blogs created to prevent or detect a crime

This blog is brougt to you consistent with subsection 3 of the Protection from Harassment Act - i.e. blogs created to prevent or detect a crime

Friday, 31 December 2010

Goodbye to 2010 - M. Kamio - Meditation from Thais

SEROXAT worked for Fiddaman

They [Seroxat] worked for me… if masking the illness and losing all empathy is working.

You want to try getting off them. It took me 18 months to taper slowly from 40mg per day to 22mg per day.

Thursday, 30 December 2010

Paxil NOT associated with birth defects - Lawyers & Settlements latest

"the evidence that paroxetine (Paxil) increases the rate of cardiac malformations above the population baseline risk of one out of 100 pregnancies just does not exist."  

Accumulated evidence from different types of studies does not suggest that paroxetine is associated with an increased risk of heart defects

December 29, 2010.

Toronto, Ontario: The debate over Paxil side effects as they relate to infants born with heart defects continues to be hotly contested—especially given the need for some women to remain on antidepressants on a consistent basis for depression. So do you stop an antidepressant like Paxil during pregnancy and risk harming the mother? Or do you continue and risk Paxil birth defects?

As recently as this past August, Motherisk, a department of women's health at the Hospital for Sick Children in Toronto, concluded "the evidence that paroxetine (Paxil) increases the rate of cardiac malformations above the population baseline risk of one out of 100 pregnancies just does not exist."

This, in spite of the Paxil lawsuit where Paxil manufacturer GlaxoSmithKline (Glaxo) was required to pay a $2.5 million settlement to the family of a child born with a heart defect. The child's mother took Paxil during the first trimester of her pregnancy.

There is little doubt that the issue has been well studied. However, conclusions vary. Motherisk noted a 2005 study posted by Glaxo on its Web site that suggested a two percent risk of congenital malformations, compared with one percent in the control group. A separate study in Sweden arrived at similar findings.

However, Motherisk conducted its own prospective, comparative cohort study with data from teratogen information services globally. Analyzing the outcomes of 1,170 infants from eight teratogen services found the rate of heart defects in the Paxil group and that in the control group was equal at 0.7 percent.

Motherisk also noted on its Web site, in a posting from August, that two additional studies out this year on Paxil defects both found a marginal increase in heart defects associated with paroxetine (Paxil). And yet the odds ratio was below two—which represents a marginal increase in risk at best.

Similar findings were published in March of this year by Wurst et al, together with two dissenting views…

"The scientific evidence does not support the conclusion that paroxetine causes cardiovascular defects," said one.

"Evidence-based literature shows consistent epidemiologic evidence that paroxetine use during pregnancy increases the risk of cardiac malformations in newborns," said the other.

Motherisk concludes that heart defects are relatively commonplace, with about one out of 100 babies born with a heart defect regardless of exposure. "Accumulated evidence from different types of studies does not suggest that paroxetine is associated with an increased risk of heart defects."

Thus, does using Paxil during pregnancy still run the risk for Paxil heart defects? The jury is apparently still out…

Wednesday, 29 December 2010

Teratogen Pregnancy Register UK - Lamotrigine,Gabapentin.Topiramate

Paxil Malformations - Who Is Responsible?

Increase in hyposapadias cannot be associated with Seroxat/Paxil  

seroxat sales freefall link

According to the Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children NHS Trust website, about one in every 300 boys has hypospadias, although this figure seems to be rising. It is not known why this figure is rising. So we have that grey area of whether or not paroxetine increases the chances of a male child being born with hypospadias. The Reis/Klln study seems to suggest that it does.

Tuesday, 28 December 2010

Behind the Scenes: Making of CCHR Video - Doyle Mills & Wikileaks

Every thing in Scientology is choreographed... a SHOW, an apparency,

designed to leave the uniformed public confused and to provide an

apparency of agreement that there is belief is a certain desired

fallacy that benefits the coffers of $cientology.

Teen Screen is legislation to interview school kids to prevent

SUICIDES...that is opoosed by the scam of scientology, because it is

based upon psychology and psychiatry...

I never had any doubt that all the letters to editors and the anti-

psych spam was coordinated, but you'll LOVE THIS:

"LEAF" = Letters to the Editor Attack Force

It was / is an actual group set up to do this...

Run by Doyle Mills, CW scientologist and OSA volunteer. He also works at Digital Light Wave

Note that in some of the letters he says: "report compliance by email"

So his "LEAF" operatives are commanded to report completion of

assignments back to him!

Behind the Scenes: Making of CCHR Video, Psychiatry—Labeling Kids

We made this video for all who helped and supported CCHRInt in the creation and distribution of our latest video, Psychiatry—Labeling Kids with Bogus Mental 'Disorders' which was written, produced and edited by the staff of CCHR International. We want to thank all who assisted us with this project, volunteering their time, energy and support. We also want to thank everyone who has supported it since its release, and CCHR's campaign for children's rights..

Many thanks to all—

CCHR International

Paul Duckett - some real antidepressant research for you Paul - how did they all get off so easily? › Staff

paroxetine peaked in Q4 2001 it but Q4 2003 it had fallen by 25%

Chart 5 demonstrates the immense value to Society of free and independent Public ServiceBroadcasting

Seroxat USERS Duckett funding bid - all other brands excluded

Seroxat USERS Ducket funding bid - all other brands excluded

source -

Disability Research Network e-Newsletter: Northern England Issue 1: April 2007

News from the Research Institute for Health and Social Change, Manchester Metropolitan University (

extract -

Research idea from Paul Duckett (

I am presently working with the Seroxat User Group to develop a funding bid (details below). Interest from other disability studies researcher welcomed: The Seroxat User Group is a UK patients group which provides support and advice to people who use or have used Seroxat (a prescription drug anti-depressant). Seroxat is commonly prescribed for people who have been given the diagnostic label of depression, anxiety and sexual dysfunction. In recent years, it has been shown that a significant number of people who have taken Seroxat have experienced severe problems in their attempts to withdraw from the drug and, whilst taking the drug, problems with suicidal and homicidal ideations. GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) are presently subject to a number of class action law suits in the UK, USA and elsewhere in relation to the company's alleged non-disclosure and distortion of the results of their clinical research trials on the efficacy and safety of Seroxat.The Seroxat User Group are a not-for-profit organisation that has so far relied on individual donations (surviving for four years on only ?800). In spite of the lack of funding, the Group has continued to operate a website resource for people concerned about the drug and have been lobbying government to ensure public safety is not being jeopardised in relation to the commercial activities of GSK.

This proposed research, being developed in consultation with the Seroxat User Group (SUG), will:

++ engage in a piece of participatory action research with SUG to set up

++ and

evaluate four self-help support groups, operated via general practitioner surgeries.

++ Research the relationship GSK following the attempts of SUG to file

++ class action lawsuits against


If you are interested in exploring this research idea please contact Paul Duckett directly

read on here -

SSRI withdrawal funding proposal excluded all brands other than Seroxat

[DOC] List of documents used in session - DocumentsFile Format: Microsoft Word - View as HTML

Additional Documentation. MMU-SUG Funding Proposal to NESTA. · NESTA web home page. · MMU-SUG funding application (text used in online application) ...

