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/20041011045056/http://www.hughjames.com/dsp_home.cfm or email email@example.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.However as an update, you should know that during the year the Users Group and I have orchestrated the campaign against the drug and we haveobtained the following victories:-
a) The institution of a Government review into Seroxat; (this has already worked one triumph, a press and public announcement of thedangers of the drug with suicide and the ban of its prescription to minors)
b) The acceptance of the Review team that it will accept the actual evidence of experiences of my clients on Seroxat without needing doctorinvolvement (the mechanics of this are still being addressed)
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 thequestion of addiction.
With a combination of the preliminary form of self-administered public funding, legal expense insurance and private funding we are progressing the generic investigations and preparing for the appeal on the initial decision to refuse public funding.
The granting of the full publicfunding on appeal will enable us to move forward to the issue of proceedings if necessary. At present the Legal Services Commission tell us the appeal will be September or October however I am challenging them to bring it forward.I will endeavour to keep you informed both through the web site and wherever possible in individual communications. Best wishesMark HarveyHugh James, Solicitors
Pain in hips ain't so bad, but have referred pain in spine and knees. I was diagnosed with O/A in 1996 and have learned to live with it, always making sure I sit with my knees below my hips. When I used to watch my son play football I would stand there on most mornings in agony - those days are over now, shame cos my middle lad was really a gifted footballer who was scouted by Wolves & Walsall. That's life I guess.
Mark Harvey is a solicitor who also represents this self appointed Seroxat Users Group in the UK, and who says that the number of people joining this group is growing daily, rapidly reaching 1,000 members. Last Thursday GSK won a lawsuit in California which had been taken against the company accusing it of wrongly advertising Seroxat as being “non addictive”. The federal judge ruled the case had no merit. The current ruling in California will no doubt be something of a setback to Mr Harvey, and Messrs Hugh James. In the meantime Mr Harvey and others continue to try to get more members to join the Seroxat Users Group. http://web.archive.org/web/20040622124823/www.defeatdepression.org/pdf/seroxatstory.pdf
Debs the seroxat.org group website is a committee website set up by Mark Harvey of Hugh James Solicitors, whereas the http://www.seroxatusergroup.co.uk is there to support actual users who have difficulty getting off the drug. I dont know anything about the other 2 yahoo groups.
EAST GRINSTEAD: On Saturday 19 April, teacher and writer Linda Hurcombe was presented with a Human Rights Award for her work campaigning to expose the dangers of psychiatric treatments since the tragic death of her daughter just over 10 years ago.
The Award, presented at the 39th Anniversary of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights United Kingdom (CCHR), recognised Linda for her strength and dedication to raise public awareness about the dangers of antidepressants following the death of her nineteen-year-old daughter Caitlin in 1998 after she started taking Prozac.
In the presence of Ambassadors and High Commissioners representing their countries from around the world, as well as the Mayor of East Grinstead, Councillor Anne Jones (left) made the presentation at Saint Hill Castle in East Grinstead, where she told the dignitaries the award was presented for Linda’s bravery and persistence in the face of tragedy and adversity
Linda Hurcombe, an American citizen who resides in the UK, lost her 19-year-old daughter, Caitlin, to suicide as a result of Prozac.
She describes how 8 years ago, her "undepressed daughter saw an ad for antidepressants on television while visiting the US."
"Caitlin decided she wanted this pill," Ms Hurcombe explains, "because she was nervous about final exams and had heard at the university too that Prozac made you lose weight and feel great."
Caitlin got a prescription from the doctor, she said, with no problem.
"After 63 days on this medication," Ms Hurcombe says, "during which time her behavior descended into chaos, Caitlin hanged herself from a beam in the guest bedroom of our home."
Ms Hurcombe has written a book titled, "Losing a Child," and says, most shockingly, during the research for the book, "I have found that Caitlin was just one of thousands whose lives have been snuffed out in a similar manner."
As for the granddaddy of SSRIs, Eli Lilly's Prozac, the first to be approved back in 1987, within one decade of the drug's arrival on the market, there were 39,000 adverse event reports submitted to the FDA's Medwatch, according to award-winning investigative reporter, Robert Whitaker. And that number is said to represent only about 1% of the actual number of adverse events, he reminds people. "So, if we get 39,000 adverse event reports about Prozac," Mr Whitaker said in an interview for Street Spirit in August 2005, "the number of people who have actually suffered such problems is estimated to be 100 times as many, or roughly four million people.""There were more adverse event reports received about Prozac in its first two years on the market," he told Street Spirit, "than had been reported on the leading tricyclic antidepressant in 20 years.""This makes Prozac the most complained about drug in America, by far," he said.
