Obsessive Compensation Disorder can be caused by Seroxat and the evidence is clear especially when people do not wish to take responsibility for their own choices , failures and lives but claim benefits and write books ..
Saturday, 31 July 2010
Seroxat causes OCD
Its true OCD CAUSED by Seroxat!! :
Obsessive Compensation Disorder can be caused by Seroxat and the evidence is clear especially when people do not wish to take responsibility for their own choices , failures and lives but claim benefits and write books ..
Now who comes to mind ....
Obsessive Compensation Disorder can be caused by Seroxat and the evidence is clear especially when people do not wish to take responsibility for their own choices , failures and lives but claim benefits and write books ..
Thursday, 29 July 2010
Fiddaman told not to blame Rover for ramming pills down his own throat !
As for you saying "looking after and supporting my family", HOW in the
HELL are you looking after and supporting your family when you HAVEN'T
HAD A JOB IN 2 YEARS?????? And you still manage ATLEAST $100.00 (U.S.
currency),a show, to go see AC/DC? And you was still accepting rides,
food, or whatever else from other BOD member, because they felt bad for
you. That`s pretty bad man. Bob, let me tell you something, I am only
17 years old, but on this last leg of the tour, I went to 4 shows,
costing me roughly $550--$600. and I worked my ass off for all the
money myself. For the Philly BOD fest, I didn't call up Erbacide, and
say "Hey man, I wanna make it to Philly, do you think you could give me
a free ride or maybe I`ll give ya $10.00". I payed EVERY dime he ever
asked that whole trip, WITHOUT a problem. I know what a concert is and I
know what a trip is and realize they both cost money, so I was MORE than
willing, to give him what he asked and I did.. And you might be saying
to yourself 'What does what his cost to Philly have to do with me?',
Well here`s my point. You shouldn't be going to see a rock band, if you
hardly have money to put food on your table, Maybe you should`ve went
out and got a different job so you could go to maybe even MORE concerts
and have MORE food on your table....But when it comes to either AC/DC
concert or family, I`m pretty sure everyone would say family.
Support and look after your family, HOW?? You couldn't even look after
yourself, when you say you tried to commit suicide! Just like someone
posted before; Bob, neither your dog, nor Rover rammed those pills down
your throat. YOU did! Don't blame a fuckin automobile company for you
attempting suicide.
I`m done.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/78b377eb0eda3e62/6142dcf5a08a5667?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+rover
HELL are you looking after and supporting your family when you HAVEN'T
HAD A JOB IN 2 YEARS?????? And you still manage ATLEAST $100.00 (U.S.
currency),a show, to go see AC/DC? And you was still accepting rides,
food, or whatever else from other BOD member, because they felt bad for
you. That`s pretty bad man. Bob, let me tell you something, I am only
17 years old, but on this last leg of the tour, I went to 4 shows,
costing me roughly $550--$600. and I worked my ass off for all the
money myself. For the Philly BOD fest, I didn't call up Erbacide, and
say "Hey man, I wanna make it to Philly, do you think you could give me
a free ride or maybe I`ll give ya $10.00". I payed EVERY dime he ever
asked that whole trip, WITHOUT a problem. I know what a concert is and I
know what a trip is and realize they both cost money, so I was MORE than
willing, to give him what he asked and I did.. And you might be saying
to yourself 'What does what his cost to Philly have to do with me?',
Well here`s my point. You shouldn't be going to see a rock band, if you
hardly have money to put food on your table, Maybe you should`ve went
out and got a different job so you could go to maybe even MORE concerts
and have MORE food on your table....But when it comes to either AC/DC
concert or family, I`m pretty sure everyone would say family.
Support and look after your family, HOW?? You couldn't even look after
yourself, when you say you tried to commit suicide! Just like someone
posted before; Bob, neither your dog, nor Rover rammed those pills down
your throat. YOU did! Don't blame a fuckin automobile company for you
attempting suicide.
I`m done.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/78b377eb0eda3e62/6142dcf5a08a5667?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+rover
Wednesday, 28 July 2010
Bob Fiddaman described as "a shrieking whiney fishwife"
You know, Bob, you have really gone full circle in this NG. You first
came in here spouting your poetry and you got all pissy when no one
liked it. Then there came the flame wars, then you started being a
contributor of the NG and you seemed to be respected by the others.
