard literature issued to patients and primary health care providers.
"A product is defective if, at the time of circulation, it is not as "safe as persons generally are entitled to expect," taking account of a number of factors including any instructions or warnings provided with the product and the manner in which it has been marketed. "
Access my Library: Mass tort treatment pharmaceutical
"Mark Harvey, solicitor for the Seroxat Users Group, told BBC News Online: "We would welcome the removal of the suggestion that the drug is not addictive."
BBC: Seroxat safety advice to be changed
"Message from Mark Harvey, Hugh James Solicitors ………
c) For the first time in the 13 years of this drug, the manufacturers have agreed to change the Patient warning sheets to deal with the question of addiction."
Hugh James Solicitors
The Seroxat Patient Information Leaflets (PIL) was predominant in the Seroxat Group Litigation Solicitors and Seroxat User Groups discussions and media coverage, as Mark Harvey of Hugh James Solicitors confirms in the above quotes.
The first of two changes to the SSRI PILs only related to the GSKs Seroxat, the addiction issue and the sentence 'Remember that you cannot become addicted to Seroxat' which was removed from the document in 2003 – an action that Mark Harvey of Hugh James and the Seroxat User Groups took and deserved full credit for – although an empty platitude.
Removal of the Seroxat "addiction" sentence from the PIL was not an admission of guilt – i.e. by doing this GSK were not saying that you could become addicted to Seroxat - although this was the inference in any reports made by or on behalf of those accredited for the action.
Unfortunately bringing the "addiction" issue to the notice of the UK licensing authorities the MHRA in 2002 brought no change to The World Health Organization's (WHO) criterion for addiction, therefore Seroxat and all SSRI, SNRIs remain outside that ruling - despite considerable discontinuation problems.
Had the "addiction" issue been upheld and / or the WHO criterion for addiction changed to encompass any discontinuation problems – the Seroxat Group Litigation would have been proved on "Failure to Warn" in marketing "instructions and warnings" provided with the product.
In real terms the GSK statement 'Remember that you cannot become addicted to Seroxat' although removed from the PIL - still stands – however, GSK, the MHRA and WHO have all been seen to listen to patients complaints & concerns - and have been seen to act promptly on their behalf in a professional & responsible manner
Sunday, 7 February 2010
uksurvivors : Message: so much for Seroxat litigation threat - Pfizer roll out generic paroxetine
uksurvivors : Message: so much for Seroxat litigation threat - Pfizer roll out generic paroxetine
Pfizer rolls out new generics portfolio in the UK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/54527
http://www.pharmatimes.com/UKNews/article.aspx?id=17334
04 February 2010
Drug giant Pfizer has stepped into the UK's generics sector with the launch of six copycat drugs made possible by agreements last year with India's Aurobindo Pharma and Claris Lifesciences.
Back in May the drug giant signed two major deals that would give it a much stronger foothold in the global generics arena, acquiring the rights to 55 generic oral drugs and five injectables in more than 70 emerging market countries as well as US and European rights to a number of generics under its pact with Aurobindo, and the rights to 15 injectables in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand from Claris.
Through its Established Products Business Unit portfolio, which houses over 80 off-patent medicines, the group said it has now launched: metformin for diabetes; finasteride for benign prostatic hyperplasia; ondansetron for post-operative nausea and vomiting; and paroxetine, mirtazapine and mirtazapine OD for depression throughout the UK.
With the launch of these products, Pfizer says it has increased the range of "high-quality and cost-effective medicine options" available to pharmacists and healthcare professionals in the UK, under a previously stated commitment of delivering commercial value to its pharmacy and dispensing customers in the country.
Commenting on the move, Steve Poutlon, commercial director and head of the EPBU at Pfizer UK, said the company is "committed to ensuring that its generic medicines continue to build on the strong heritage of its patented medicines, which are known for their quality, efficacy and supply reliability," and that its generics will "continue to deliver commercial value to pharmacists through Pfizer's a healthy partnership pharmacy programme by providing our customers with a wider product offering".
Introduced in 2008, Pfizer's healthy partnership initiative is designed to offer support to pharmacists in the delivery of healthcare and related services to patients, as well as hit objectives laid out in the pharmacy contractual framework.
The scheme is focused on: supporting professional development, such as through Pfizer's Building Confidence in Medicines Use Reviews training course; improving the patient experience, through boosting treatment outcomes via measures such as better drug packaging; and delivering commercial value, through offering a portfolio of generic medicines in the UK, for example, which the company said it intends to further expand with new launches throughout the year.
By Selina McKee
Pfizer rolls out new generics portfolio in the UK
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/54527
http://www.pharmatimes.com/UKNews/article.aspx?id=17334
04 February 2010
Drug giant Pfizer has stepped into the UK's generics sector with the launch of six copycat drugs made possible by agreements last year with India's Aurobindo Pharma and Claris Lifesciences.
Back in May the drug giant signed two major deals that would give it a much stronger foothold in the global generics arena, acquiring the rights to 55 generic oral drugs and five injectables in more than 70 emerging market countries as well as US and European rights to a number of generics under its pact with Aurobindo, and the rights to 15 injectables in North America, Europe, Australia and New Zealand from Claris.
Through its Established Products Business Unit portfolio, which houses over 80 off-patent medicines, the group said it has now launched: metformin for diabetes; finasteride for benign prostatic hyperplasia; ondansetron for post-operative nausea and vomiting; and paroxetine, mirtazapine and mirtazapine OD for depression throughout the UK.