SUG Session Documents - MMU-SUG Funding Proposal to NESTA - ignores FIDDAMAN

SUG Session Documents

Main Documentation

Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

· MHRA Corporate Plan

House of Commons Select Committee on Health

· Report on the Influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry

Defeat Depression

· Royal College of Psychiatry Defeat Depression home page
· Charles Medawar article on Defeat Depression

GSK website

GSK financial summary report

GSK Annual report 2006 (pages: 1-3, 29, 33, 34, 164)

GSK Corporate Responsibility Report 2006 (pages: 1-6, 30-36,

Documentation on SUG Meetings

SUG meeting with EMEA [April 2004]

· Minutes of meeting

SUG meeting with Health Minister (Lord Hunt) [June 2007]

· Minutes of meeting

· MMU-SUG short proposal for support group funding

· Thank you letter from SUG

SUG meeting with Prime Minister at No.10 Downing Street [Nov 2007]

· Press release

· Submission by SUG

· Submission by Paul Duckett

· MP’s letter to PM requesting a meeting

· Minutes from meeting

Additional Documentation

MMU-SUG Funding Proposal to NESTA

· NESTA web home page

· MMU-SUG funding application (text used in online application)

Local (Huntington, UK) press cutting

Independent press cutting – on Hugh James Solicotors Class Action Suit against GSK

SUG web site

Seroxat Secrets Website

List of Abbreviations (from HC Select Committee Report)

Hugh James Solicitors web page

CPUK Statement

faked "News" drug video was uploaded to you tube by litigation lawyers

The video, entitled Prempro News Segment, was made by the law firm behind a $78 million (US) court-ordered settlement in the fall of a lawsuit brought against the company. The Philadelphia jury found that Wyeth, a division of Pfizer, failed to warn women that taking its hormone drug Prempro could cause breast cancer.

“Plaintiff’s counsel should be compelled to remove this video from the Internet and refrain from making any further inflammatory and prejudicial public statements” until the litigation is resolved, Pfizer’s lawyers said in a motion filed yesterday in Philadelphia Common Pleas Court.

More than 6 million women have taken hormone-replacement medicines to treat menopause symptoms such as hot flashes, night sweats and mood swings. Until 1995, many patients combined Premarin, an estrogen-based drug made by Pfizer’s Wyeth unit, with progestin-laden Provera, made by Upjohn, another subsidiary of Pfizer, the world’s largest drugmaker.

Wyeth scientists later combined the two hormones in its Prempro pill. The drugs are still on the market. New York-based Pfizer completed its $68 billion purchase of Wyeth in October.

The video was produced by lawyer Zoe Littlepage, who had her staff post it to YouTube. It is made to look like a TV news segment. In it, she accuses Wyeth of hiding the drug's dangers.

Lyam Kilker Paxil - the family couldn’t seek punitive damages against GSK

Glaxo loses Paxil lawsuit, more details

I have blogged about this verdict already today, but new details are beginning to emerge.

The $2.5 million (US) award granted by a Philadelphia jury in a verdict handed down this morning against GlaxoSmithKline in a lawsuit over its anti-depressant Paxil is more than twice what the plaintiff was seeking.

Michelle David, suing on behalf of her son Lyam Kilker, who turns four next week, had sought $1.2 million to cover future medical costs and other damages. The settlement granted by the jury in a 10-2 vote matches that awarded five years ago when the drug giant agreed to pay the state of New York $2.5 million to resolve claims that it suppressed research showing that Paxil may increase suicide risk in young people.

David's lawyer, Sean Tracey, hailed the verdict afterward, saying it was the first to "get a jury saying the drug caused the injury."

Business analysts following the company, however, were not so sure.

“I don’t think the link is proven, so there will likely be collective settlements which will keep costs low,” Navid Malik, an analyst at Matrix Corporate Capital in London with a buy rating on the stock, said in an e-mail. “If this was a threat to GSK, the first verdict might have been 100 times greater.”

Glaxo American depositary receipts, each representing two ordinary shares, fell 5 cents to $39.73 at 1:07 p.m. in New York Stock Exchange composite trading, after dropping as much as 1.4 per cent when the verdict was announced. Glaxo fell 14 pence, or 1.1 per cent, to 1,246.5 pence in London.

I have yet to see the full decision by the jury, but Bloomberg is quoting it as saying that the jury found that Glaxo officials “negligently failed to warn” the doctor treating Lyam’s mother about Paxil’s risks and concluded the medicine was a “factual cause” of the child’s heart defects.

On the other hand, the jury also found that Glaxo’s handling of the drug wasn’t “outrageous,” meaning the family couldn’t seek punitive damages against the British drug company.

In a statement after the verdict came down the company said it disagreed with the decision and will appeal.

GlaxoSmithKline disagrees with the verdict and will appeal. While we sympathize with Lyam Kilker and his family, the scientific evidence does not establish that exposure to Paxil during pregnancy caused his condition. Very unfortunately, birth defects occur in three to five per cent of all live births, whether or not the mother was taking medication during pregnancy.

I have called Glaxo for more comment, but have not yet heard back.

Glaxo spokesman Kevin Colgan called and read me the statement quoted above.

Monday, 27 December 2010

DODGY drugs

DODGY drugs

Momma's little helper is not what it used to be. The medicine counterfeiters make plenty of money selling dodgy Viagra and slimming tablets for the western market. Fake medicine for more serious problems are more likely to be shipped to developing countries where controls are less stringent and officials more pliable. This week in the UK five men went on trial over a plan to sell counterfeit drugs in the UK. The drugs involved are used to treat cancer, heart disease and schizophrenia. The Chinese supplier Lu Xu as caught by US undercover agents investigating a completely separate scam when the five businessman came up on the radar. The drugs such as Zyprexa cost €94 a packet making it a valuable scam. Read about the court case here. This week documents released by Wikileaks highlighted how corruption and counterfeiting go hand in hand. US diplomats are not apparently happy the way the Chinese turn a blind eye to counterfeit goods flooding the Kenyan market. Read here. Of course, one way to make it less profitable for the counterfeiters would be subsidise pharmaceuticals and push the use of generic brands. Read previous posts on counterfeit drugs.

The Counterfeiter - how one of pharma’s biggest enemies was nabbed in Houston, Texas


The story of how one of pharma’s biggest enemies was nabbed in Houston, Texas

Read more: The Counterfeiter - The Scientist - Magazine of the Life Sciences

Trial begins of five men accused in fake Zyprexa, Casodex, and Plavix

Trial begins of five men accused in fake medicine scam
The Irish Times - Tuesday, December 7, 2010

FIVE MEN have been accused of orchestrating a multi-million pound fake medicine scam by importing counterfeit drugs for cancer, heart disease and schizophrenia from China to sell in the United Kingdom.

“This case is considered to represent the most serious breach of the medicine control regime – it’s the most serious breach that has happened in the EU,” Crown Prosecution Service lawyer Andrew Marshall told Croydon Crown Court.

Ian Gillespie (59), James Quinn and Peter Gillespie (64) from Hertfordshire; Richard Kemp (61) from North Wales; and Ian Harding (58) from Wiltshire, all deny charges of conspiracy to defraud.

The prosecution alleges that the five imported fake versions of Zyprexa, a medicine used to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder; Casodex, a treatment for advanced prostate cancer; and Plavix, used to treat ischemic heart disease from a Chinese counterfeiter named Lu Xu.

He has since been jailed in the United States after he was caught by detectives running an undercover sting about another medicine unconnected to the charges facing the five defendants.

In his opening statement in the trial, which is expected to last for four months, Mr Marshall highlighted the gains to be made from illegal drugs, pointing that 145,000 patients in the UK were prescribed Zyprexa last year at a cost of £80 (€94) for 28 tablets, or £13.5m in total. Casodex costs £128 a pack, while Plavix costs £35 a pack, he told the court, adding that the prosecution was taken after a major investigation by the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency.