Evelyn Pringle: Lawsuits - Only Weapon Available Against Giant Big Pharma Pushers
Let me make it clear - I don’t give a fig about GlaxoSmithKline, its bottom line or anything about the company. What I do know however is that there are vitally important issues at stake in this debate.
then went on to say -
There is a new group in the UK called the Seroxat Users Group. This of course is not what it is – it is a group of anti-seroxat users, and a trojan horse if ever there was one. The names deliberately disguise their real purpose. “Oh I see, these people represent all the people who take Seroxat” you might reasonably think. Of course they don’t - nothing could be further from the truth, and that’s the trick. Mark Harvey is a solicitor who also represents this self appointed Seroxat Users Group in the UK, and who says that the number of people joining this group is growing daily, rapidly reaching 1,000 members. Last Thursday GSK won a lawsuit in California which had been taken against the company accusing it of wrongly advertising Seroxat as being “non addictive”. The federal judge ruled the case had no merit. The current ruling in California will no doubt be something of a setback to Mr Harvey, and Messrs Hugh James. In the meantime Mr Harvey and others continue to try to get more members to join the Seroxat Users Group.
THE SEROXAT (PAXIL) STORY: HAPPY PILLS THAT MAKE YOU MAD??
By Richard Hornsby
Some thirty years ago my father got up early in the morning went to the end of our house, took out a shotgun to his head, and shot himself in a horrific act of self destruction. None of us suspected that he would or could do anything like this. It was unthinkable. On Panorama a story based on the unknown causes of suicide were attributed to Seroxat – a popular antidepressant.
Some thirty years ago my father got up early in the morning went to the end of our house, took out a shotgun to his head, and shot himself in a horrific act of self destruction. None of us suspected that he would or could do anything like this. It was unthinkable. On Panorama a story based on the unknown causes of suicide were attributed to Seroxat – a popular antidepressant. Unfortunately, I have nothing to blame my father’s death on, except a hidden and underlying profound depression he had disguised from us all. I too suffer from depression, and rely on antidepressants to keep things straight. The programme on Seroxat by Panorma raised these life and death issues, and in doing so it deserves more serious scrutiny. What is worrying is that the so called ‘facts’ that were presented if examined more closely are by no means as cut and dry, are perhaps not even true. In the end they may do far more harm than good. The current attack on Seroxat and its manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline is a much more complex story than the rating grabbing stories portrayed by Panorama. It is not simply a story of alleged side effects of Seroxat reported by a minority of patients. It is also about how we have become steeped in a climate of anti-science, anti-psychiatry, and of course anti-pharmaceutical companies who make drugs. All of the above are to blame for innumerable ills – they stand accused of being part of an evil empire that wants to make adults and children alike take horrible mind-bending drugs, with ghastly side effects. These pharmaceutical giants should of course be sued and made to pay for these sins. The victims must be “compensated” – by being rewarded with huge payouts. It is all so simple when you live in a culture of blame, when we are always ready to seek retribution for any side effects we can attribute to medicine. Yet despite this readiness to seek retribution, when anyone of us falls seriously ill, how many of us rush to the naturopath, to the homoeopathist, or to the faith healer – no we run to the NHS and our GP, and we expect the miracles of modern medicine to be freely available as a right. Who makes these medicines that we now take for granted? - why these self same pharmaceutical companies. The sheer folly of this line of pursuit is mind-boggling. Where is the sense in this - the answer is that one has to look outside the realms of science and medical reasoning and into a culture which expects everything without risk of any kind, and ignores the undoubted benefits of modern medicine. In this case the benefits that modern antidepressants have brought to millions of sufferersLet me make it clear - I don’t give a fig about GlaxoSmithKline, its bottom line or anything about the company. What I do know however is that there are vitally important issues at stake in this debate. These should deeply concern anyone who is either depressed, knows someone who is depressed, or works with those with common mental illness – i.e. just about everyone. Depression is a life threatening illness – it is not just a question of getting the blues. People do commit suicide, and real people die from this disease every day. Suicide is the leading cause of death in young people in the US. Where is the story about this tragedy. The programme chose to simply focus on the shock horror story that drugs might be given to children. But children don’t really suffer from depression or mental health problems do they? We all may wish that they did not, but these are not the facts. Of all the cases of suicide in young people, most parents have no idea what is wrong with their child until one day they find them hanging in their bedroom. Few people, adults or children, will let on that they