With the launch of these products, Pfizer says it has increased the range of "high-quality and cost-effective medicine options" available to pharmacists and healthcare professionals in the UK, under a previously stated commitment of delivering commercial value to its pharmacy and dispensing customers in the country.
Commenting on the move, Steve Poutlon, commercial director and head of the EPBU at Pfizer UK, said the company is "committed to ensuring that its generic medicines continue to build on the strong heritage of its patented medicines, which are known for their quality, efficacy and supply reliability," and that its generics will "continue to deliver commercial value to pharmacists through Pfizer's a healthy partnership pharmacy programme by providing our customers with a wider product offering".
Introduced in 2008, Pfizer's healthy partnership initiative is designed to offer support to pharmacists in the delivery of healthcare and related services to patients, as well as hit objectives laid out in the pharmacy contractual framework.
The scheme is focused on: supporting professional development, such as through Pfizer's Building Confidence in Medicines Use Reviews training course; improving the patient experience, through boosting treatment outcomes via measures such as better drug packaging; and delivering commercial value, through offering a portfolio of generic medicines in the UK, for example, which the company said it intends to further expand with new launches throughout the year.
By Selina McKee
Saturday, 6 February 2010
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: Mass Tort: Pharmaceutical Product Liability England
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: Mass Tort: Pharmaceutical Product Liability England
Mass Tort: Pharmaceutical Product Liability England
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/
"Mass tort treatment of pharmaceutical product liability cases in England.
Defense Counsel Journal: July 01, 2006: Wilkinson, David: Copyright"
"II. Causes of Action/Remedies
There are three potential causes of actions in product liability cases. Product liability claims may be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 ("CPA"), in negligence, or in breach of contract.
A. Consumer Protection Act 1987
The CPA, which implements the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC (3) in the UK, imposes liability on the producer of defective products for damage caused by the defect. A "product" is defined as any good that includes "any natural or artificial substance." (4) A product is defective if, at the time of circulation, it is not as "safe as persons generally are entitled to expect," taking account of a number of factors including any instructions or warnings provided with the product and the manner in which it has been marketed. (5) A product cannot be deemed defective solely because an improved product has become available. Liability under the CPA is strict: it is not necessary to prove that the producer was at fault in causing the defect. Producers have strict liability for distributing a product that is "unreasonably dangerous," regardless of whether they are at fault. The claimant need only prove a defect and causal relationship between the defect and the injury; courts will distinguish between products that fail and defective products."
link - Access my Library: Mass tort treatment pharmaceutical
It would appear the Seroxat litigation being brought under the CPA, is solely dependant on the personal expectation of the consumer on safety and withdrawal.
Although producers' liability under the CPA is strict, successful litigation is not dependant on the producer being found at fault for causing the defect – therefore this case will hold no fault to GSK as the producer.
The lead solicitor Mark Harvey of Hugh James confirms the withdrawal and no fault criteria on his website.
"The seroxat group action claims which are being led by Hugh James are being pursued under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 1987. The CPA provides for a non-fault based liability if the product is found to be defective and to have caused injury as a result. The Claimants allege difficulties in withdrawing from the drug."
link - Hugh James: Seroxat group action claim
Mass Tort: Pharmaceutical Product Liability England
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/
"Mass tort treatment of pharmaceutical product liability cases in England.
Defense Counsel Journal: July 01, 2006: Wilkinson, David: Copyright"
"II. Causes of Action/Remedies
There are three potential causes of actions in product liability cases. Product liability claims may be made under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 ("CPA"), in negligence, or in breach of contract.
A. Consumer Protection Act 1987
The CPA, which implements the Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC (3) in the UK, imposes liability on the producer of defective products for damage caused by the defect. A "product" is defined as any good that includes "any natural or artificial substance." (4) A product is defective if, at the time of circulation, it is not as "safe as persons generally are entitled to expect," taking account of a number of factors including any instructions or warnings provided with the product and the manner in which it has been marketed. (5) A product cannot be deemed defective solely because an improved product has become available. Liability under the CPA is strict: it is not necessary to prove that the producer was at fault in causing the defect. Producers have strict liability for distributing a product that is "unreasonably dangerous," regardless of whether they are at fault. The claimant need only prove a defect and causal relationship between the defect and the injury; courts will distinguish between products that fail and defective products."
link - Access my Library: Mass tort treatment pharmaceutical
It would appear the Seroxat litigation being brought under the CPA, is solely dependant on the personal expectation of the consumer on safety and withdrawal.
Although producers' liability under the CPA is strict, successful litigation is not dependant on the producer being found at fault for causing the defect – therefore this case will hold no fault to GSK as the producer.
The lead solicitor Mark Harvey of Hugh James confirms the withdrawal and no fault criteria on his website.
"The seroxat group action claims which are being led by Hugh James are being pursued under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) 1987. The CPA provides for a non-fault based liability if the product is found to be defective and to have caused injury as a result. The Claimants allege difficulties in withdrawing from the drug."
link - Hugh James: Seroxat group action claim
Friday, 5 February 2010
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: Good question - why does UK seroxat case NOT include suicide?
SSRI-Crusaders : Message: Good question - why does UK seroxat case NOT include suicide?: "Good question - why does UK seroxat case NOT include suicide?"