All five also face charges of selling or supplying Casodex and Plavix without a marketing authorisation, and of selling or distributing counterfeit Casodex and Plavix; all, bar Mr Quinn, are accused of selling fake Zyprexa. Mr Gillespie is also charged with acting as a company director while disqualified for allegedly running a medical supplies company in Basingstoke even though he was disqualified for bankruptcy five years ago.

“The purpose of this activity is not some beneficial motivation. It’s to obtain the profits of buying illegal goods cheaply and selling them as if they were genuine,” said Mr Marshall. “The system has been corrupted and in particular patients, we suggest, put at risk.”

Drug lawyers shaft Oraflex patients & deceive court over Prozac - Joseph Wesbecker

John Cornwell, the author of this book gives a much more nefarious explanation for the sudden disappearance of the litigation. He suggests that the plaintiffs in the Louisville case (those injured and estate representatives) entered into a secret settlement with Lilly during the trial, yet submitted the case to the jury, lost, and did not appeal. He also suggests that other pending Prozac cases were settled at the same time.,+Medicine,+and+Murder+on+Trial.-a019235626

The trial Cornwell covered as a reporter for the London Sunday Times Magazine involved the 1989 shooting rampage by Joseph Wesbecker, an employee of a printing plant in Louisville. He killed 8 people, wounded 12 others, and killed himself.

The plaintiffs alleged that Wesbecker acted under the influence of Prozac, which his psychiatrist had prescribed for him shortly before the shootings. Lilly asserted alternatively that the cause of the shootings was Wesbecker's job stress or his mental illness that, the company asserted, was not aggravated by his use of Prozac.

Cornwell and others evidently felt that a secret deal might have been made when plaintiffs' counsel Paul Smith of Dallas did not offer evidence about Lilly's wrongdoing
 regarding another drug, Oraflex, even though Smith had won a hard-fought battle to get that evidence admitted. The trial judge, John Potter, became suspicious about whether the case had in fact been settled, but his doubts arose only after judgment had been entered and no appeal taken.

Potter sought to rewrite the judgment for the defendant as a settlement, but counsel for both sides refused to agree and continued to deny there was a settlement. In an extraordinary development in 1995, Potter hired his own lawyer and appealed.

While the intermediate Kentucky court held that he did not have the power to revise the verdict, the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that he did have the inherent power to reopen the verdict and hold a hearing. The court found that "there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court and there may have been deception, bad faith conduct, abuse of judicial process, or perhaps even fraud." (Potter v. Eli Lilly & Co., 926 S.W.2d 449 (1995).) This aspect of the book will likely be most interesting to the trial bar.

Cornwell's book is also an informative work on a number of interrelated  issues the Wesbecker trial raised. The trial itself, known as Fentress v. Lilly, is covered in great detail with transcript extracts. It was a typical David v. Goliath trial, with a plaintiffs' lawyer thrown into the litigation only shortly before trial against an impressive team of well-prepared defense counsel.

The book also focuses on Prozac and its ramifications  the huge market for antidepressants  and the chemical effects they have on the brain and behavior. Cornwell sees these issues against the larger field of neuroscience, an area of special interest to him as a researcher at Cambridge University where he directs the Science and Human Dimensions Project.

It is from this very broad interest that he studies Wesbecker's behavior. To what extent could the plaintiffs argue that Prozac actually was the cause of the shooting? What strengths did the defense have in arguing that Wesbecker was a product of his upbringing, society, and the especially hostile work environment

After the trial, Cornwell went to Texas to interview Smith. Both Smith and his wife were driving new Mercedes cars, he reports. He observes that Smith does not appear to be a man who lost the $700,000 he put into the case. Divorce proceedings iA Louisville brought out that one victim of the shooting had in fact obtained a substantial settlement, payable over three years, suggesting a reason to keep silent about it.

There is clearly more to come. Potter's hearing was set for January 17, 1997. As TRIAL goes to press, the judge has not made any decisions or rulings based on the hearing the supreme court permitted him to hold. However, the Seventh Circuit held in December that the federal judge supervising the remaining MDL  proceedings for Prozac had improperly refused to allow discovery by certain plaintiffs into the terms of the secret settlement.

Prozac Joseph Wesbecker - only settled to protect Lilly over Oraflex - source Pete Breggin

Joseph Wesbecker had been taking Prozac when he walked into his workplace, an Indianapolis printing plant, in September 1989, shot dead eight colleagues, wounded 12 and killed himself. Survivors and relatives of the dead took Lilly to court in 1994. They claimed that Wesbecker's violence was due to Prozac. The jury found that Prozac was not at fault.

Two years later, media pressure forced Lilly to admit that it had reached an out of court settlement with the plaintiffs. In return for an undisclosed - and reputedly large - sum the plaintiff's and their lawyer agreed not to bring potentially damaging evidence about another Lilly drug, Oraflex, into the trial. The story is related in The Power to Harm: Mind, Medicine and Murder on Trial (Viking, 1996), by British journalist and writer John Cornwell.

In 1985, writes Cornwell, Lilly pleaded guilty to charges brought by the US Justice Department for failing to report fatal reactions in Britain to Oraflex, an anti-inflammatory drug for arthritis relief. The company, whose global sales total $7.3 billion (around 255 billion BF) - $2.4 billion from Prozac alone - was fined $25,000 (around 875,000 BF). Lilly had been forced to settle hundreds of civil compensation claims and, says Cornwell, urgently needed a best-selling drug.

The Wesbecker verdict boosted Prozac sales in the US even though, as Cornwell points out, "Prozac had failed to help the sort of patient it was designed for."

Shame on paxilprogress yep I said it - Your truth must be their truth as well, or you're gone."

Shame on paxilprogress yep I said it.

"There is (and always has been) lots of bs going on there. Your truth must be their truth as well, or you're gone."


paxilprogress thread here

"The Tranquillisers Trap" - Panorama - comments by Janice Simmons who doesn't mention Seroxat

Do you know that there are 100's of people taking antidepressants who cannot get off of them. I know someone who has been on them for 11 years and nobody knows how to get him off of them. He was not reviewed by the GP regularly either just given repeat prescriptions. There is a professor called Charles Medawar who is campaigning about this problem. There are 100's of people on the internet all complaining of bad side effects and withdrawal symptoms.

Janice Simmons

Huntingdon, Cambs

see also   "The Tranquillisers Trap"


Sunday, 26 December 2010

Hospitals Send Bill if Mental Patients Win Suits

Hospitals Send Bill if Mental Patients Win SuitsBy ALISON LEIGH COWAN

Published: December 24, 2010

.Daniel J. Langevin was 35, mentally ill and broke. He had been living in psychiatric institutions on and off since his early 20s.

After Daniel Langevin sued over an error at a mental hospital, New York State countered that he should pay for years of care.

Daniel Langevin with his mother, Jeane, in 2009, left, and then in 2010. He wound up with no award after suing a state hospital.

A friend who visited him at the Rochester Psychiatric Center in February 1995 remembered that Mr. Langevin had pain in his jaw, eye and face that was not getting much attention from the staff. A week later, he was discovered unconscious, with a near-fatal infection spreading to his brain and other organs.

Mr. Langevin sued New York State, which operates the hospital, and probably would have won a sizable award. But the state countered by demanding that Mr. Langevin reimburse it $1.7 million for 10 years of inpatient care he had received. A judge sided with the state, and Mr. Langevin wound up with nothing.