are going to kill themselves if they are serious, because someone might stop them. If any one of these children had been taking an antidepressant, would it not be tempting to place the blame on the drug. Someone, something somewhere has to be blamed. Human nature will shy away from accepting its own inherent frailty. The development of psychotropic drugs to treat depression and other severe mental illnesses has been the single most important advance in helping sufferers. If you consider the nature of the illness, that antidepressants are not as portrayed “happy pills” but vital drugs to treat a deadly disease then things should take on a different light. Many people have died from taking aspirin, been rushed to hospital with breathing problems – yet we all take them. One only has to think of the appalling side effects people willingly put up taking chemotherapy to wonder what this is all about. The previous generation of anti-depressants (Tricyclics as opposed to SSRI’s). helped to relieve depression, but people often found the side effects impossible to cope with. They were the only option, and no-one sued for side effects. Patients now have plenty of other options, and no one forces anyone to take Seroxat. There are plenty of other antidepressants on offer. Perhaps Seroxat has made some people become agitated in the early days of taking the drug, and by doing so make them feel ill and even perhaps act strangely. People who are deeply depressed in fact seldom commit suicide, they are most at risk when they are coming out of their depression, when they have renewed energy. If this is true, and someone commits suicide when recovering from depression who or what is to blame. Perhaps the doctor who should have been more cautious, or perhaps the chronic poor mental health services that exist for people with depression or perhaps no one. It is by no means clear that the blame could be placed on the medication.It is interesting that Panorama should have had to rely almost exclusively on the views of Dr. David Healy, who was heralded as an “expert”. Why did they not seek the advice of other experts. All the experts I know and have talked to about issues surrounding the side effects of antidepressants, most regard David Healy’s views as unscientific and lacking credible evidence. Most psychiatrists and psychiatric researchers in this country believe that these views are deeply flawed. Why were their views not aired? I suspect it was because this show was not really about evidence in the real sense of the word, but about an emotionally charged attack, which did not want the inconvenience of differing views, especially by those eminently more qualified than Dr Healy. I remember over 10 years ago visiting a patient self-help group in the US. A part of this occasion was a group of people called the Survivors of Prozac. They told a series of heartrending and horrific stories. It was scary stuff, and enough to put you off taking Prozac for life. This was indeed the idea. Only later, I discovered that this was a road show putting on appearances all over the US funded by the Church of Scientology. However the views put forward on Panorama by Dr David Healy are shared principally only with Scientologists and other fringe groups. His opinions are widely regarded by experts and fellow academics as wrong, unscientific and lacking any credible evidence.The Royal College of Psychiatry ran a five year Defeat Depression campaign to educate the public about the their misconceptions about treatments especially antidepressants. The campaign found that the majority of the public were prejudiced against people with mental illness and especially the drug treatments they took. Taking antidepressants was regarded as a sign of weakness. After much effort some of the stigma of mental illness has been removed, and the prejudice against using pharmacological treatments is now better understood. What makes me so angry about the Seroxat story and the Panorama spin on the story is that it does nothing but turn the clock back. It does nothing to help those of us who suffer from depression. It is scaremongering and sensation seeking at the expense of the mentally ill. It glossed over and virtually ignored all the evidence that the proper use of antidepressants has saved countless lives.I don’t know anyone who thinks the current generation antidepressants are perfect. Most of us long for the day when better products are discovered. Antidepressants are nevertheless drugs, and as with all drugs there is no such thing as a free lunch. The problem with the fears surrounding Seroxat is that they are not really about Seroxat, they are about stirring up new and unreasonable fears about all antidepressants. If the pharmaceutical industry as a whole could do one thing better it is to help promote a better public understanding of depression and the drugs and other non-pharmacological treatments that are available. Patients and the public must also accept that all drugs carry risks – you only have to read the side effect lists for almost any product. But the more the public knows about the real dangers the more they can take reasoned decisions about which medication they will take. Most of us feel happy to take aspirin even though we know that some people have been killed by them. It is important that all people suffering from depression know that their treatments are not guaranteed, that they will experience some discomfort on the road to recovery, and how to deal with these changes. The right mental