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SSRI-Crusaders/message/34879
Although the lead solicitors, Hugh James, in the Seroxat Group Litigation seem to have chosen to limit the action solely to withdrawal, ignoring reports of serious injury such as stroke, dystonia, SSRI induced parkinsonism, tardive dyskinesia, suicidal ideation, suicidal action and suicide completed - why?
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/?zx=70f727dd9cdafff1
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/SSRI-Crusaders/message/34879
Although the lead solicitors, Hugh James, in the Seroxat Group Litigation seem to have chosen to limit the action solely to withdrawal, ignoring reports of serious injury such as stroke, dystonia, SSRI induced parkinsonism, tardive dyskinesia, suicidal ideation, suicidal action and suicide completed - why?
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/?zx=70f727dd9cdafff1
Thursday, 4 February 2010
Consumer Law: Consumer Protection Act 1987: Defective Product - this from Seroxat Litigation Chronicle blog
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/02/consumer-law-consumer-protection-act.html
“Consumer Protection Act 1987
Part I: Product Liability: Meaning of defect.
3:-
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, there is a defect in a product for the purposes of this Part if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect; and for those purposes `safety', in relation to a product, shall include safety with respect to products comprised in that product and safety in the context of risks of damage to property, as well as in the context of risks of death or personal injury.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1987/PDF/ukpga_19870043_en.pdf
There is provision within the 1987 Consumer Protection Acts’ “Meaning of defect” and product “safety” criterion to facilitate action being taken for the risk of death or personal injury.
Although the lead solicitors, Hugh James, in the Seroxat Group Litigation seem to have chosen to limit the action solely to withdrawal, ignoring reports of serious injury such as stroke, dystonia, SSRI induced parkinsonism, tardive dyskinesia, suicidal ideation, suicidal action and suicide completed - why?
“Consumer Protection Act 1987
Part I: Product Liability: Meaning of defect.
3:-
(1) Subject to the following provisions of this section, there is a defect in a product for the purposes of this Part if the safety of the product is not such as persons generally are entitled to expect; and for those purposes `safety', in relation to a product, shall include safety with respect to products comprised in that product and safety in the context of risks of damage to property, as well as in the context of risks of death or personal injury.
http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts1987/PDF/ukpga_19870043_en.pdf
There is provision within the 1987 Consumer Protection Acts’ “Meaning of defect” and product “safety” criterion to facilitate action being taken for the risk of death or personal injury.
Although the lead solicitors, Hugh James, in the Seroxat Group Litigation seem to have chosen to limit the action solely to withdrawal, ignoring reports of serious injury such as stroke, dystonia, SSRI induced parkinsonism, tardive dyskinesia, suicidal ideation, suicidal action and suicide completed - why?
Wednesday, 3 February 2010
Seroxat User Group colluding with the enemy MHRA/GSK to agree changes to GSK's patient information leaflet
Seroxat User Group colluding with the enemy MHRA/GSK
Committee on Safety of Medicines
Working Group on Patient Information
Report on a focus group discussion of the Seroxat patient information leaflet
Wednesday 13 October 2004 at 14:30 at Market Towers
Facilitator:
Mary Chambers, Chief Nurse and Professor of Mental Health Nursing at South West London
& St Georges' Mental Health NHS Trust and a member of the SSRI Working Group of the
Committee on Safety of Medicines
Attendees:
Representatives from patient interest and user groups and MHRA Product Information
Unit/Post Licensing Assessment Group.
Aim:
The aim of this focus group was to obtain the views of attendees on a revised patient
information leaflet (PIL) for Seroxat (paroxetine) and whether this meets the needs of users
for written information provided with the medicine.
Methodology:
All sections of the PIL were reviewed to identify any areas where the information needs to be
clarified to ensure that the key messages are understood. Any omissions that need to be
included in the PIL were flagged. Time did not permit consideration of the validity of the
questions asked in the company-sponsored user test undertaken previously on the PIL.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con01/9476.pdf
Committee on Safety of Medicines
Working Group on Patient Information
Report on a focus group discussion of the Seroxat patient information leaflet
Wednesday 13 October 2004 at 14:30 at Market Towers
Facilitator:
Mary Chambers, Chief Nurse and Professor of Mental Health Nursing at South West London
& St Georges' Mental Health NHS Trust and a member of the SSRI Working Group of the
Committee on Safety of Medicines
Attendees:
Representatives from patient interest and user groups and MHRA Product Information
Unit/Post Licensing Assessment Group.
Aim:
The aim of this focus group was to obtain the views of attendees on a revised patient
information leaflet (PIL) for Seroxat (paroxetine) and whether this meets the needs of users
for written information provided with the medicine.
Methodology:
All sections of the PIL were reviewed to identify any areas where the information needs to be
clarified to ensure that the key messages are understood. Any omissions that need to be
included in the PIL were flagged. Time did not permit consideration of the validity of the
questions asked in the company-sponsored user test undertaken previously on the PIL.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/websiteresources/con01/9476.pdf
Monday, 1 February 2010
Seroxat Group Litigation: Order no: 68 - comments from Seroxat litigation Chronicles blog
Seroxat Group Litigation: Order no: 68
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/02/seroxat-group-litigation-order-no-68.html
2001 - the UK litigations lead lawyer Mark Harvey of Hugh James Solicitors (Harmful Products Department), Cardiff, then Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors, announced in the UK press that there was an *unidentified* problem with Seroxat and the possibility of a UK Group litigation against GSK the manufacturer - he called it “shaking the tree”.