Slip and fall in a New York prison, or suffer abuse by its guards, and inmates can keep whatever they win in court. But for patients in state-run mental hospitals — people too ill to live on their own and too poor to pay for their care — the state can drain court-awarded damages, effectively deducting the cost of their stays in the very hospitals that failed or abused them.

“It’s a Catch-22, isn’t it?” said Leo G. Finucane, the lawyer who represented Mr. Langevin. “I need to go to this facility because I’m sick. But if they hurt me worse, they’re immune.”

Attorney General Andrew M. Cuomo’s office, which handles these kinds of cases for New York State, declined repeated requests to discuss the matter.

It is not uncommon for public hospitals to lean hard on patients found to have assets. But New York squeezes patients who sue for injuries more consistently and harder than many other states, according to lawyers and others who represent the mentally ill.

“I’ve done this work since 1986, and New York has had the reputation of doing this far more than any other state in the country,” Susan Stefan, a lawyer and professor, said.

Lawyers in Oregon still talk about the time their state forced a patient to hand over 80 percent of the settlement he received from the Roman Catholic Church as a victim of sexual abuse. But in 1999, Oregon amended its law to keep the state from satisfying hospital debts with money that patients obtained from the state itself for acts of negligence.

In New Jersey, the state five years ago stopped imposing liens on psychiatric patients with unpaid balances, and lawyers for injured or abused patients can have clauses inserted into judgments and settlements promising that the state will not go after the awards to satisfy hospital debts, Joseph Young, executive director of the advocacy group Disability Rights New Jersey, said.

In Wisconsin, the state sought a $1,000-per-night reimbursement for the years an indigent woman stayed at the Mendota Mental Health Institute, after the woman choked to death on a peanut butter sandwich she should not have been given and her family filed a wrongful-death suit. But on the eve of trial, the family’s lawyer negotiated a deal that left her heirs with thousands of dollars in compensation and a promise that the state would waive its claim. “Even the state recognizes that what the law allows it to do may result in extreme and unjust consequences,” the lawyer, Jason Studinski, said.

Over the years, New York has exercised its right to collect in dozens of these kinds of cases and has generally received a go-ahead from the courts.

There was the 20-year-old woman raped at South Beach Psychiatric Center on Staten Island in 1992. Six years later, a judge deducted $101,000 from her $250,000 award to cover what the state contended she owed for services; the judge ruled that a hospital might be negligent on some days while providing valuable services on others. The patient appealed, to no avail.

Ron Lynch, a patient at Bronx Psychiatric Center, sued for $7 million in damages after being assaulted in 2003 by another patient. This prompted the state to respond that Mr. Lynch ought to pay $1,585,519.22 to reduce the bill he had run up for his treatment.

Evelyn Hasson was given a toxic amount of the antipsychotic drug Thorazine at Manhattan Psychiatric Center in 1993. Her relatives brought a wrongful-death suit, and the state sent a bill of $220,136.90 to her estate. The parties reached a financial settlement that will net her family $100,000, according to her lawyer, Bill Brooks of the Touro Law Center, but the questions of whether the counterclaim violated her constitutional rights have been pending in federal court for 11 years.

The state courts in New York have generally allowed the state to pursue reimbursement, but with limits, because of a patient named Louis O. Acevedo.

Mr. Acevedo sued the state after breaking his leg during an assault at Middletown Psychiatric Center in 1986, and he was soon warned that he could face a bill for $265,647.66. He withdrew his claim but challenged in federal court the state’s use of counterclaims. A judge ruled in 1991 that the state should be seeking reimbursement only up to the amount a patient recovered. Anything larger, the judge said, would deter patients from seeking redress because of the possibility that they might end up worse off.

In the years since then, patients’ lawyers have argued that even with a cap, letting the state claw back its own negligence awards is a disincentive to sue.

In the Langevin case, Judge Donald J. Corbett Jr. of the New York Court of Claims, like other jurists who have examined the issue, found in favor of the state. New York’s mental hygiene law gives the state the right to go after found assets or windfalls and allows six years from when the debt was incurred to begin an action against a patient.

“That does smack me as being unfair, especially in a small case,” said G. Oliver Koppell, a city councilman from the Bronx who temporarily served as New York’s attorney general in 1994. “If someone recovers $1 million and has a hospital bill of $50,000, it doesn’t bother me because they’re now a wealthy person. But for someone who has no money, to have it all taken back, it does strike me as being unfair or punitive.”

Maria Randone, 52, who has been in and of New York institutions since she was 14, is testing the law anew.

Ms. Randone was at an assisted-living home in Highland, N.Y., in 2005, but after smashing her plate in the dining room and causing a scene, she was taken away by the police and was involuntarily committed to a nearby hospital.

“I got a little upset because I wanted seconds,” Ms. Randone later testified.

Hudson River Psychiatric Center, where she was placed, let her shower soon after without assistance, despite her documented need for help. Staff members found her sprawled at the bottom of the stall, with a broken hip and femur.

Ms. Randone sued in 2007, and the state parried with a countersuit preserving its right to have any windfall garnished to repay the $467,051.94 bill it calculated she owed for two years of her stay in state-run psychiatric hospitals.

Last January, the Court of Claims in White Plains found the state fully responsible for Ms. Randone’s fall, entitling her to damages for pain, suffering and impairment. The court examined how much to award her — and how much should go back to the state — last month in a second trial. A ruling is expected by April.

Richard Greenblatt, the lawyer in Poughkeepsie who is representing Ms. Randone, said he thought the injury would ordinarily justify damages of $400,000 to $1 million. He said that he had tried to settle the case for $500,000, of which $100,000 would be returned to the state to cover the hospital bill, but that the assistant attorney general currently on the case showed no interest.

He “rejected the proposal outright, saying if she has the money, we’re going to take it,” Mr. Greenblatt said, adding: “It just reeks of unfairness. It’s Kafkaesque.”

Mr. Finucane, Mr. Langevin’s lawyer, struggles to see how the approach is good for hospitals or patients. He said state employees “don’t have to be careful if the state has no liability and if there’s no pressure from above to be careful on the floors because ‘we don’t want to be shelling out millions of dollars for negligence claims.’

“They’ve got this wonderful way of addressing it,” Mr. Finucane continued. “ ‘Well, we’ll just ask them to pay for everything we’ve done for them for several years.’ ”

Bob Fiddaman (published author) asked to pay fee to MHRA for information requested - The Evidence is clear

Fiddaman request (F oI)

"Please forward me documents that GSK supplied the MHRA during the application  procedure for Seroxat that relate to the 'correcting effect' regarding people with lower levels of serotonin ....."

MHRA request fee as follows

"To answer your request fully will require considerable extra work, for which we will need to make a charge. We estimate that meeting your request will require 40 hours work. The Freedom of Information Act allows us to make a charge for the costs of finding, sorting, editing or redacting the material you have requested, if this cost would exceed £600, calculated at £25 per hours’ work. We have therefore decided to charge you £1000 for providing the information you have requested. ..."

Fiddaman told you can't "land a knockout blow" on the MHRA

This is my final communication with the MHRA. It is a fruitless task people. I recently disputed a set of answers they gave me regarding a Freedom of Information request and they wrote back. I have now realised writing to them is pointless. I've had my fill after 3 years of probing only to be given answers that Tom Hanks' character in the Da Vinci Code would have trouble understanding. I am sure somewhere along the line they will be investigated and hauled to task over their lack of transparency but for now I have just about had enough. As one highly respected psychiatrist put it to me: "Bob, I don't think much of their answers but I do think they're on a wicket they can defend and I don't think you can land a knockout blow"

Here is the email I recieved and my response to it (blue) that has made me come to this decision.