You reached a plateau and when your job announcement was met with
responses similar to your poetry, you have basically comeback to what
you were from the beginning. A shrieking whiney fishwife. If you put
half the effort in your work as you do in this NG, you would be the
fucking CEO of Rover.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/5c8592af926acc45/fa0c1f1592e040e9?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bob%2Bfiddaman&pli=1
came in here spouting your poetry and you got all pissy when no one
liked it. Then there came the flame wars, then you started being a
contributor of the NG and you seemed to be respected by the others.
You reached a plateau and when your job announcement was met with
responses similar to your poetry, you have basically comeback to what
you were from the beginning. A shrieking whiney fishwife. If you put
half the effort in your work as you do in this NG, you would be the
fucking CEO of Rover.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/5c8592af926acc45/fa0c1f1592e040e9?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bob%2Bfiddaman&pli=1
Workin' is for fools... dedicated to Bob Fiddaman - AC/DC June 2001
I never worked in no factory
I never tried much to
But I'm hardly a man, don't you understand
And unemployment = booze
Rover Inc told me to go fly a kite
So the dole is what I abuse
Hit 'em up, with a big load of shite
Socialism's better than cooze...
'Cause workin' is for fools...
Workin' is for fools...
Ain't nothin' for me to do...
I prefer to jerk my tool...
'Cause workin' is for fools...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/5c8592af926acc45/fa0c1f1592e040e9?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bob%2Bfiddaman
I never tried much to
But I'm hardly a man, don't you understand
And unemployment = booze
Rover Inc told me to go fly a kite
So the dole is what I abuse
Hit 'em up, with a big load of shite
Socialism's better than cooze...
'Cause workin' is for fools...
Workin' is for fools...
Ain't nothin' for me to do...
I prefer to jerk my tool...
'Cause workin' is for fools...
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/5c8592af926acc45/fa0c1f1592e040e9?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bob%2Bfiddaman
SSRI - Retrial for killer in Zoloft case - Christopher Pitman
Retrial for killer in Zoloft case
Judge rules 15-year-old convicted of murdering grandparents didn't get effective counsel.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/28/1586353/new-trial-ordered-in-sc-case.html
By Andrew Dys and Kimberly Dick
adys@heraldonline.com
Posted: Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010
CHESTER, S.C. Christopher Pittman - convicted of killing his grandparents in 2001 when he was 12 - should get a new trial because defense attorneys failed to pursue a plea deal during his 2005 trial, a judge ruled Tuesday.
The trial, held in Charleston, drew nationwide attention because Pittman was tried as an adult when he was 15, and because his lawyers claimed the prescription antidepressant Zoloft altered his behavior.
Pittman burned down his grandparents' rural Chester County home in an attempt to cover up the shotgun slayings, then fled in the family truck before he was found by hunters in nearby Cherokee County.
Pittman, now 21, has been in prison since his arrest soon after the bodies of Joe and Joy Pittman were discovered.
Prosecutors didn't buy what came to be known as the Zoloft defense, maintaining that Pittman killed his grandparents after he was disciplined. A jury agreed, and Pittman was sentenced to two concurrent 30-year prison terms - the shortest sentence for double murder allowed under the law.
"I am delighted that, for whatever reason, Chris Pittman will have another chance at justice," Andy Vickery, Pittman's lead defense attorney in the 2005 trial, said in a statement.
The state Attorney General's office plans to appeal the ruling of Circuit Court Judge Roger Young of Charleston.
"We are working on the language of that appeal immediately," said Mark Plowden, a spokesman for the attorney general's office.
Tuesday's ruling came after a three-day civil trial last summer. Pittman filed a civil lawsuit claiming his lawyers mishandled the case. His appeals to the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court had failed.
Young wrote that Pittman's right to effective counsel was violated when the defense team made several errors in the case, including not pursuing a potential plea deal, not explaining to Pittman that a plea deal could have meant a shorter sentence, and not telling Pittman's court-appointed guardian ad litem of a potential plea deal.
The guardian, attorney Milton Hamilton of Chester, testified last summer that he would have advised Pittman to take a plea deal of voluntary manslaughter if it had been offered, according to Tuesday's court order.
Hamilton declined to comment on the order Tuesday but confirmed that was his testimony last year.
"By failing to inform Hamilton of the potential plea, Vickery prevented him from fulfilling a role as someone who had no other interest other than Pittman's at heart," Young wrote.
Seth Farber of New York, who represented Pittman in the civil case, said he will continue to represent him.