2008, October 29th - the UK Seroxat Group Litigation was lodged in the Royal Courts of Justice – but not publicized in the media or by the Seroxat campaigners.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/150_14671.htm
The litigation is being brought under *harmful product* consumer legislation - not under any medical law or legislation.
Although the discontinuation problems, side effects, adverse drug reactions, long term persistent & enduring residual symptoms and suicidal ideation & action are of a medical nature - encompassing psychological, physiological & neurological symptoms and in some cases permanent damage.
(The blog will return to the processes of harvesting litigants, the litigant support groups and the campaign a little later.)
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/02/seroxat-group-litigation-order-no-68.html
2001 - the UK litigations lead lawyer Mark Harvey of Hugh James Solicitors (Harmful Products Department), Cardiff, then Hugh James Ford Simey Solicitors, announced in the UK press that there was an *unidentified* problem with Seroxat and the possibility of a UK Group litigation against GSK the manufacturer - he called it “shaking the tree”.
2008, October 29th - the UK Seroxat Group Litigation was lodged in the Royal Courts of Justice – but not publicized in the media or by the Seroxat campaigners.
http://www.hmcourts-service.gov.uk/cms/150_14671.htm
The litigation is being brought under *harmful product* consumer legislation - not under any medical law or legislation.
Although the discontinuation problems, side effects, adverse drug reactions, long term persistent & enduring residual symptoms and suicidal ideation & action are of a medical nature - encompassing psychological, physiological & neurological symptoms and in some cases permanent damage.
(The blog will return to the processes of harvesting litigants, the litigant support groups and the campaign a little later.)
Sunday, 31 January 2010
Concerns over the Seroxat Group Litigation - new blog
Concerns over the Seroxat Group Litigation - new blog
see -
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/
I’m taking time out from statistics and associated issues - as yet unpublished - to facilitate publishing information appertaining to the UK Seroxat Litigation which, having been in the public domain since it was preannounced in 2001/2, is going to court this year.
The information encompasses the UK Government Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) statistics - although at the time of publication of my UK: SSRI / SNRI Antidepressant Statistical Politics Blog - I was unaware of one significant fact and therefore revelations were unintentional.
However, a few weeks after my blogs publication, on first sight of the Seroxat Group Litigation Order no: 68 it became glaringly obvious that inadvertently, the statistics – not me – undermine the Litigation.
Since becoming aware of and involved with the SSRI drug forums in 2001, I have spoken out - not against the litigation - but in concern for those involved and anyone taking SSRI, SNRI drugs, especially those choosing to or being swapped without consideration from Seroxat to other drugs in the class including Prozac, Lustral and Efexor.
The statistics are, unfortunately, not the only jeopardy to the frail legal case being successful - Seroxat has a certain notoriety for being “the worst drug” in the class - but is that notoriety well-substantiated or solely due to outside influences? Do the experts agree?
Have the UK population been let down by the government, medicines authorities and the media?
The following will possibly adversely impact on the few hundred people who have not been culled from the originally quoted 10.000 prospective litigants ...... but the full ramifications of not speaking out will possibly impact on thousands or even millions.
This blog will hopefully extricate the distinct facts, clarify, assemble and publicise each in context - to let the readers decide for them selves.
I have no conflicting interests.
see -
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/
I’m taking time out from statistics and associated issues - as yet unpublished - to facilitate publishing information appertaining to the UK Seroxat Litigation which, having been in the public domain since it was preannounced in 2001/2, is going to court this year.
The information encompasses the UK Government Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) statistics - although at the time of publication of my UK: SSRI / SNRI Antidepressant Statistical Politics Blog - I was unaware of one significant fact and therefore revelations were unintentional.
However, a few weeks after my blogs publication, on first sight of the Seroxat Group Litigation Order no: 68 it became glaringly obvious that inadvertently, the statistics – not me – undermine the Litigation.
Since becoming aware of and involved with the SSRI drug forums in 2001, I have spoken out - not against the litigation - but in concern for those involved and anyone taking SSRI, SNRI drugs, especially those choosing to or being swapped without consideration from Seroxat to other drugs in the class including Prozac, Lustral and Efexor.
The statistics are, unfortunately, not the only jeopardy to the frail legal case being successful - Seroxat has a certain notoriety for being “the worst drug” in the class - but is that notoriety well-substantiated or solely due to outside influences? Do the experts agree?
Have the UK population been let down by the government, medicines authorities and the media?
The following will possibly adversely impact on the few hundred people who have not been culled from the originally quoted 10.000 prospective litigants ...... but the full ramifications of not speaking out will possibly impact on thousands or even millions.
This blog will hopefully extricate the distinct facts, clarify, assemble and publicise each in context - to let the readers decide for them selves.
I have no conflicting interests.
Saturday, 30 January 2010
FETAL ANTI-CONVULSANT LITIGATION: WILL LSC FUNDING LIMITATIONS LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF YET ANOTHER PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP ACTION
In the case of Multiple Claimants v Sanofi-Synthelabo [2007] EWHC 1860 (QB)1 (commonly known as the fetal anti-convulsant (“FAC”) litigation) the claimants failed in their application for an order for the trial of certain dispositive preliminary issues on the basis of assumed facts. With Legal Services Commission ("LSC") funding having been granted on the basis that the matter would proceed by way of a trial on the "preliminary issue on defect", it now remains to be seen whether this litigation will join the roll-call of high-profile pharmaceutical product liability actions which have met an early demise due to the cessation of public funding.