health services need to be there to support them. Just giving out a pill will not stop someone who is suicidal from taking their lives, and so where do you place the blame. It is also important to know that antidepressants do not work for everyone, some 30% of people with major depression do not respond at all.The Seroxat claims have all the hallmarks of a classic David and Goliath meltdown. The wronged will deal the evil giant (GSK) such a blow that it will never recover, and the world will be a safer place. It all sounds very emotionally reassuring, especially since we all hate the idea of a company profiting from treating illness. I am however far from convinced that the alleged ‘facts’ stack up. Could it be that it is not the little man fighting for the common good, but in fact a bunch of money hungry lawyers quick to see that they might be on the road to a nice little earner?There is a new group in the UK called the Seroxat Users Group. This of course is not what it is – it is a group of anti-seroxat users, and a trojan horse if ever there was one. The names deliberately disguise their real purpose. “Oh I see, these people represent all the people who take Seroxat” you might reasonably think. Of course they don’t - nothing could be further from the truth, and that’s the trick. Mark Harvey is a solicitor who also represents this self appointed Seroxat Users Group in the UK, and who says that the number of people joining this group is growing daily, rapidly reaching 1,000 members. Last Thursday GSK won a lawsuit in California which had been taken against the company accusing it of wrongly advertising Seroxat as being “non addictive”. The federal judge ruled the case had no merit. The current ruling in California will no doubt be something of a setback to Mr Harvey, and Messrs Hugh James. In the meantime Mr Harvey and others continue to try to get more members to join the Seroxat Users Group.For those of us who have suffered from depression the only thing that matters is effective treatment for people who suffer from depression and related disorders. There have been some 100 million users of Seroxat worldwide. Are all these people suffering from appalling side effects, being driven suicidal? I think not. Most are presumably better, and are getting on with their lives, otherwise we would have heard about it. One can only presume that they have not had pause for thought that this drug did anything awful to them. After the drug has been on the market for nearly ten years a small minority, with a variety of motives, has whipped up a scare mongering drive.No one is against serious investigation into drugs that may have serious side effects, provided they are based on scientifically verifiable facts. It would be a good idea to start out on a level playing field. If GSK were to be found to have acted against the public interest and sued, it would also be fair if it can be proved that if there are those who have knowing misrepresented facts about Seroxat (or any other drug), resulting in public disinformation, then they also can be sued. This might put a brake on people coming up with “facts” that they think could profit them in court.I have no idea if Seroxat is a particularly good antidepressant, I don’t take it – but I know many people who have taken it without complaint. Professor Lewis Wolpert, author of Manic Sadness, feels that it saved his life and is happy to take it for the rest of his days. Most new antidepressants operate in almost exactly the same way. A more serious point which was not even mentioned was that resources and services for people with depression are still woefully inadequate. Mental health is the lowest on the list of health priorities in nearly every country. The preliminary results of the largest study of depression ever undertaken - The European Study of Epidemiology of Mental Disorders –looking at the prevalence and impact of depression and anxiety disorders in Europe were released last week in Barcelona. Less than 20% of individuals with a diagnosis of major depression received any drug therapy during the previous twelve months, despite this being the medically accepted best treatment. This is equivalent to leaving the majority of people with high blood pressure untreated and simply waiting for a stroke. While we need to prevent the incorrect use of anti-depressant drugs, there is a much more urgent need to ensure that all patients who may benefit from effective drug treatment for depression actually receive them. Healy has claimed in the past that people became suicidal when starting taking Prozac, and now apparently they become suicidal when starting or stopping Seroxat. People with depression are always at risk of self harm and suicide – over one million people commit suicide worldwide every year. All psychiatrists know that the reason for prescribing antidepressants is to reduce the likelihood of suicide, and many patients know that they have been often pulled back from the brink by the proper use of these drugs. As someone who got perilously close to that brink, I and many other sufferers know this to be true. It is perhaps telling that Panorama should have resorted to discredited sources for their information. They have largely ignored the experts, among whom I would suggest are the majority of patients, not a few isolated cases in which complex issues make blame almost impossible. This programme does not serve those it claims to speak for, it has merely exploited some difficult and painful cases, and made a monster out of clay. We can only hope the public will not fall for this sort of clever but irresponsible journalism – it may get the ratings up, but in trying to scare us it threatens the health of many people with depression. One can only hope that real scientists and real experts are allowed to put the facts into a sensible perspective