"We are very pleased for Christopher," he said.
Delnora Duprey, Pittman's maternal grandmother who lives in Florida, said Tuesday evening she had not had a chance to talk to Pittman about the ruling and was not even certain that he knew yet of the order granting him a new trial.
Duprey and her husband, Wilfred, both said they had prayed for the outcome.
"We are very pleased and thankful for the decision," she said.
Unaware of plea bargain
In last year's hearing, Pittman took the stand for the first time in years of court proceedings, saying his chief attorneys - lawyers who specialized in suing pharmaceutical companies - told him they were convinced the jury would blame Zoloft for the killings.
He also said they never told him jurors in South Carolina could both blame the drug and find him guilty of murder.
"I wasn't told even if Zoloft was a part in my crime, I still could be found guilty and I was looking at 30 years to life," he said. "With the plea bargain, I could have gotten a lot less."
In Tuesday's ruling, Young agreed. He pointed out that Pittman could have been sentenced to anywhere from two to 30 years for voluntary manslaughter.
Young used the term "recklessness" to describe Vickery's advice to Pittman that "he could not imagine a jury convicting him."
"It is clear that Vickery based his legal advice on what he wished the law was, rather than what it was," Young wrote, concerning a defense of involuntary intoxication.
Failing to pursue negotiations for a plea deal as suggested by the trial judge was "objectively unreasonable" and "deficient," Young wrote.
Little S.C. law experience
Young's ruling pointed out that Pittman's legal team had little experience in South Carolina criminal law.
Vickery had argued before, during and after the trial that Pittman should not be tried as an adult, and that Zoloft had caused the killings.
What happens next for Pittman - and where it could happen - remain unclear, pending the outcome of the attorney general's appeal.
Although the crime happened in Chester, the 2005 trial was held in Charleston because a judge from there was assigned to the case.
The solicitor from Richland County prosecuted the case because the prosecutor from Chester County at the time was ill.
Doug Barfield, current prosecutor for Chester County, declined to comment directly on the order.
"Clearly two people died a very violent death in Chester County," he said, "and a man was convicted of those crimes."
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/28/1586353/new-trial-ordered-in-sc-case.html#ixzz0uzVnnLam
Judge rules 15-year-old convicted of murdering grandparents didn't get effective counsel.
http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/28/1586353/new-trial-ordered-in-sc-case.html
By Andrew Dys and Kimberly Dick
adys@heraldonline.com
Posted: Wednesday, Jul. 28, 2010
Nov. 29, 2001: Bodies of Joe Frank Pittman and Joy Roberts Pittman are found in the burned ruins of their home. Their 12-year-old grandson, Christopher Pittman, later confessed to the killings. His family believes the antidepressant Zoloft caused the boy's violent behavior.
June 27, 2003: Family Court Judge Walter Brown decides Pittman will be tried as an adult.
Sept. 13, 2004: An FDA advisory panel recommends the agency warn doctors and patients that antidepressants can cause some children to become suicidal.
Jan. 31, 2005: Pittman's murder trial begins in Charleston. About two weeks later, the jury finds Pittman guilty. Circuit Court Judge Daniel Pieper sentences him to two concurrent 30-year sentences.
March 28, 2006: Pittman's attorneys file a motion asking the S.C. Supreme Court to overturn his conviction.
Oct. 5, 2006: S.C. Supreme Court hears Pittman's appeal for conviction to be overturned.
June 11, 2007: The S.C. Supreme Court upholds Pittman's murder conviction.
Aug. 26, 2009: A three-day evidentiary hearing in response to Pittman's civil lawsuit application for post-relief conviction is held in Circuit Court in Winnsboro.
July 27, 2010: Circuit Court Judge Roger Young vacates Pittman's convictions for two counts of murder and orders a new trial.
CHESTER, S.C. Christopher Pittman - convicted of killing his grandparents in 2001 when he was 12 - should get a new trial because defense attorneys failed to pursue a plea deal during his 2005 trial, a judge ruled Tuesday.
The trial, held in Charleston, drew nationwide attention because Pittman was tried as an adult when he was 15, and because his lawyers claimed the prescription antidepressant Zoloft altered his behavior.
Pittman burned down his grandparents' rural Chester County home in an attempt to cover up the shotgun slayings, then fled in the family truck before he was found by hunters in nearby Cherokee County.