Background
The claimants are children whose mothers had, during their pregnancy, taken an anti-epileptic drug called sodium valproate, manufactured by the defendants and marketed under the name Epilim. The claimants allege that Epilim is a defective product within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (“CPA”). This provides that liability will attach if the safety of a product is not such as persons are generally entitled to expect. The claimants brought their actions pursuant to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (“CDCLA”), which governs claims for pre-natal injuries. The claimants’ contention is that they were born disabled as a result of an “occurrence” within the meaning of s 1(2)(b) of the CDCLA and
s 6(3) of the CPA (which deals with how the CDCLA is to be given effect in relation to
1 The Defendant is incorrectly described as Sanifo-Synthelabo in the official judgment heading. liability for defective products). The occurrence was said to be “the transplacental spread of sodium valproate or its metabolites to the embryo/fetus, which then affected the embryonic and fetal development and organogenesis”.
The claimants allege that the defect that caused the occurrence was the teratogenic capacity of sodium valproate. Their primary case is that the information supplied with Epilim to a user is not a relevant circumstance when assessing the legitimate expectation of safety of persons generally for the purposes of the CPA. They also submit that the information provided by the defendants was inadequate.
The defendants say that the current state of scientific knowledge does not permit any of the anti-epileptic drugs currently on the market to be deemed free of teratogenic potential. They deny that a product such as Epilim is defective within the meaning of the CPA where, by its very nature, its use carries a potential risk of adverse events and those risks are generally known to treating practitioners and/or specifically warned about by the marketing authorisation holder. They also argue that the claimants’ case is bad in law as the CPA cannot be construed to require a court to disregard the essential factual context of the guidance or warnings provided as to adverse events or harmful characteristics of the product.
The Funding of the Case
The claimants had originally been granted funding by the LSC to pursue to trial their cases as to liability and generic causation, subject to an annual affordability review. In August 2006 the LSC notified the claimants of a decision that effectively brought the funding to an end. Judicial review proceedings were subsequently instituted and the LSC’s decision to withdraw the funding was quashed. The LSC then agreed to provide some limited funding.
A witness statement of the director of the LSC's Special Cases Unit, which is responsible for managing funding for complex or high cost civil cases, was put before Mr Justice Smith at the hearing of the claimants' application. In the statement, he referred to some of the matters identified at Rule 1.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules as aspects of dealing with a case justly. He stated: “Ensuring that high cost civil cases are subject to appropriate financial controls requires case managers to ensure funded cases comply with the spirit of the Woolf reforms, in particular the overriding objectives of saving expense and dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate given the amount of money involved, the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues.”
It is stated at the outset of the Civil Procedure Rules that they have the “overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.” Mr Justice Smith noted that the director made no mention in his statement of the other matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2) such as ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing (CPR
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
OCTOBER 2007
THE FETAL ANTI-CONVULSANT LITIGATION: WILL LSC FUNDING LIMITATIONS LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF YET ANOTHER PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP ACTION?
1.1(2)(a)), dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the financial position of each party (CPR 1.1(2)(c)(iv)), and ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly (CPR 1.1(2)(d)). According to the director’s statement, the LSC appeared to have elevated some of the various elements that the CPR identify as contributing to the overriding objective into distinct overriding objectives in their own right. Mr Justice Smith said he did not consider this to be helpful as the court has to seek to give effect to the overriding objective as a whole.
The director explained that following the decision in the judicial review proceedings, the LSC’s Funding Review Committee (“FRC”) concluded that the case “had sufficient merits to meet the merits test contained within the Funding Code as long as the case proceeded on the basis that the preliminary issue on defect, which was alone capable of derailing the litigation, was decided first…” If the case could not proceed by way of a trial on a preliminary issue then the case would be sent back to the FRC for review.
The Court’s Findings
The claimants therefore applied to have certain preliminary issues determined first. At the hearing, the claimants’ counsel expressed the opinion that unless the court acceded to the views of the LSC as to how this litigation should proceed, it was likely that funding would be discontinued. However, Mr Justice Smith thought this submission went further than the director’s evidence.
Assumptions
Mr Justice Smith firstly considered the assumptions upon which the claimants proposed that the preliminary issues be tried. He noted that particularly in complex cases, it was necessary that the assumptions be precise and unambiguous, as much of the purpose of having preliminary issues would be lost if the assumptions had to be expanded and explained by complicated scientific and pharmacological evidence.
His Honour found that the assumptions in the instant case did not, and however drafted could not, provide a clear and precise factual basis for the determination of the issues. For example, one of the claimants’ assumptions was that Epilim “is unsafe for all pregnant women whose fetuses are exposed to it.” Yet, it was unclear what the description of “unsafe” meant. Nor was it clear what was the degree of risk and what potential damage and/or disabilities would be sufficient for the drug to be described this way. Whilst he accepted that it may be necessary to supplement assumptions with some limited evidence, the more that is required, the less attractive the proposal for preliminary issues becomes.
Preliminary Issues
Mr Justice Smith then considered the preliminary issues that the claimants proposed and found these to also be problematic. For example, one of the issues assumed there had been an "occurrence" when this was still in dispute. Another issue could not be satisfactorily decided without a firm factual and evidential basis. Mr Justice Smith therefore rejected the claimants’ application for an order for the trial of the questions as preliminary issues.