Names have been removed to protect the guilty

Dear Mr Fiddaman,

I copied in Ingrid Cal**rt and Muriel Pa***ore because they log the MHRA responses to FOIs and this was by way of letting them know that the FOI had been dealt with. They are both Executive Assistants in Licensing Division of the MHRA.

Dear Mr Ber**dge,

I am copying in my MP, Gi**la St**rt to show her just how 'transparent' the MHRA really are... more on that later.

Your first point regarding Ingrid Cal**rt and Muriel Pa***ore - It seems rather odd that you choose to disclose who they are to me - why not throw the exemption rule at me (Information accessible by other means). I know who they are - I googled their names after my second email to you was not answered!

Regarding whether or not depression is associated with low levels of serotonin. Since my last correspondence I have had the opportunity to look into this further and also to consult further with colleagues and I present the following evidence.

Evidence in support of the PIL statement for paroxetine

‘People who are depressed or anxious have lower levels of serotonin than others. It is not fully understood how Seroxat and other SSRIs work but they may help by increasing the level of serotonin in the brain’Please note that in wording the text for PILs, the requirements of the Guideline on the Readability of the Label and Package Leaflet of Medicinal Products for Human Use (European Commission, Pharmaceutical Committee, September 1998) must be followed. The EC guideline states that ‘The text must be phrased so that it is readily understandable by patient.’

So a member of the public can understand the following taken from the Seroxat PIL:'It is not fully understood how Seroxat and other SSRIs work'?

If information on the leaflet cannot explain how Seroxat works then how on earth do you expect the patient to understand?

The rest of your email highlights the fact that the MHRA ARE NOT transparent and merely try to blind members of the public with science. I have continued in my reply after the biochemestry lesson.

The aetiology of depression is multifactorial and scientific work to elucidate it has been ongoing for many years. Psychological approaches include psychoanalytical and cognitive theories. Cognitive theories emphasise negative biases in information processing, leading the depressed patients to make unrealistically negative judgments about themselves and the world.. The neurobiological approach to the aetiology of depression includes factors such as monoamines (serotonin, noradrenaline, dopamine), endocrine abnormalities, cytokines, neurotrophins such as brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) etc, as aetiological factors.

There is good evidence for abnormalities in serotonin (5-hydroxytryptamin) neurotransmission in depression.

Plasma tryptophan:

The synthesis of serotonin in the brain depends on the availability of its precursor L-tryptophan. Plasma tryptophan levels are decreased in untreated depressed patients.

Studies in cerebrospinal fluid

There is evidence that depressed patients who have made impulsive and more dangerous suicide attempts have low CSF 5-hydroxyindolic acid (5-HIAA) levels.

Studies of post-mortem brain

Such studies have suggested that suicide victims have increased expression of 5-HT2A receptors and decreases in serotonin transporters in pre-frontal cortex.

Neurochemical brain imaging studies

Neuroimaging techniques such as single-photon emission computed tomography and positron emission tomography have demonstrated evidence of a wide-spread modest decrease in 5-HT1A receptor binding throughout cortical and subcortical regions and decreased brainstem 5-HT reuptake sites.

Neuroendocrine tests

Studies in unmedicated depressed patients have demonstrated that 5-HT-mediated endocrine responses are blunted in depressed patients.

Tryptophan depletion

As mentioned above, the synthesis of serotonin in the brain depends on the availability of L-tryptophan. Acute tryptophan depletion lowers brain serotonin synthesis and results in a transient, but striking, clinical relapse in recovered depressed patients.

Gene polymorphism studies

There is evidence that gene variants in sequences of serotonin pathway proteins may be associated with susceptibility to depression and suicidality in response to stressful life events and to response to antidepressive treatments.

Response to treatment with SSRIs

Antidepressants that increase serotonin in the brain have demonstrated efficacy in their licensed indications in adequately designed clinical trials. There is evidence that treatment with an SSRI reduces negative bias and increases positive bias in tasks involving social perception and emotional memory.

In conclusion, it is considered that the simple information given in the Patient Information Leaflet is in line with the available evidence.

Please note that the literature regarding the aetiology of depression is in the public domain. You may wish to refer to textbooks such as the New Oxford Textbook of Psychiatry available from the British Library or perform literature online literature searches on databases such as PubMed.

In addition, it is apparent from the literature that depression may be associated with low levels of serotonin (e.g. see link ). (

I am well aware of the investigation being conducted by the MHRA into GSK clinical trials.

Yet you point me to their website for the information I requested. That is like asking me to phone Dr Harold Shipman because my mother is ill!

You previously asked:

Please forward me documents that GSK supplied the MHRA during the application procedure for Seroxat that relate to the 'correcting effect' regarding people with lower levels of serotonin.

GSK have published on their website a list of trials that they have conducted on paroxetine. As you will see from the number of trials it would be very time consuming for me to check if their list is exhaustive and to extract the data that you require.

To answer your request fully will require considerable extra work, for which we will need to make a charge. We estimate that meeting your request will require 40 hours work. The Freedom of Information Act allows us to make a charge for the costs of finding, sorting, editing or redacting the material you have requested, if this cost would exceed £600, calculated at £25 per hours’ work. We have therefore decided to charge you £1000 for providing the information you have requested.

If you wish us to go ahead with the work, please send a cheque or postal order made payable to the "Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency" quoting the above reference to: The Cashier, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, Market Towers, 1 Nine Elms Lane, London SW8 5NQ.

Unfortunately, due to the problems Seroxat has left me with I am in no position for employment therefore could only dream of having £1000 and I certainly wouldn't waste it on the MHRA to carry out an investigation.... It's taken you nigh on 4 years to investigate Glaxosmithkline and we (the public) still have no idea whether or not the drugs we take (in this case Seroxat) are safe. Read Dr Pete Breggin's report (

it's as simple as that, then criminal prosecutions should follow and the MHRA should not stop at GSK they should then turn their attention to it's own members who knowingly allowed this drug to be 'peddled' despite knowing it's dangers (see

When someone wants to learn about a drug they take these days, a common port of call is the internet. One only has to type the word 'Seroxat' into a search engine to read horror story after horror story, lawsuit after lawsuit and yet YOU (MHRA) continue to robustly deny that it is harmful in adults. I'm an adult and I had severe withdrawal effects on this drug - 18 months to get off a drug is not 'mild' withdrawal. The patient information leaflet slightly touches on this:

When stopping Seroxat, your doctor will help you to reduce your dose slowly over a number of weeks or months –this should help reduce the chance of withdrawal effects. One way of doing this is to gradually reduce the dose of Seroxat you take by 10 mg a week. Most people find that any symptoms on stopping Seroxat are mild and go away on their own within two weeks. For some people, these symptoms may be more severe, or go on for longer.

May I guide you to here: one of countless support sites for people having difficulty with the drug the MHRA think is safe. These are adults posting in these forums... and Yes they are over 30 years of age

Finally, regarding copyright please see the following link (

I think this is rich coming from a body who have articles on their webpage with my full name and address on for all and sundry to see. I will continue to disseminate information that I think is in the public interest, in particular FOI requests

I hope this answers your query adequately.

I'd need a degree in biochemistry and you know it. It's a pity The EC guideline ‘The text must be phrased so that it is readily understandable by patient.’ doesn't apply to the MHRA because the email you sent me was sent purely to blind me with science. Clever Mr Be**idge, very clever

Mr Fiddaman

Fiddaman's final communication with the MHRA - but what lay behind it?