Pittman, now 21, has been in prison since his arrest soon after the bodies of Joe and Joy Pittman were discovered.
Prosecutors didn't buy what came to be known as the Zoloft defense, maintaining that Pittman killed his grandparents after he was disciplined. A jury agreed, and Pittman was sentenced to two concurrent 30-year prison terms - the shortest sentence for double murder allowed under the law.
"I am delighted that, for whatever reason, Chris Pittman will have another chance at justice," Andy Vickery, Pittman's lead defense attorney in the 2005 trial, said in a statement.
The state Attorney General's office plans to appeal the ruling of Circuit Court Judge Roger Young of Charleston.
"We are working on the language of that appeal immediately," said Mark Plowden, a spokesman for the attorney general's office.
Tuesday's ruling came after a three-day civil trial last summer. Pittman filed a civil lawsuit claiming his lawyers mishandled the case. His appeals to the state Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court had failed.
Young wrote that Pittman's right to effective counsel was violated when the defense team made several errors in the case, including not pursuing a potential plea deal, not explaining to Pittman that a plea deal could have meant a shorter sentence, and not telling Pittman's court-appointed guardian ad litem of a potential plea deal.
The guardian, attorney Milton Hamilton of Chester, testified last summer that he would have advised Pittman to take a plea deal of voluntary manslaughter if it had been offered, according to Tuesday's court order.
Hamilton declined to comment on the order Tuesday but confirmed that was his testimony last year.
"By failing to inform Hamilton of the potential plea, Vickery prevented him from fulfilling a role as someone who had no other interest other than Pittman's at heart," Young wrote.
Seth Farber of New York, who represented Pittman in the civil case, said he will continue to represent him.
"We are very pleased for Christopher," he said.
Delnora Duprey, Pittman's maternal grandmother who lives in Florida, said Tuesday evening she had not had a chance to talk to Pittman about the ruling and was not even certain that he knew yet of the order granting him a new trial.
Duprey and her husband, Wilfred, both said they had prayed for the outcome.
"We are very pleased and thankful for the decision," she said.
Unaware of plea bargain
In last year's hearing, Pittman took the stand for the first time in years of court proceedings, saying his chief attorneys - lawyers who specialized in suing pharmaceutical companies - told him they were convinced the jury would blame Zoloft for the killings.
He also said they never told him jurors in South Carolina could both blame the drug and find him guilty of murder.
"I wasn't told even if Zoloft was a part in my crime, I still could be found guilty and I was looking at 30 years to life," he said. "With the plea bargain, I could have gotten a lot less."
In Tuesday's ruling, Young agreed. He pointed out that Pittman could have been sentenced to anywhere from two to 30 years for voluntary manslaughter.
Young used the term "recklessness" to describe Vickery's advice to Pittman that "he could not imagine a jury convicting him."
"It is clear that Vickery based his legal advice on what he wished the law was, rather than what it was," Young wrote, concerning a defense of involuntary intoxication.
Failing to pursue negotiations for a plea deal as suggested by the trial judge was "objectively unreasonable" and "deficient," Young wrote.
Little S.C. law experience
Young's ruling pointed out that Pittman's legal team had little experience in South Carolina criminal law.
Vickery had argued before, during and after the trial that Pittman should not be tried as an adult, and that Zoloft had caused the killings.
What happens next for Pittman - and where it could happen - remain unclear, pending the outcome of the attorney general's appeal.
The solicitor from Richland County prosecuted the case because the prosecutor from Chester County at the time was ill.
Doug Barfield, current prosecutor for Chester County, declined to comment directly on the order.
"Clearly two people died a very violent death in Chester County," he said, "and a man was convicted of those crimes."
Read more: http://www.charlotteobserver.com/2010/07/28/1586353/new-trial-ordered-in-sc-case.html#ixzz0uzVnnLam
Is Seroxat the Worst Drug in the SSRI, SNRI Class - Chronic Long Term and Intermittent Repeat Prescribing ?
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/07/seroxat-worst-drug-question-and-ssri.html
The following research study "Explaining the rise in antidepressant prescribing: a descriptive study using the general practice research database" was led by Tony Kendrick, professor in Primary Medical Care at University of Southampton's School of Medicine and investigates the chronic long term and intermittent repeat prescribing which accounts for 90% of increases in SSRI, SNRI prescriptions.