Outrage as solicitor who filmed woman at leisure centre avoids prison term Tuesday, 24 February 2009 Richie MacRitchie (33) was sentenced to four months imprisonment, suspended for two years
There was anger last night after a Belfast-based solicitor who attempted voyeurism by filming a young woman changing in a leisure centre cubicle escaped a prison sentence. Richie MacRitchie (33) was sentenced to four months imprisonment, suspended for two years, and placed on the Sex Offenders’ Register for seven years. And with the lawyer facing a professional disciplinary hearing later this week, the family of the victim claimed he should be banned from practising. Her father, who cannot be named, said: “My daughter is still being treated for depression, stress and anxiety because of this. “We now hope that the Law Society will take the appropriate steps. He should be barred.” MacRitchie, who plans to appeal the sentence, was found guilty after a judge at Belfast Magistrates Court ruled he used his mobile phone to record the woman in a cubicle for the intention of sexual gratification. The solicitor, from Ardmullan, Omeath, Co Louth, was convicted of the new offence after originally being cleared of voyeurism. He had admitted filming four clips of the woman, who was then aged 18, in the booth next to him at the Falls Leisure Centre, west Belfast in October 2006. At first a direction of no case to answer was given because his target was wearing a bikini. Because of this it was decided she was not engaged in a private act according to the Sexual Offences Act. Later, however, the Court of Appeal ordered the prosecution to proceed on a fresh charge of attempted voyeurism. A psychiatrist who examined him following his arrest claimed he was suffering from chronic stress and wanted to get caught. It also emerged during the hearing that MacRitchie had been up to £100,000 in debt. According to the medical expert MacRitchie, who worked as a non-profit making lawyer based at Conway Mill in Belfast before taking on extra duties with another firm, was suffering from acute stress and set out to harm himself. Before sentence was passed yesterday defence counsel Eilis McDermott QC claimed the offence was completely opportunistic. She said: “There is absolutely nothing to indicate planning and pre-meditation on his part. “This is a case where the defendant has not even seen the face of the injured party. “It’s different entirely to the case where a predatory person decides to stalk somebody or to follow them with a view to this kind of activity taking place.” As she made her pleas for leniency there were outbursts from the victim’s father, who shouted out that a two-year-old child had been in the cubicle with his daughter. Passing sentence, District Judge Fiona Bagnall acknowledged the distress and damage inflicted on the woman filmed. “It’s clear this has had a significant effect upon her life,” Mrs Bagnall said. “I do consider this to be a serious offence which does not fall within the low level range.” Before MacRitchie left the dock his legal team indicated they planned to appeal the sentence. Outside the court the woman’s father claimed the presence of a child had been overlooked. “We would have liked to have seen a custodial sentence, although we’re glad he’s gone on the Sex Offenders’ Register,” he added. “He was portrayed as a victim rather than my daughter. But she was training to be a hairdresser and she’s lost so much time due to depression that she has had to give up her college course.”
The charges against Sandhu arose from the attempted murder of taxi driver Jonathan Hillier in Newtownards in August 2005 and the murders of Jameson Lockhart and Andrew Cully.
An earlier court hearing was told that Sandhu, who practises out of offices in Limavady, incited members of the UVF to murder Mr Hillier as he recovered in hospital in August 2005 from a failed attempt on his life.
Published Date: 29 May 2009By Kate LahiveA THIRD Sheffield resident is launching legal action against pharmaceutical company GlaxoSmithKline UK.The woman, who lives in Greystones, is seeking compensation for undisclosed personal injuries after taking the widely prescribed anti-depressant drug Seroxat which is manufactured by the global company.She is claiming up to £50,000 in compensation from GlaxoSmithKline UK.She is one of several hundred people, including a woman, from Stannington, and a man, from Firth Park, who are planning to sue the drug manufacturer, claiming their lives have been blighted by the anti-depressant.Seroxat, also known as paroxetine, is designed to restore the taker's happiness and confidence.But some users have claimed they became addicted to the medication while others say they experienced suicidal thoughts.The case is being considered by a judge but is not expected to be concluded until next year.GlaxoSmithKline is contesting the legal action and a spokesman has previously said there was "no merit" in the litigation
Gina Loxam, of Heysham, is taking legal action against GlaxoSmithKline
Published Date: 02 June 2008 Two Lancashire women face a High Court showdown with a pharmaceutical giant over claims their lives were blighted by a so-called wonder drug."