I have realised that any communication with the MHRA is a complete waste of time. I have therefore decided not to communicate with them anymore.

Their email to me and my last subsequent response can be seen here:

Paxil Progress gets a mention too


more HERE

Saturday, 25 December 2010

Radagast - Matt Holford - abusive pharma blogger gives up

I've lost interest in the pharma thing: it's a fraud that nobody wishes to tackle... [shrug] It's not my problem, now: I've done as much damage to Big Pharma as it did to me, and that's where I'll leave it.

check here for examples of his abuse to MHRA

Friday, 24 December 2010

L. Ron Hubbard had psychiatric medication in blood post mortem - vistaril (Pfizer)

source -

Matt Holford - 'mailing inane questions to the MHRA - sooner or later, somebody will be tempted into a response.."

I thought an update was due. I've been spending the past few days 'mailing inane questions to the MHRA, in the expectation that, sooner or later, somebody will be tempted into a response, whereupon I may start the interrogation! However, it's equally possible that they ignore me, as has my MP. I'll have to get my strike in early. I sometimes wonder if the more junior employees understand the nature of the business they're involved in.

Gosh, I do "Columbo" so well, it's almost a crime! But not quite. Like I wrote before, I'm unemployed, massively intelligent and in full command of every plan I wreck: what does one do with one's time, in the circumstances?

Seroxat blogger Matt Holford rulled vexatious by MHRA who refuse to reply anymore

From: "MHRA Information Centre"

To: "Matthew Holford"

Subject: Reply

Date: Fri, 8 Jun 2007 15:24:25 +0100

Dear Mr Holford

Thank you for your email of 8th May. Please note that an applicant only has to demonstrate that the drug is more effective than a placebo and there is no requirement to demonstrate any scale of impact nor is there any requirement to show comparative benefits over any other type of treatment or other drug. It is the responsibility of NICE to advise prescribers on the comparative efficacy of treatments for a particular condition. The benefit of a particular drug is assessed by carrying out placebo controlled clinical trials in large numbers of patients. As I have pointed out to you before, summaries of these are published in the scientific literature in peer-reviewed academic journals and you can ask a library to conduct a literature search for these.

Thank you for copying the MHRA in on your correspondence with Mr Chapman of the ICO. It is apposite as we are refusing to reply to your emails of 22 May to Stephen Fawbert or your emails to the MHRA of 29th May, 31st May and 3rd June (and any other emails you may have sent or may send in the future on the same or substantially similar subjects), on the grounds that the requests have now become vexatious. Clearly, you feel that you have not had the answers you wanted to receive, but this is not the same as not being answered, and we have given such information as we are able, from what we actually hold. Consequently, there is nothing further we can add in this regard.

If you are unhappy with our decision, you may ask for it to be reviewed. That review will be undertaken by a senior member of the Agency who has not previously been involved in your requests. If you wish to pursue that option please write to the Communications Directorate, 10th Floor, Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency, at the above address.

After that, if you remain dissatisfied, you may write to the Information Commissioner

Matt Holford admits Seroxat petition response was "rather modest"

Hey Annie,

Thanks for your support (I should own up that my experience is with fluoxetine, rather than paroxetine, but, well, sue me!). I have to admit, also, that I'm a bit disappointed with the rather modest response to the petition, given that the much more moderate one, asking for an enquiry into licensing procedures, or somesuch, and started at the same time as mine, is well on its way to 300 signatures. I'm not that bothered, it just seems odd.

Sorry to hear about your experiences. The business over withdrawal is a very controversial one, as you know, with all kinds of dubious games of semantics being played (have you read the Expert Working Group's report on SSRIs - it's as dull as dishwater, but explains how it came to the conclusion that SSRIs aren't addictive!).

Anyway, if you fancy a laugh, drop in at Seroxat User Group, Seroxat Secrets, Seroxat Sufferers and GSK Licence to (K)ill, (by the Truthman), which are all eye-openers. It's a good bunch of people, who post there, and the network is rather wider than a few people who've suffered the adverse reactions, although the journalists, MPs, lawyers and scientists tend to keep a lower profile (except for Michael Moore)! We're deadly serious about this, but we know how to laugh at the ridiculousness of it all, too!

Muchel lufu


Paul Flynn MP - just another Seroxat liar

extract -

The reaction from industry and regulators has been resentful and faltering. The UK Committee on Safety of Medicines in December 2003 banned the use of SSRIs except Prozac for under-18 year olds. The mother of a 17 year old girl who took her life on Seroxat asked a recent meeting in the Commons, ‘What is the difference between the brain of a 17 year old and a 20 year old.’ There is none.

The MHRA report on Seroxat was a lamentable document. If dealt with only the conclusions of the Pharmas’ controlled trails and not the data on which they are based.

Seroxat ban for children - just another lie from the Daily Mail

Seroxat ban for children

From: "Derek D Scott" - Seroxat withdrawal - latent mental illness - or untreated Klinefelter's syndrome ?

From: "Derek D Scott"

Date: Sun Oct 23, 2005 4:34 pm

Subject: RE: Seroxat User Group Re: derek seroxat_addict


Send Email

Agreed I have put a lot of time and effort into the group. But it’s the many other users who contribute to what makes the group what it is. A much needed support network, something the NHS doesn’t seem to appreciate. In a recent survey in the Guardian 95% of users sought help from online groups rather than their GP's. Their GP's were quick to prescribe an antidepressant but when it came to withdrawing them from it they were absolutely useless (they didn’t know how), and users then turned to online groups such as ours for help. Members of this group as a whole have a lot of experience to share and unlike the NHS or GP's know something they don’t or are unwilling to admit, Seroxat and many other antidepressants are defective and should not be prescribed. Cognitive Behavioural Therapy should be the first choice antidepressants being the last resort after all other avenues have been explored. I've already been referred to a cognitive therapist previously and found her of little benefit, but then she was a trainee, and the choice of therapy was the wrong one I should have been according to my consultant psychiatrist been provided with mindfulness cognitive therapy. I'm being referred to Ninewells Hospital Neurology department to determine how best to manage my mental illnesses. Like you say the group is only as good as the people who attend and post regularly, in some instances individuals can provide support to someone at their lowest ebb and who have been failed by the NHS which needs to be radically transformed from a useless service into one that caters for the needs of mental health users like ourselves.

Derek. Xx might be of interest to our Welsh members?

Wednesday, 22 December 2010

Paxil and Doxepin - probable cause statement reported murderer on the antidepressant medications

 Paxil and Doxepin

"Ragsdale is being held without bail. The probable cause statement reported

Ragsdale is on the antidepressant medications Doxepin and Paroxetine, and
he may harm Kristy Ragsdale's mother or his children if he is released."

Lehi remembers slain mother

Janice Peterson and Cathy Allred - DAILY HERALD

Husband charged with aggravated murder

A Draper man accused of shooting his wife to death outside a church building in

Lehi has been booked in the Utah County Jail on a charge of aggravated murder.

Police say David Ragsdale, 35, opened fire on his estranged wife around 11 a.m.
Sunday morning as she arrived with her mother for church services at The Church
of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints meetinghouse at 1691 E. 900 North. Kristy
Ragsdale, who turned 30 on Sunday, was shot multiple times with a Glock 9mm
handgun and died at the scene

Paxil & Doxepin - murder judge dismisses Ragsdale malpractice lawsuit

Salt Lake judge dismisses Ragsdale malpractice lawsuit

Jim Dalrymple - Daily Herald Daily Herald
Posted: Tuesday, December 21, 2010 12:30 am

Font Size:Default font sizeLarger font size.