The study centred on the UK Government, Prescriptions Cost Analysis (PCA) Statistics and the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) anonymous computerised records, the research team analysed all new cases of depression between 1993 and 2005 from 170 GP general practice surgeries and 1.7 million registered patients.
In the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published paper, scientists found the continual annual increases in GP issued antidepressant prescriptions was caused by a number of people taking the drugs on a long term basis.
The research scientists also found that despite a drop in new patient diagnoses of depression over eleven years antidepressant prescription numbers doubled, estimating more than 2 million people are now taking antidepressants long term or repeat intermittent course treatment to patients with multiple episodes of depression.
The researcher's state data from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) statistics shows that antidepressant prescribing in England between 2000 and 2005 increased by 36% to 7.3 million items per quarter, during this period prescribing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors increased by 45% and accounted for half of all prescriptions.
The following is from the Science Daily review of the study published Oct. 23, 2009, "Increase In Long-Term Antidepressant Drug Use, UK Study Reveals"
"………. Researchers at the University of Southampton found 90 per cent of people diagnosed with depression are now taking SSRIs either continuously or as repeated courses over several years.
Professor Kendrick adds: "Our previous research found that although these drugs are said not to be addictive, many patients found it difficult to come off them, due to withdrawal symptoms including anxiety. Many wanted more help from their GP to come off the drugs. We don't know how many really need them and whether long-term use is harmful. This has similarities to the situation with Valium in the past." "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022114359.htm
The following information, chart and conclusion are from the University of Southampton Study.
"To address our study questions and examine more closely trends occurring within the cohort, we divided patients into five pre-defined treatment pattern groups on the basis of treatment in the five years following first diagnosis (five year follow-up was possible only for those diagnosed between 1993 and 2001)."
"Table 1 + shows an overall increase in prescription duration from just under 2.9 million days in the patients studied between 1993 and 1997 to more than 4.3 million days in the those studied between 2001 and 2005. Chronic and intermittent prescribing together accounted for approximately 90% of the total prescriptions (for example, 270 005/288 249 in 1993). Although the number of prescription days increased over time for all treatment groups, small changes in the constitution of the chronic treatment and intermittent treatment groups were responsible for most of the increase in antidepressant prescribing over the duration of the study."
"Total prescription days for each of the five treatment pattern groups is summarised in figure 7 . The volume of prescriptions attributed to long term prescribing (that is, the proportion of prescriptions in the chronic and intermittent groups) contributed the majority of the change in overall prescribing volume.
"
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4826430362_545d6e5c18_o.jpg
".........There was also an increase in the average number of prescriptions per patient in the chronic treatment group: from 34 over five years to 36 over five years in the period studied which equates to approximately 60 days more treatment over the five year period in 2001-5 compared to 1993-7. Bearing in mind the increase in the proportion of patients in this group (from 8.4% to 10.2%), the increase in the duration of prescriptions in the chronic treatment group is responsible for a substantial increase in the overall prescribing volume. A similar pattern was seen in the other treatment groups, but with a smaller impact on overall volumes."
"Conclusions
Antidepressant prescribing is much higher compared with 10 years ago. This increase is not because of an increase in the incidence of new cases of depression, a lower threshold for treatment, an increase in the proportion of new cases of depression for whom antidepressants are prescribed, or an increase in the duration of the prescriptions written for new cases of depression. Rather, the dramatic changes in antidepressant prescribing volumes between 1993 and 2005 seem to be largely because more patients are on long term medication and this group consumes the most drugs. In order to better understand the rise in antidepressant prescribing, research needs to focus on chronic prescribing and policy needs to focus on encouraging appropriate high quality monitoring and review of those patients who become established on long term prescriptions,"
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/oct15_2/b3999
Other than the issue of discontinuation problems, no other reason appears to have been found or proffered by the study researchers to explain the consistent and continual increase in Antidepressant, SSRI, SNRI drug class prescriptions. Although there will also be a percentage of patients content with the treatment they are receiving - whether encompassed by the chronic and intermittent treatment groups or not.
The study concluded in 2005, and found no anomaly –favourable or otherwise-- associated with the decline of Seroxat prescriptions. Since 2005 total annual SSRI, SNRI drug class prescriptions have increased from 18.88 to 26.94 million, an increase of 8.5 million or 43% before taking into account the negative Seroxat increase of 402.5 thousands of prescriptions for the same period. Seroxats' total prescription decline of 1.74 million during the period 2001 to 2005 does not appear to be reflected in the overall prescription increase trend or numbers in the chronic and intermittent treatment groups.