Comment
It remains to be seen whether the LSC will now pull the plug on the funding of the FAC litigation - an outcome that the claimants' counsel clearly thought was likely. Without public funding, this litigation will inevitably become the latest in a long list of group actions doomed to failure in recent years. The LSC currently funds major group actions out of a budget of £3m per annum, which potentially limits the scope of major new group litigation. Funding for group actions is under far greater control than ever before through the LSC’s Special Cases Unit and in a recent article Colin Stutt, the Head of Funding Policy at the LSC, noted that pharmaceutical actions remain “very problematic”2.
However, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel for claimants hoping to pursue pharmaceutical group actions in the future. In June this year a series of recommendations were made by the Civil Justice Council to the Lord Chancellor to improve access to justice through the development of improved funding structures.3 One of the recommendations was for the introduction of properly regulated contingency fees in multi party cases where no other form of funding is
2 C Stutt, “Who ate all the P.I.’s?” (2007) JPIL 81 at 82.
3 Civil Justice Council, “The Future Funding of Litigation – Alternative Funding Structures” June 2007. available. It may well be that contingency fees will become the mainstream funding alternative for pharmaceutical group actions in future, given the continued tightening of the LSC’s purse strings for such cases. However, the introduction of any such reforms is likely to come too late for the claimants in the FAC litigation.
If you would like any further information, please contact either of the following:
Simon Pearl
DDI: 020 7293 4041
E: spearl@dac.co.uk
Olya Melnitchouk
DDI: 020 7293 4506
E: omelnitchouk@dac.co.uk
This publication is not a substitute for detailed advice on specific transactions and problems and should not be taken as providing legal advice on any of the topics discussed.
name and company name.
http://www.dac.co.uk/documents/resources/newsletters/The_fetal_anti_convulsant_litigation_Dispute_Resolution_Wire
Background
The claimants are children whose mothers had, during their pregnancy, taken an anti-epileptic drug called sodium valproate, manufactured by the defendants and marketed under the name Epilim. The claimants allege that Epilim is a defective product within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act 1987 (“CPA”). This provides that liability will attach if the safety of a product is not such as persons are generally entitled to expect. The claimants brought their actions pursuant to the Congenital Disabilities (Civil Liability) Act 1976 (“CDCLA”), which governs claims for pre-natal injuries. The claimants’ contention is that they were born disabled as a result of an “occurrence” within the meaning of s 1(2)(b) of the CDCLA and
s 6(3) of the CPA (which deals with how the CDCLA is to be given effect in relation to
1 The Defendant is incorrectly described as Sanifo-Synthelabo in the official judgment heading. liability for defective products). The occurrence was said to be “the transplacental spread of sodium valproate or its metabolites to the embryo/fetus, which then affected the embryonic and fetal development and organogenesis”.
The claimants allege that the defect that caused the occurrence was the teratogenic capacity of sodium valproate. Their primary case is that the information supplied with Epilim to a user is not a relevant circumstance when assessing the legitimate expectation of safety of persons generally for the purposes of the CPA. They also submit that the information provided by the defendants was inadequate.
The defendants say that the current state of scientific knowledge does not permit any of the anti-epileptic drugs currently on the market to be deemed free of teratogenic potential. They deny that a product such as Epilim is defective within the meaning of the CPA where, by its very nature, its use carries a potential risk of adverse events and those risks are generally known to treating practitioners and/or specifically warned about by the marketing authorisation holder. They also argue that the claimants’ case is bad in law as the CPA cannot be construed to require a court to disregard the essential factual context of the guidance or warnings provided as to adverse events or harmful characteristics of the product.
The Funding of the Case
The claimants had originally been granted funding by the LSC to pursue to trial their cases as to liability and generic causation, subject to an annual affordability review. In August 2006 the LSC notified the claimants of a decision that effectively brought the funding to an end. Judicial review proceedings were subsequently instituted and the LSC’s decision to withdraw the funding was quashed. The LSC then agreed to provide some limited funding.
A witness statement of the director of the LSC's Special Cases Unit, which is responsible for managing funding for complex or high cost civil cases, was put before Mr Justice Smith at the hearing of the claimants' application. In the statement, he referred to some of the matters identified at Rule 1.1(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules as aspects of dealing with a case justly. He stated: “Ensuring that high cost civil cases are subject to appropriate financial controls requires case managers to ensure funded cases comply with the spirit of the Woolf reforms, in particular the overriding objectives of saving expense and dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate given the amount of money involved, the importance of the case and the complexity of the issues.”
It is stated at the outset of the Civil Procedure Rules that they have the “overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.” Mr Justice Smith noted that the director made no mention in his statement of the other matters referred to in CPR 1.1(2) such as ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing (CPR
DISPUTE RESOLUTION
OCTOBER 2007
THE FETAL ANTI-CONVULSANT LITIGATION: WILL LSC FUNDING LIMITATIONS LEAD TO THE COLLAPSE OF YET ANOTHER PHARMACEUTICAL GROUP ACTION?
1.1(2)(a)), dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate to the financial position of each party (CPR 1.1(2)(c)(iv)), and ensuring that the case is dealt with expeditiously and fairly (CPR 1.1(2)(d)). According to the director’s statement, the LSC appeared to have elevated some of the various elements that the CPR identify as contributing to the overriding objective into distinct overriding objectives in their own right. Mr Justice Smith said he did not consider this to be helpful as the court has to seek to give effect to the overriding objective as a whole.