ASHLEY FRANSCELL/Daily Herald David Ragsdale pleaded guilty to aggravated murder for killing his wife Kristy in January 2008 during a hearing Wednesday, November 26, 2008 in the Fourth District Court in Provo. .


..A Salt Lake County judge dismissed a malpractice lawsuit on Monday against the former medical providers of convicted murderer David Ragsdale.

During a hearing, Judge Denise Lindberg of Utah's 3rd District Court sided against attorneys Allen Young and Tyler Young, who had filed a lawsuit against Trina West, a nurse practitioner, Dr. Hugo Rodier and Pioneer Comprehensive Medical Clinic. West, Rodier and the clinic provided health care and medication to Ragsdale prior to the killing of his wife, Kristy, on Jan. 6, 2008. Ragsdale was convicted of the murder in November 2008 and is currently serving 20 years to life in prison. Allen and Tyler Young had argued that the murder was a "foreseeable" result of a cocktail of psychotropic medications he had been prescribed. They were acting on behalf of attorney William Jeffs, the conservator of David and Kristy Ragsdale's children.

In May, West's attorney, Steven Owens, filed a motion to dismiss the case. Attorneys for Dr. Rodier and Pioneer Comprehensive Medical Clinic joined the motion in June. During arguments Monday regarding the motion, Owens said the court should not hold a health care provider liable for a client's criminal conduct when that provider has no custody or control over the client, and when the client has taken full responsibility for his actions. Judge Lindberg ultimately agreed, saying David Ragsdale's children didn't have the right to bring a lawsuit in this case.

Owens and Michael McKell, the attorney for Pioneer Comprehensive Medical Clinic, both said on Monday that their clients were happy with the ruling.

In the month before the shooting, Ragsdale was using seven different psychotropic medications, including Concerta, Valium, Doxepin, Paxil, Pregnenolone, Propecia and testosterone.

Allen Young and Tyler Young's lawsuit originally argued that Ragsdale's medications were a cause in the shooting, but not necessarily the sole cause. The suit alleged that West prescribed several different medications for Ragsdale in the nine months leading up to the shooting without properly consulting a licensed doctor. The suit also alleged that Rodier failed to consult with West. Allen and Tyler Young sought unspecified money and punitive damages, and said that the money would go to the Ragsdale children.

Allen and Tyler Young now have the option to appeal their case.


•Malpractice suit filed on behalf of Ragsdale children

•David Ragsdale gets 20 years to life in prison in wife's murder

•David Ragsdale pleads guilty to killing his wife

•Ragsdale custody case settled

Seroxat - what Fiddaman doesn't tell his reader! - Canada class action refused Nov 2010 pdf version

PAXIL- GSK wins a major victory as class action is refused authorization

Pharmaceutical industry wins a major victory as class action is refused authorization

Ogilvy Renault LLP Marianne Ignacz and Anne-Louise Lamarre Canada

December 13 2010

. In a unanimous ruling[i] on November 12, 2010, the Quebec Court of Appeal maintained the dismissal of a motion for authorization to institute a class action against GlaxoSmithKline Inc. ("GSK").[ii] The petitioner, Iyana Goyette, sought to represent all persons residing in Canada who allegedly experienced dependency and withdrawal problems further to use of the antidepressant PAXIL®, claiming that GSK (i) had marketed the drug without assuring its safety, (ii) had breached its obligation to adequately inform health professionals and consumers of the risks of reducing or discontinuing its use, and (iii) had made false representations about such risks. Ms. Goyette claimed physical, economic, moral and punitive damages on behalf of members of the proposed group.

The Court of Appeal confirmed the Superior Court's finding that the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) and (b) of Article 1003 of the Code of Civil Procedure ("CCP") had not been satisfied.


It should be borne in mind that this proceeding was initiated prior to the 2003 reform of the CCP, at a time when it was still possible to file relevant affidavit evidence without authorization of the court. Thus, in support of its contestation, GSK was able to provide the court with information relevant to the criteria set out in Article 1003 by filing the examination of Ms. Goyette on her affidavit, together with an expert's affidavit. This documentary evidence showed that it would be necessary to examine the case of each member of the proposed group in order to determine whether he or she had suffered from the alleged symptoms and whether the symptoms were related to reducing or discontinuing use of PAXIL.

The examinations revealed that the petitioner had started to take PAXIL after consulting her doctor, who had examined the Compendium of Pharmaceutical Specialties (CPS) with her and had confirmed that there was no risk of dependency or withdrawal associated with discontinuing its use. In fact, the CPS described a variety of symptoms that might occur following cessation of treatment, characterizing them as "generally mild and transient," and indicated that withdrawal and dependency syndromes were "rare".

Article 1003(a) CCP - Existence of identical, similar or related questions of law or fact

The Court of Appeal concluded that the trial judge had not made any palpable or overriding error when he applied an important principle set out in Voisins du train de banlieue de Blainville inc. c. Agence métropolitaine de transport,[iii] namely, the need to establish collective prejudice in order to meet the test of Article 1003(a) CCP. The Court of Appeal found that the trial judge had ruled correctly in light of the allegations and the evidence presented, namely, that there could be no collective prejudice since the alleged subjective symptoms associated with the reduction or cessation of the drug, such as headaches, dizziness, vertigo or insomnia, were susceptible of infinite variations.

On appeal, Ms. Goyette pleaded that requiring proof of collective prejudice was contrary to the intention of the legislator, which had adopted Articles 1037 to 1040 CCP to deal specifically with individual claims. Relying on decisions where class actions were authorized in pharmaceutical matters, the petitioner argued that the individual assessment of the prejudice allegedly suffered by each member should be conducted in the context of the procedure contained in Articles 1037 to 1040 CCP. Her argument failed to sway the Court of Appeal.

Thus, breaking with all previous class action decisions in pharmaceutical matters, in which actions were authorized when the only common issue was one of fault, the Court of Appeal has recognized that the impossibility of proving collective prejudice is a bar to satisfying the test of Article 1003(a) CCP.

The facts alleged seem to justify the conclusions sought (Article 1003(b) CCP)

The Court of Appeal also agreed with the trial judge's finding that Ms. Goyette had failed to satisfy the colour of right test contained in Article 1003(b) CCP. Justice Peacock concluded that the allegation that GSK had failed to provide adequate information about the risks of discontinuing the drug was unfounded since the information disclosed in the CPS adequately described the risk of dependency and withdrawal. The Court of Appeal did not find any palpable or overriding error in the trial judge's appraisal of the evidence such as would warrant its intervention.

The Court of Appeal did not comment on Justice Peacock's decision to disregard evidence from other jurisdictions on grounds of irrelevance for purposes of the test in Article 1003(b) CCP.

Failure to represent adequately (Article 1003(d) CCP)

In light of its decision on Article 1003(a) and (b), the Court of Appeal did not comment on the trial judge's finding that Ms. Goyette was not an adequate representative because (i) she did not have a personal cause of action against GSK; (ii) she had shown a singular lack of interest in the class action; and (iii) she never sought to speak with any member of the group, knew none of them and had never sought to communicate with any of them.