Impartially, the discontinuation phenomenon is known and acknowledged to affect the whole drug class - this does not reflect negatively or otherwise on anyone being treated with any SSRI, SNRI drug – including those who have had or are having problems withdrawing from Seroxat, those still being issued prescriptions for the drug and the percentage who will have swapped or been swapped from Seroxat to other brands of SSRI, SNRIs only to find they have similar and in the case of Efexor -- because of its shorter half life -- worse problems associated with discontinuation.
This research study does and should officially raise concerns over the recognised possibility of iatrogenic illness caused by short, intermittent and long term treatment with the SSRI, SNRI drug class. The suggestion for a policy focusing on high quality --more stringent-- monitoring and review of long term patients established on antidepressant prescriptions and reference to similarities to the past situation with Benzodiazepines does indicate how serious the SSRI, SNRI drug class problem is – so can Seroxat be considered worse than any other drug in that class?
Posted by Tuesday at 15:45
The following research study "Explaining the rise in antidepressant prescribing: a descriptive study using the general practice research database" was led by Tony Kendrick, professor in Primary Medical Care at University of Southampton's School of Medicine and investigates the chronic long term and intermittent repeat prescribing which accounts for 90% of increases in SSRI, SNRI prescriptions.
The study centred on the UK Government, Prescriptions Cost Analysis (PCA) Statistics and the General Practice Research Database (GPRD) anonymous computerised records, the research team analysed all new cases of depression between 1993 and 2005 from 170 GP general practice surgeries and 1.7 million registered patients.
In the British Medical Journal (BMJ) published paper, scientists found the continual annual increases in GP issued antidepressant prescriptions was caused by a number of people taking the drugs on a long term basis.
The research scientists also found that despite a drop in new patient diagnoses of depression over eleven years antidepressant prescription numbers doubled, estimating more than 2 million people are now taking antidepressants long term or repeat intermittent course treatment to patients with multiple episodes of depression.
The researcher's state data from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) statistics shows that antidepressant prescribing in England between 2000 and 2005 increased by 36% to 7.3 million items per quarter, during this period prescribing of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors increased by 45% and accounted for half of all prescriptions.
The following is from the Science Daily review of the study published Oct. 23, 2009, "Increase In Long-Term Antidepressant Drug Use, UK Study Reveals"
"………. Researchers at the University of Southampton found 90 per cent of people diagnosed with depression are now taking SSRIs either continuously or as repeated courses over several years.
Professor Kendrick adds: "Our previous research found that although these drugs are said not to be addictive, many patients found it difficult to come off them, due to withdrawal symptoms including anxiety. Many wanted more help from their GP to come off the drugs. We don't know how many really need them and whether long-term use is harmful. This has similarities to the situation with Valium in the past." "
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/10/091022114359.htm
The following information, chart and conclusion are from the University of Southampton Study.
"To address our study questions and examine more closely trends occurring within the cohort, we divided patients into five pre-defined treatment pattern groups on the basis of treatment in the five years following first diagnosis (five year follow-up was possible only for those diagnosed between 1993 and 2001)."
"Table 1 + shows an overall increase in prescription duration from just under 2.9 million days in the patients studied between 1993 and 1997 to more than 4.3 million days in the those studied between 2001 and 2005. Chronic and intermittent prescribing together accounted for approximately 90% of the total prescriptions (for example, 270 005/288 249 in 1993). Although the number of prescription days increased over time for all treatment groups, small changes in the constitution of the chronic treatment and intermittent treatment groups were responsible for most of the increase in antidepressant prescribing over the duration of the study."
"Total prescription days for each of the five treatment pattern groups is summarised in figure 7 . The volume of prescriptions attributed to long term prescribing (that is, the proportion of prescriptions in the chronic and intermittent groups) contributed the majority of the change in overall prescribing volume.
"
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4140/4826430362_545d6e5c18_o.jpg
".........There was also an increase in the average number of prescriptions per patient in the chronic treatment group: from 34 over five years to 36 over five years in the period studied which equates to approximately 60 days more treatment over the five year period in 2001-5 compared to 1993-7. Bearing in mind the increase in the proportion of patients in this group (from 8.4% to 10.2%), the increase in the duration of prescriptions in the chronic treatment group is responsible for a substantial increase in the overall prescribing volume. A similar pattern was seen in the other treatment groups, but with a smaller impact on overall volumes."
