(UKS 35528) It seems there are only questions to Bob Fiddaman; never any answers !

posted by Tues

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/35528





Bob



Sorry about the delay in finishing these post – my time on the boards has been short this week and the time I did have I prioritised to speak to Sarah about the drugs.



If the MHRA have asked you to come up with a way of helping people get off SSRIs - maybe what I have written to Sarah will be useful – but I should tell you – what I have written is only part of how we get people off the drugs – everyone is different – every withdrawal is different – and the nutritional side plays a big part in controlling symptoms and recovery.



I suspect you thought I wouldn't bother to finish these posts as you've had your meeting with the MHRA – sorry to disappoint you – but your meeting wasn't the only reason I asked the questions, people involved are still wanting answers.



IF the GSK litigation leads to a settlement – I say IF - because Mark Harvey of Hugh James has history of involvement with other drug class actions that have collapsed - before reaching settlement - but after netting considerable funds from the Legal Services Commission (LSC).



But - IF there is a settlement - what will the litigants gain?



We asked this question in 2002 on the Lawyers SeroxatUserGroup (SUG) support forum –



It was obviously considered imperative to the class action, the lawyer and cases credibility for LSC funding - where client numbers count - to keep the answer from the litigants who had and would continue to signed up through the SUG website.



So imperative in fact - when the question didn't go away - the SUG forum and website `owners' response was to move the support board twice to different networks – via "guesting" on another campaigner's forum which suffered as a result.



Because the question still wouldn't go away - the `owner' closed the SUG support forum - although the actual SUG website (meta linked lawyers) is still running.



The Lawyers have never openly answered the question. Neither has the `owner' of the SeroxatUserGroup web site and SeroxatUserGroup support forum - a barrister in her own right.



Derek Scott - owner of the first Seroxat-SeroxatUserGroup now (OSSG) - also liaising with the Lawyers – locked his forum down - allowing only Seroxat affected members and Seroxat related matter to be posted.



They didn't want to tell the litigants that -



If individual lump sums damages are awarded and the recipients are reliant on benefits –



Both IB (Incapacity Benefit) and DLA (Disability Living Allowance) payments will be stopped from the point of award. Previously paid benefits will be subject to the special "Claw Back" provision - whereby any compensation paid for loss of earnings and/or increased care and mobility needs which result in payment of those benefits can be clawed back by the DWP from any award. Whether future DLA claims would be allowed or successful is not known.



http://www.dwp.gov.uk/cru/



Only those granted IB or / and DLA benefits for illness and disability unrelated to (proof required) or prior to taking Seroxat will be unscathed by this. With the myriad of side effects now officially listed against Seroxat --and all SSRI / SNRIs-- proving anything wasn't caused by it - will be very difficult. Maybe - with your long standing depression and OA you will be one of the lucky ones.



IS (Income Support) – Housing (HB), Council Tax (CTB) and other means tested benefits will be impacted - because strict Capital limits apply - dependant on the amount awarded - benefit payments would be reduced or stopped.



Claimants would be able to reapply once award money was reduced below those limits - £6,000 before deductions apply. But they would have to prove they had not just spent the money to achieve this.



Even if they could prove what they spent the capital on - there is no guarantee benefits would be reinstated - and if they were - waiting time rules for some benefit payments to restart would be enforced as a new claimant.



Again - only non Seroxat related DLA claimants receiving the care component middle or higher rate would be relatively unscathed - as being in receipt of this - I think - automatically protects HB and CTB.



In reality only those litigants who are totally financially independent will gain anything - and those who rely on benefits will be considerably worse off – unless the individual awards are large enough to secure financial independence and security for life – unlikely for a faulty product claim.



The only other option is to put a total settlement award into a Trust Fund and pay the litigants as and when from that. This – as far as I can ascertain – is Mark Harvey's intended course of action.



I don't think I need to go any further than to draw comparison to the Thalidomide group action and settlement.



Forty years after the first settlements were paid to victims who withdrew negligence claims against Distillers (Biochemicals) Ltd – victims are still struggling to get adequate funding for their needs from the Trust and many victims have received no compensation or financial support.



The only people to really gain have been the lawyers and those employed to oversee the Trust fund.



Unless you -- as I believe are one of the few named litigants in the GSK Seroxat class action – know any different?



Tues