National class

The Court of Appeal did not express an opinion on the trial judge's analysis of the conditions for authorization of a national class. Justice Peacock referred to the conditions laid down in the Civil Code of Québec for the Quebec courts to assume jurisdiction. They include the fact that the defendant has an establishment in Quebec and the dispute relates to its activities in Quebec or that damage is suffered in Quebec. Justice Peacock concluded that since Ms. Goyette had failed to demonstrate that the activities in issue were associated with a place of business in Quebec, even if he had authorized the class action, she could only have represented members resident in Quebec as only they could have proved damage suffered in Quebec.


In this case, the Court of Appeal agreed that the failure to prove collective prejudice made it impossible to satisfy the test contained in Article 1003(a) CCP, without considering whether the other conditions required to establish liability, such as fault or causation, could constitute a common issue. However, Justice Peacock maintained that fault and causation did not constitute common issues. In the circumstances, it may be argued that the common issue test provided in Article 1003(a) CCP cannot be met when a condition necessary to establish liability is susceptible of variations.

As a result of this decision, it will be difficult for a petitioner to argue that an individualized assessment should be conducted in accordance with Articles 1037 to 1040 CCP, which set out the procedure applicable to the determination of individual claims when a class action is granted on the merits.

Goyette c. GlaxoSmithKline Inc. shows that while the burden of proof at the authorization stage remains a burden of demonstration, it is nevertheless necessary to demonstrate a serious colour of right with respect to all the conditions required to establish liability in order to meet the test of Article 1003(b).

To view all formatting for this article (eg, tables, footnotes), please access the original here.

Tuesday, 21 December 2010

Not Lithium - Not Seroquel - Not nexium caused Susan's kidneys to fail

Update On Lithium Toxicity (I hope this will clear up any confusion)

There seems to be some miscommunication going around the blogosphere what caused my kidneys to fail. I fear I might have accidentally added to it.  

I saw the GP yesterday. Here is the official scoop, which I hope will end any confusion.

The official result that was sent to the insurance company is from "Unknown Etymology".

My GP told my mother he thinks it was from an over the counter pain pill I had taken 18 hours before for menstrual cramps. I took two pills, and in 18 hours they had left my system by then.

However the second time I was admitted to the hospital I spoke to several doctors and interns who actually took the time to sit down with me and go over the meds I have been on and said it was from lithium poisoning but they would never swear to that on the record.

I was premature when I blogged from my hospital bed it might have been from Nexium or Seroquel, the results from the biopsy had not come in and the doctors were just shooting theories at me, and I was desperate to tell people I am alive. NO RESULTS WERE KNOWN AT THE TIME BECAUSE THE BIOPSY GOT LOST AND IT TOOK TWO WEEKS TO GET THE RESULTS. When I spoke to another blogger on the phone two weeks ago, the biopsy had not come in. No one knew at the time what the official reason was.

So I admit I made a huge mistake in blogging what it might and might not have been. We learn from our mistakes and I am truly sorry for any confusion I might have caused. It was not my intent.

And for those who still might doubt me, at the time of my admission, there was only Seroquel and lithium in my blood stream. No other drugs. I take Nexium once a week. And there was the OTC pill I had taken for cramps 18 hours prior. I had taken the Nexium pill several days earlier, so it was not in my blood stream. Nexium did not show up on the biopsy. You can draw your own conclusions.

Again, I am sorry for any misconceptions that are going around the blogosphere. If there is any questions, please don't hesitate to email me at Hollythecat at gmail. com

I understand if anyone is angry at me because of this, It was not my intention.

I have stated the complete facts as they are totally known.



MPs' expenses: Tory MP Jonathan Djanogly claimed almost £5,000 for automatic gates

MPs' expenses: Tory MP Jonathan Djanogly claimed almost £5,000 for automatic gates

Simmons - 16 years on, Jon is still dependant on anti-depressants - NOT Seroxat

extract from - Drug group campaigner to meet PM - Jonathan Djanogly MP

Mrs Simmons set up the group after seeing the addiction of her husband.

Six years before they met, Jon and his first wife were prescribed anti-depressants when their marriage broke down. Jon's wife committed suicide within three weeks of being  put on Prozac while 16 years on, Jon is still dependant on anti-depressants.

The Seroxat User Group will also remind Mr Brown that more support groups and funding are needed to help patients trying to withdraw from anti-depressants. "

Amy Philo gets her CCHR award - next years stooge could be Bob Fiddaman

Sheila and Patty, along with Amy Philo, Mathy Downing, and Vicky Dunkle, received an “Outstanding Achievement Award for Children’s Rights,” in February 2009, at CCHR’s annual banquet,

full report by Fiddy's mate Evelyn Pringle

Fiddamin needs some vitimin...Anonymous tag Fiddaman

Fiddamin needs some vitimin...

Interesting stuff, will have to have a better look-see later, but interesting non-the-less.

If there are connections to CCHR etc. no doubt there probably are, just shows the 'high quality' of their experts once again. Think there are still a few of their so-called ones who are still trying to divest themselves from that bunch of coo-coo nuts.

The spider-web of CoS interests, fronts, and legitimising ploys is complicated and warped imho.

L Ron Hubbard Ordered the #Murder of Twelve Innocent People - #Scientology

source -
AnonymousZurich RT @Misanthropique-RT @AnonUK: #Scientology Founder L Ron Hubbard Ordered the #Murder of Twelve Innocent People. #...

10% of adults 'on antidepressants' - Scotland -

10% of adults 'on antidepressants'

(UKPA) – 1 hour ago

One in 10 adults in Scotland are thought to be on antidepressants, according to official figures.

The volume of prescribed medicines increased by 7.6% in a year, from 4.01 million items in 2008-9 to 4.31 million items in 2009-10.

Statistics published by health service data collection body ISD Scotland showed the total has increased from 2.77 million 10 years ago. The Scottish Government had set a target to stop the rise by 2009-10 and prepare the ground for a 10% reduction in future years.

Copyright © 2010 The Press Association. All rights reserved.

Kelly Patricia O Meara can't even spell Andy Vickery's name - so why would you believe anything else this "journalist" claims

Andy Vickory of the Houston law firm of Vickory and Waldner has spent nearly a decade representing families who believe they have been harmed by SSRIs. He was the lead attorney in a landmark decision in the 2001 case of Donald Schell, a retired oil-rig worker who had taken Paxil for just two days when he shot and killed his wife, daughter and granddaughter before turning the gun on himself. The jury in the Schell case found that Paxil, made by GlaxoSmithKline, "can cause some individuals to commit suicide and/or homicide" and awarded the surviving family members $8 million in damages.

Vickory tells Insight, "I'm pleased with the decision in the U.K., but I don't see anything coming from the FDA. I think they're going to stall. I've devoted the last eight or 10 years of my life to this issue and no telling how many years of my life trying to make every effort to understand these issues so ordinary people can understand what's at stake. And now I've been told by the FDA that I'll get just three minutes before the committee. There's not a whole hell of a lot you can say in three minutes about such an important issue."

Although Vickory is hopeful about the United Kingdom's decision on the SSRIs, he is openly confused about the panel's decision on Prozac. "It is astonishing," says Vickory, "that the U.K. didn't ban Prozac. There was an article in the British Journal of Psychiatry about a large-scale study - some 2,770 or so patients - on SSRIs. And what they found was that fluoxetine [Prozac] has the highest risk of deliberate self-harm. The study shows that if you take Prozac you are 6.6 times more likely deliberately to harm yourself. So why in the face of that data the U.K. would ban all other SSRIs but not Prozac is astounding. The answer for public consumption is that none of the other drugs being considered by the U.K. even showed any efficacy. My response to the British would be, 'Okay, if that's your decision, since you know it also triggers suicide in some, at least make the manufacturer put a warning label on it.'"