"Conclusions
Antidepressant prescribing is much higher compared with 10 years ago. This increase is not because of an increase in the incidence of new cases of depression, a lower threshold for treatment, an increase in the proportion of new cases of depression for whom antidepressants are prescribed, or an increase in the duration of the prescriptions written for new cases of depression. Rather, the dramatic changes in antidepressant prescribing volumes between 1993 and 2005 seem to be largely because more patients are on long term medication and this group consumes the most drugs. In order to better understand the rise in antidepressant prescribing, research needs to focus on chronic prescribing and policy needs to focus on encouraging appropriate high quality monitoring and review of those patients who become established on long term prescriptions,"
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/abstract/339/oct15_2/b3999
Other than the issue of discontinuation problems, no other reason appears to have been found or proffered by the study researchers to explain the consistent and continual increase in Antidepressant, SSRI, SNRI drug class prescriptions. Although there will also be a percentage of patients content with the treatment they are receiving - whether encompassed by the chronic and intermittent treatment groups or not.
The study concluded in 2005, and found no anomaly –favourable or otherwise-- associated with the decline of Seroxat prescriptions. Since 2005 total annual SSRI, SNRI drug class prescriptions have increased from 18.88 to 26.94 million, an increase of 8.5 million or 43% before taking into account the negative Seroxat increase of 402.5 thousands of prescriptions for the same period. Seroxats' total prescription decline of 1.74 million during the period 2001 to 2005 does not appear to be reflected in the overall prescription increase trend or numbers in the chronic and intermittent treatment groups.
Impartially, the discontinuation phenomenon is known and acknowledged to affect the whole drug class - this does not reflect negatively or otherwise on anyone being treated with any SSRI, SNRI drug – including those who have had or are having problems withdrawing from Seroxat, those still being issued prescriptions for the drug and the percentage who will have swapped or been swapped from Seroxat to other brands of SSRI, SNRIs only to find they have similar and in the case of Efexor -- because of its shorter half life -- worse problems associated with discontinuation.
This research study does and should officially raise concerns over the recognised possibility of iatrogenic illness caused by short, intermittent and long term treatment with the SSRI, SNRI drug class. The suggestion for a policy focusing on high quality --more stringent-- monitoring and review of long term patients established on antidepressant prescriptions and reference to similarities to the past situation with Benzodiazepines does indicate how serious the SSRI, SNRI drug class problem is – so can Seroxat be considered worse than any other drug in that class?
Posted by Tuesday at 15:45
Monday, 26 July 2010
Seroxat Jack - The Driven World And Personal Failure
Personal failure is a very hard bridge to cross . Its about sometimes recognising very deep pain and special loss . Recognising limits and health problems . Recognising that the emotional reaction map is altering and must be navigated .
source Seroxat Jack By Art De Rivers
http://birminghamuserwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/mental-health-seroxat-jack-driven-world.html
But there's no doubt with Seroxat Jack it was made worse because when his life failed at work due to his health and when he could not face the growing realisation that increasing disability was going to alter his life and even hurt it - there was no real help . No therapy offered to ease the emotional growth from pain into difficult change .
Thus depression born of a narrative of difficult-to-face pain created only vacant and sometimes fiery hopelessness . The fire of anger gives some degree of hope but not if the problems of change and disability are not faced enough - it merely builds more rage and determination to make something or someone pay .
Seroxat Jack, like Effexor Jim , and Prozac Jill and the SSRI gang, went to his Doctor and took his medicine and later found its emotional barrier effect did not do much good and so he came off it . That was accompanied only by pain and discontinuation problems - headaches and mood swings .
Yet Jack did not make the connection enough that his psychological problems were not medical in the first place but social and emotional.
Jack's a social product too of traditional beliefs in : the man should not show his feelings fully . His Doctor too was someone who should have been more emotionally literate.
Jack's rage and only partly faced pain after he painfully left his Seroxat days behind just gave vent to attacking pharmaceutical companies which on one level is not invalid at all. They DO exploit people who will not or cannot without help face their own lives and emotional pain. They DO exploit a lack of political will to create truly better emotional healing and long enough psychological therapies. They DO exploit the social taboo against people showing emotional weakness and vulnerability .
But they can only do that in the field of reactive depressions and mood swings "disorders" so long as Jack does not wish to face himself too, and demands only that his life-pain goes away .