(blah blah blah)
many claimants seeking up to £50,000 for personal injuries and other losses suffered as a result of using Seroxat
(blah blah blah)
Mark Harvey, of law firm Hugh James, which is representing the two Lancashire women, has claimed Seroxat is 'defective' under the 1987 Consumer Protection Act.He has previously said: "When patients took the drug, not only was there no warning of withdrawal symptoms, there was also a statement on the data sheet until about 2003 which said you cannot be addicted to Seroxat."Unfortunately, many people are having difficulties as they try to withdraw from the drug and there are a few who have not been able to stop taking it." http://www.lep.co.uk/news/Lancs-women-sue-over-sunshine.4141477.jp
House of Lords British Coal Compensation All Written Answers on 12 May 2009« Previous answerNext answer » Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract (Labour) Hansard source To ask Her Majesty's Government further to the Written Answer by Lord Hunt of Kings Heath on 3 March (WA 150) concerning the payment of £40.5 million to Avalon Solicitors in the British Coal litigation, what assessment they have made of (a) the sentence of the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal on 29 April striking-off from the Roll of Solicitors that firm's former senior partner, Andrew Nulty; (b) the tribunal's finding that Mr Nulty's conduct had been "a disgrace to the profession"; and (c) the tribunal's finding that Mr Nulty's written response to a Minister of the Crown in the British Coal litigation had been intended to deceive and was dishonest; and whether, having regard to such matters, the payment of £40.5 million to Avalon Solicitors is to be referred to the Serious Fraud Office and South Yorkshire Police in connection with their ongoing investigation into the British Coal Litigation. Click on the platypus! Lord Hunt of Kings Heath (Minister of State (Sustainable Development, Climate Change Adaptation and Air Quality), Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs; Labour) Hansard source The department has not made any such assessment to date. The department will consider the matter further when the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal's written ruling in respect of the case against Avalon is published
Pauline Comeau Ottawa An Ontario Superior Court Justice has certified a class-action lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson, its Canadian subsidiary, Janssen-Ortho Inc. and the Attorney General of Canada, on behalf of Canadians who took the antireflux drug cisapride (Prepulsid). Cisapride made headlines in March 2000 when Vanessa Young, 15, of Oakville, Ont. died of a heart arrhythmia after taking the drug to ease bloating related to bulimia. Cisapride was contraindicated for patients with bulimia. Cisapride was pulled from the North American market a few months later. A coroner's jury ruled in 2001 that Young died of heart arrhythmia caused, at least in part, by cisapride toxicity. The jury made 50-plus recommendations, including mandatory reporting of adverse drug reactions by health care professionals and clear label warnings of contraindications. None of the major recommendations have been implemented. An estimated 350 000 Canadians took cisapride. Lawyers involved in the case say thousands may have experienced adverse effects. In 2004, Johnson & Johnson agreed to pay up to $90 million to settle US lawsuits involving more than 300 deaths and 16 000 injuries related to cisapride. The company has argued that physicians failed to properly prescribe the drug, especially to children. The Canadian class action claims the company failed "to adequately warn Canadian physicians and their patients of the risks associated with ingesting [cisapride]" despite knowledge of serious problems, and that there was little scientific evidence the drug even worked. The lead plaintiff, 69-year-old Aline Boulanger of Timmins, Ont. was prescribed prepulsid in 1995 and suffered chest pains and shortness of breath. She was diagnosed with ventricular tachycardia with prolonged QT interval that was linked to the use of cisapride. She continues to require heart medication. Since Vanessa Young's death, her father, Terrence Young, has been an outspoken advocate for drug safety reform. He says he hopes the class-action case, which is not expected to begin for a year or more (and only if litigants don't settle out of court), will force changes in how doctors report adverse drug effects and how Health Canada manages drug safety issues. "The delay in this case should show the federal government that the courts are a totally inadequate way to deal with prescription drug safety," says Young. When asked to comment, a spokesperson for Janssen-Ortho Inc. faxed a brief statement to the CMAJ indicating it had served notice of intent to appeal the decision and that the company believes the drug "is a safe and effective medicine when prescribed appropriately."
There has been an increased interest in the obsessive and compulsive nature of paraphilias and whether they lie within the obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) spectrum. The clinical response observed in patients with sexual paraphilias to selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) has added to the hypothesis that sexual paraphilias could be a component of the OCD spectrum (Greenburg et al., 1996; Kafka, 1994).
Redefining sexual paraphilias as a component of the obsessive-compulsive spectrum might encourage the further use of SSRIs by the average psychiatrist, who might find it less threatening than antiandrogens. This would result in a much larger role being played in the treatment of paraphilias. (Bradford, 1995). Two patients are presented: Patient A is a voyeurist and is divorced; Patient B is an exhibitionist and is married. Both patients had some college education by the time they presented and were working. Neither had any medical or neurological problems. They presented with recurrent and persistent thoughts and impulses to act in a voyeuristic and exhibitionistic fashion, respectively. These thoughts were sexually exciting, but were followed by a deep sense of shame and guilt. Both patients were successfully treated with paroxetine, and showed a decrease in the intensity and frequency of these thoughts as well as improved impulse control.