The director explained that following the decision in the judicial review proceedings, the LSC’s Funding Review Committee (“FRC”) concluded that the case “had sufficient merits to meet the merits test contained within the Funding Code as long as the case proceeded on the basis that the preliminary issue on defect, which was alone capable of derailing the litigation, was decided first…” If the case could not proceed by way of a trial on a preliminary issue then the case would be sent back to the FRC for review.
The Court’s Findings
The claimants therefore applied to have certain preliminary issues determined first. At the hearing, the claimants’ counsel expressed the opinion that unless the court acceded to the views of the LSC as to how this litigation should proceed, it was likely that funding would be discontinued. However, Mr Justice Smith thought this submission went further than the director’s evidence.
Assumptions
Mr Justice Smith firstly considered the assumptions upon which the claimants proposed that the preliminary issues be tried. He noted that particularly in complex cases, it was necessary that the assumptions be precise and unambiguous, as much of the purpose of having preliminary issues would be lost if the assumptions had to be expanded and explained by complicated scientific and pharmacological evidence.
His Honour found that the assumptions in the instant case did not, and however drafted could not, provide a clear and precise factual basis for the determination of the issues. For example, one of the claimants’ assumptions was that Epilim “is unsafe for all pregnant women whose fetuses are exposed to it.” Yet, it was unclear what the description of “unsafe” meant. Nor was it clear what was the degree of risk and what potential damage and/or disabilities would be sufficient for the drug to be described this way. Whilst he accepted that it may be necessary to supplement assumptions with some limited evidence, the more that is required, the less attractive the proposal for preliminary issues becomes.
Preliminary Issues
Mr Justice Smith then considered the preliminary issues that the claimants proposed and found these to also be problematic. For example, one of the issues assumed there had been an "occurrence" when this was still in dispute. Another issue could not be satisfactorily decided without a firm factual and evidential basis. Mr Justice Smith therefore rejected the claimants’ application for an order for the trial of the questions as preliminary issues.
Comment
It remains to be seen whether the LSC will now pull the plug on the funding of the FAC litigation - an outcome that the claimants' counsel clearly thought was likely. Without public funding, this litigation will inevitably become the latest in a long list of group actions doomed to failure in recent years. The LSC currently funds major group actions out of a budget of £3m per annum, which potentially limits the scope of major new group litigation. Funding for group actions is under far greater control than ever before through the LSC’s Special Cases Unit and in a recent article Colin Stutt, the Head of Funding Policy at the LSC, noted that pharmaceutical actions remain “very problematic”2.
However, there may be some light at the end of the tunnel for claimants hoping to pursue pharmaceutical group actions in the future. In June this year a series of recommendations were made by the Civil Justice Council to the Lord Chancellor to improve access to justice through the development of improved funding structures.3 One of the recommendations was for the introduction of properly regulated contingency fees in multi party cases where no other form of funding is
2 C Stutt, “Who ate all the P.I.’s?” (2007) JPIL 81 at 82.
3 Civil Justice Council, “The Future Funding of Litigation – Alternative Funding Structures” June 2007. available. It may well be that contingency fees will become the mainstream funding alternative for pharmaceutical group actions in future, given the continued tightening of the LSC’s purse strings for such cases. However, the introduction of any such reforms is likely to come too late for the claimants in the FAC litigation.
If you would like any further information, please contact either of the following:
Simon Pearl
DDI: 020 7293 4041
E: spearl@dac.co.uk
Olya Melnitchouk
DDI: 020 7293 4506
E: omelnitchouk@dac.co.uk
This publication is not a substitute for detailed advice on specific transactions and problems and should not be taken as providing legal advice on any of the topics discussed.
name and company name.
http://www.dac.co.uk/documents/resources/newsletters/The_fetal_anti_convulsant_litigation_Dispute_Resolution_Wire
Thursday, 28 January 2010
Wednesday, 27 January 2010
Shelley Jofre SEROXAT… we decided to focus research into this drug
2.30 in Jofre says - ” read a little bit in news paper about patients complaints” year 2000 about ” Seroxat difficult to withdraw from” .. Jofre found it intriguing Jofre had only just started working on Panorama at that stage3.30 in ” Jofre calls SSRI’s “SELECTIVE Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors”
4.14 Jofre knew little of how the pharmcutical industry worked
4 .30 in Ed says - lets look at antidepressant story
4 45 Jofre says although problems with whole class of antidepressants we (bbc) decided to concentrate on Seroxat Why we narrowed down on Seroxat 1 because it was made by GSK 2 all the drugs in class cause suicidal thinking on dose change 3 Seroxat had a unique problem of withdrawal BECAUSE IT WAS LONGER ACTING … we decided to focus research into this drug
6.00 in - 40 min Panorama film took Shelley Jofre 8 months to make
6.10 in - It’s not something you do lightly WE WERE TAKING ON the worlds second largest drug company
7.30 We were talking to the lawyer the whole way through production
9.30 in - Jofre says “we took a punt” on Dr David Healy
Monday, 25 January 2010
Shelley Jofre who failed expectant mothers everywhere, she knew there was a problem with all SSRI, but only researched Seroxat to meet the requirements Seroxat lawyer Mark Harvey
Powered by Podbean.com
Shelley Jofre who failed expectant mothers everywhere, she knew there was a problem with all SSRI, but only researched Seroxat to meet the requirements Seroxat lawyer Mark Harvey
Jofre says although problems with whole class of antidepressants we (bbc) decided to concentrate on Seroxat Why we narrowed down on Seroxat 1 because it was made by GSK 2 all the drugs in class cause suicidal thinking on dose change 3 Seroxat had a unique problem of withdrawal BECAUSE IT WAS LONGER ACTING … we decided to focus research into this drug
The Evidence, however is clear ... Seroxat decline UK
Chart 5 demonstrates the immense value to Society of free and independent Public ServiceBroadcasting and Internet communication. This combination has triggered the growth ofawareness of SSRI danger. It has united the many thousands of victims of SSRIs across theworld with some professionals who have laboured so long in a cause for saving lives, seekingjustice and exposing dysfunctional drug regulation. Chart 5 shows that the tide has turned inthe UK. Great encouragement should be taken from this life saving victory. However effortsmust continue both to expose the known risks of paroxetine (Seroxat, Paxil) and all the other illvalidated SSRIs and to call for the establishment an effective independent Drug SafetyRegulator in every country, the absence of which is the root cause of this ongoing officiallysupported tragedy
Saturday, 16 January 2010
Ironic !