Fluoxetine (Greenburg et al., 1996; Kafka and Prentky, 1992; Perilstein et al., 1991), sertraline (Greenburg et al., 1996; Kafka, 1994), fluoxamine (Greenburg et al., 1996), and clomipramine (Clayton, 1993) have been used to treat sexual paraphilia...
read on - http://www.brainphysics.com/research/voyeur_abouesh99.pdf
Fiddaman complains - basically, he posted a photo of me in Bangkok with the headline 'They wouldn't allow Gary Glitter into Bangkok but they allow Fiddaman'. Nice huh? The post has since been removed by Yahoo Groups. He has made assumptions that are so far wide of the mark
One thing I cannot.. and never will put up with is claims such as 'Benefit Cheat', 'Racist' and associating me with a well known sexual molester of children. The individual wrote " Bangkok said no to Garry Glitter ....but no probs for Fiddaman" - He then posted a photo of me standing in the streets of Bangkok.
I can put up with critiques of my writing on here, I can even hold my hand up and say I have made a mistake, if it is pointed out to me.
One thing I cannot.. and never will put up with is claims such as 'Benefit Cheat', 'Racist' and associating me with a well known sexual molester of children. The individual wrote " Bangkok said no to Garry Glitter ....but no probs for Fiddaman" - He then posted a photo of me standing in the streets of Bangkok.
In June this year he wrote to Solicitors handling the Seroxat litigation demanding to know how I could afford a trip to Australia many years ago, he also asked why in the one photo he has of me in Australia, I look so 'larger than life', assuming that I was suffering Seroxat withdrawal at the time the photo was taken.
It has become an obsession for him to trawl through Internet archives and post about me, targeting a poetry site where I used to post then labeling me a 'Tampon Poet'. Yeh, I wrote poetry years ago, yeh I wrote one about Tampons, it's called humour
((On Sun, 01 Feb 2004 20:51:38 +0100, the Riffmaker® wrote: bob is in aus but the advice he can give you i too can offer you wrap your fingers around your stiffie and move your hand up and down til it's sick http://groups.google.com/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/f1161d88cf639f1e/680257c4ae524c07?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=bob+fiddaman+aus ))
Re: New Fiddaman Blog " SEROXAT SUFFERER EXPOSED "
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/mentalmagazine/message/12399 Sat Sep 6, 2008 8:54 pm
Read what was said in the fairly recent papers the court of appeal accepted my version of the events
note also what the doctor said about the withdrawal side effects
finally I obtained legal aid and sued the police for wrongful arrest & false imprisonment ...............again it is something found in my favour as the police freely of their own will paid out the tarrif rate for false imprisonment which is £550 per hour
Irish Ambassador to London Donal O'Sullivan told the Department of Foreign Affairs about his meeting with the earl at a banquet given by the queen at Windsor Castle on April 11, 1972. Paraphrasing their conversation, he said Mountbatten hoped British Prime Minister Edward Heath's approach to the North would secure reunification. "Lord Mountbatten said he wished me to know that he and many of his friends have been deeply impressed by the positive Dublin reaction to the Heath initiative," Mr O'Sullivan wrote. "They hope that this can be developed into a 'major advance towards the final solution'. Reunification is the only eventual solution. "If there is anything he can do to help he will be most happy to co-operate."
The five MPs, who represent the political wing of the IRA, have not even taken up their Parliamentary seats and yet they have rented three London properties from the same family at rates well above the market norm.
The party's two best-known figures, Gerry Adams, the party leader, and Martin McGuinness, Northern Ireland's deputy first minister, jointly claimed expenses of £3,600 a month to rent a shared two-bedroom flat in north London. A local estate agent, who knows the properties, said a fair monthly rent for the flat would be £1,400.
"I guess I don't understand if you are so passionate on helping people why you are choosing to harm one of our own. We have all done things on these medications we are not proud of, so why not spend your energy helping others"
Dr. L Gary Hart & Michelle Hart, RN said... We are all upset about what SSRi's have done to us. But why are you attacking Fid? Most people can travel with RA and most music lovers seed music. I guess I don't understand if you are so passionate on helping people why you are choosing to harm one of our own. We have all done things on these medications we are not proud of, so why not spend your energy helping others? Don't let this cancer infest inside of you.
Exclusion of expert's testimony sinks case for diabetes link
By ANDREW EDER The News Journal
A Delaware judge has thrown out a case that was scheduled to be the first trial among thousands of lawsuits against AstraZeneca over its handling of the antipsychotic drug Seroquel.
In a letter to attorneys for the drugmaker and plaintiff Nina Scaife, Superior Court Judge Joseph Slights III granted AstraZeneca's request Tuesday to exclude the testimony of endocrinologist Valerie Peck, who connected Scaife's diabetes with her Seroquel use.
AstraZeneca attorneys had argued in March hearings that Scaife, a 46-year-old from Kansas City, Kan., could not rule out other risk factors as the cause of her diabetes.
"In the absence of competent expert testimony regarding specific causation, the court has also determined that it must grant the defendants' motion for summary judgment in this case," Judge Joseph Slights III wrote. Slights said a full written opinion would follow.
Scaife's case was one of hundreds in the Delaware court -- and nearly 10,000 total -- that accuse AstraZeneca of hiding or downplaying evidence that Seroquel can cause diabetes. Seroquel, AstraZeneca's second-best-selling drug with sales of $4.45 billion last year, was developed in Delaware by a predecessor of the London drug maker, which has its U.S. headquarters in Fairfax.
Scaife's case had been scheduled to go to trial June 29. Paul Pennock, an attorney for Scaife, said Slights' decision was unfortunate. "He's a very smart jurist, but unless I'm missing something completely, I think he's gotten this one wrong, and we will probably be appealing," Pennock said.
Pennock said his firm represents 2,200 Seroquel plaintiffs, with most of those cases filed in state courts in New York and New Jersey. Under laws in those states, Pennock said, Peck's testimony would be admissible. "This is unfortunate for Miss Scaife, although we don't think it's correct," Pennock said. "We think this litigation will just take on a new and more visceral form in New York and New Jersey."
Tuesday's action follows another dismissal last week of a Delaware case in which a plaintiff failed to disclose her lawsuit against AstraZeneca to a bankruptcy judge. In January, a federal judge overseeing thousands of lawsuits across the country dismissed the first two cases that were set to go to trial.
"The plaintiffs want to try these cases in the press," said Mike Kelly, a Wilmington attorney with the law firm McCarter & English who represents AstraZeneca in the Delaware cases. "But what is happening in the courts tells it all ... So far, the plaintiffs can't get a case to trial."
Attempts to litigate against the makers of benzodiazapines - including Valium, Librium and Ativan, which were also said not to be addictive when they were launched - collapsed because the legal aid granted to the claimants was used up in the lengthy investigations of the cases demanded by the companies before the action reached court
Anti-depressant 'addicts' threaten legal case
Sarah Boseley Monday December 10, 2001
More than 60 people in Britain who say they have become hooked on the anti-depressant Seroxat - a drug in the Prozac class - are exploring the possibility of legal action against the pharmaceutical company which they claim failed to warn doctors that that it could create dependency. Two firms of solicitors say they already have between 30 and 40 cases each. The people have come forward following news of a legal case in the US in which 35 people allege they suffered severe side-effects when they tried to stop taking the drug.
The Los Angeles law firm Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford and Schiavo - which filed its action against the British manufacturers GlaxoSmithKline in September - has since had more than 2,000 calls from people to tell of their addiction to the drug, which is known in the US as Paxil. The side-effects they suffer when they try to stop taking the tablets, include jolting pains in the head, vertigo, loss of coordination, abdominal discomfort, agitation and confusion.
The US lawyers have asked GSK to set up treatment centres to help people attempting to withdraw from Paxil/Seroxat. GSK say there is no reliable scientific evidence that the drug causes addiction or dependency.
The British solicitors, Ross & Co, based in the Wirral, and Hugh James Ford Simey of Cardiff, have been receiving calls from people who did not realise that others had suffered the same symptoms when they tried to cut down and come off the drug.
"We have been contacted by 30 to 40 people, most of whom have startlingly similar tales to tell of being put on the drug and being taken off it, and then going back on," said Mark Harvey of Hugh James Ford Simey.
Mr Harvey said most people are told by the doctor that their problems are the symptoms of their depression re-appearing and do not suspect that the drug might be to blame. "This does have the smell of something that is a problem," he said. "The patient information sheet says it is not addictive twice."
Graham Ross, of Ross & Co, thinks that there is a good potential case against the manufacturers. "So far as evidence of dependency is concerned, that is pretty strong," he said.
"I feel we can prove that. Failure to ensure that GPs are aware of that risk and therefore warn patients accordingly - there is plenty of evidence that they are not doing that."
But group actions face particular problems in Britain. Attempts to litigate against the makers of benzodiazapines - including Valium, Librium and Ativan, which were also said not to be addictive when they were launched - collapsed because the legal aid granted to the claimants was used up in the lengthy investigations of the cases demanded by the companies before the action reached court.