Seroxat (Paroxetine).
The BMC are failing to recognise that he anti - depressant Seroxat is
addictive despite countless pleas from users that it is.
The BMC is made up of supposedly independant people - Ironic that nearly 3/4
of them have share in the Company, SmithGlaxoKlien - The Company that makes
Seroxat.
Bob
Birmingham
http://www.ds010a5436.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
BOB 'THE CHAINSAW' FIDDAMAN
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.375 / Virus Database: 210 - Release Date: 10/07/2002
http://groups.google.com/group/uk.gov.social-security/browse_thread/thread/a14ee3fdb1191e86/44a8b0da27e6af87?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=seroxat
Friday, 15 January 2010
Thursday, 14 January 2010
The Evidence, however is clear ... Janice's husband John is presently taking Lustral NOT Seroxat !!
http://www.huntspost.co.uk/content/hunts/news/story.aspx?brand=HPTOnline&category=News&tBrand=cambs24&tCategory=NewsHPT&itemid=WEED07%20Feb%202007%2011%3A20%3A56%3A610
Tuesday, 12 January 2010
Seroxat User Group's Janice Simmons claims husband John "is one of worst affected" - "he's been taking Seroxat for 19 years" (but was she telling the truth?)
`Doctors are simply unaware of this withdrawal syndrome and unable to advise on what to do,' says Janice Simmons, co-ordinator of the Seroxat User Group.
Her husband John is one of the worst affected — she says each time he's tried to stop taking it, the symptoms have been so severe he's had to give up; he's been taking Seroxat for 19 years.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1242502/Hooked-happy-pills-Internal-bleeding-Strokes-Birth-defects-The-long-term-effects-antidepressants-terrifying.html#ixzz0cOocvmTH
Her husband John is one of the worst affected — she says each time he's tried to stop taking it, the symptoms have been so severe he's had to give up; he's been taking Seroxat for 19 years.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1242502/Hooked-happy-pills-Internal-bleeding-Strokes-Birth-defects-The-long-term-effects-antidepressants-terrifying.html#ixzz0cOocvmTH
Seroxt UK class action now only 500 clients says Daily Mail
extract
Around 500 people are suing GlaxoSmithKline on the grounds that the company concealed evidencethat their drug Seroxat (a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor) may cause withdrawal `syndrome' with symptoms including anxiety, pain, palpitations and memory lapses.
`Doctors are simply unaware of this withdrawal syndrome and unable to advise on what to do,' says Janice Simmons, co-ordinator of the Seroxat User Group.
Her husband John is one of the worst affected — she says each time he's tried to stop taking it, the symptoms have been so severe he's had to give up; he's been taking Seroxat for 19 years.
There are ways of tapering withdrawal - for instance, using a liquid dose of medication which can be gradually reduced far more easily than a tablet and which can normally be prescribed by GPs.
'The problem is most people haven't a clue how to access advice on withdrawal,' says David Healy, professor of psychological medicine at Cardiff University, whose protocol on the withdrawal of SSRIs is widely regarded as the best method of stopping the medication. 'GPs are rarely informed - and the pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to even admit that there is a problem.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1242502/Hooked-happy-pills-Internal-bleeding-Strokes-Birth-defects-The-long-term-effects-antidepressants-terrifying.html#ixzz0cOocvmTH
Around 500 people are suing GlaxoSmithKline on the grounds that the company concealed evidencethat their drug Seroxat (a selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitor) may cause withdrawal `syndrome' with symptoms including anxiety, pain, palpitations and memory lapses.
`Doctors are simply unaware of this withdrawal syndrome and unable to advise on what to do,' says Janice Simmons, co-ordinator of the Seroxat User Group.
Her husband John is one of the worst affected — she says each time he's tried to stop taking it, the symptoms have been so severe he's had to give up; he's been taking Seroxat for 19 years.
There are ways of tapering withdrawal - for instance, using a liquid dose of medication which can be gradually reduced far more easily than a tablet and which can normally be prescribed by GPs.
'The problem is most people haven't a clue how to access advice on withdrawal,' says David Healy, professor of psychological medicine at Cardiff University, whose protocol on the withdrawal of SSRIs is widely regarded as the best method of stopping the medication. 'GPs are rarely informed - and the pharmaceutical companies are unwilling to even admit that there is a problem.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1242502/Hooked-happy-pills-Internal-bleeding-Strokes-Birth-defects-The-long-term-effects-antidepressants-terrifying.html#ixzz0cOocvmTH
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
.jpg)