Jack has partly grown now after living in the damned Seroxat Hall of himself . But to do it he had face another depression and the older feelings underneath and the extra ones which layered in as a sense of personal failure.
Life alters and we fail to be able to be what we were . Sadness and loss and even rage are not enemies they are just our cries at our vulnerable human condition and hearing them with witness makes bearing them tolerable .
Lets sit down with Jack and Jill and Jim and wisely accept a greater degree of grief for just being human .
Further Reading :
Seroxat Litigation Chronicles
source Seroxat Jack By Art De Rivers
http://birminghamuserwatch.blogspot.com/2010/07/mental-health-seroxat-jack-driven-world.html
But there's no doubt with Seroxat Jack it was made worse because when his life failed at work due to his health and when he could not face the growing realisation that increasing disability was going to alter his life and even hurt it - there was no real help . No therapy offered to ease the emotional growth from pain into difficult change .
Seroxat Jack, like Effexor Jim , and Prozac Jill and the SSRI gang, went to his Doctor and took his medicine and later found its emotional barrier effect did not do much good and so he came off it . That was accompanied only by pain and discontinuation problems - headaches and mood swings .
Yet Jack did not make the connection enough that his psychological problems were not medical in the first place but social and emotional.
Jack's a social product too of traditional beliefs in : the man should not show his feelings fully . His Doctor too was someone who should have been more emotionally literate.
Jack's rage and only partly faced pain after he painfully left his Seroxat days behind just gave vent to attacking pharmaceutical companies which on one level is not invalid at all. They DO exploit people who will not or cannot without help face their own lives and emotional pain. They DO exploit a lack of political will to create truly better emotional healing and long enough psychological therapies. They DO exploit the social taboo against people showing emotional weakness and vulnerability .
But they can only do that in the field of reactive depressions and mood swings "disorders" so long as Jack does not wish to face himself too, and demands only that his life-pain goes away .
Jack has partly grown now after living in the damned Seroxat Hall of himself . But to do it he had face another depression and the older feelings underneath and the extra ones which layered in as a sense of personal failure.
Life alters and we fail to be able to be what we were . Sadness and loss and even rage are not enemies they are just our cries at our vulnerable human condition and hearing them with witness makes bearing them tolerable .
Lets sit down with Jack and Jill and Jim and wisely accept a greater degree of grief for just being human .
Further Reading :
Seroxat Litigation Chronicles
Seroxat Rover - settled out of court for a pittance !
The final offer is not what I asked for but it is a substantial amount of
dough - enough to get me out to the States or even Toronto Dave!!!
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/6223d441880690f7/52759f1e7a198702?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bob%2Bfiddaman
It has been a real shitty time for me, my wife, and three kids.
This newsgroup has kept me going as has listening to AC/DC at times of woe.
I first came on this newsgroup and had a few slanging matches with the
brothers here. A few of you pointed me in the right direction and now, it
seems, I have been accepted.
You gotta understand that I have been very bitter over these past four years
but speaking with a few of you on ICQ has kinda helped me.
Props to Suzy Cue for helping me through such a bad time and thanks also to
Phil for putting up with my troubles.
The final offer is not what I asked for but it is a substantial amount of
dough - enough to get me out to the States or even Toronto Dave!!!
The newsgroup member website has been a godsend to me - it has kept me busy
doing something that I really enjoy - chewing over AC/DC and having a good
belly laugh at the same time.
My only worries are that it is gonna be hard for me once this whole thing is
over. Something that I have been fighting for over 4 years will no longer be
a fight.
However, it is nice to know that the 'small man' CAN win if he has a passion
and if he has the support of people from all corners of the globe.
People - I salute you
*21 GUNS*
--
and remember...
KEEP IT STIFF
Ballbreaker 375
dough - enough to get me out to the States or even Toronto Dave!!!
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/6223d441880690f7/52759f1e7a198702?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=bob%2Bfiddaman
It has been a real shitty time for me, my wife, and three kids.
This newsgroup has kept me going as has listening to AC/DC at times of woe.
I first came on this newsgroup and had a few slanging matches with the
brothers here. A few of you pointed me in the right direction and now, it
seems, I have been accepted.
You gotta understand that I have been very bitter over these past four years
but speaking with a few of you on ICQ has kinda helped me.
Props to Suzy Cue for helping me through such a bad time and thanks also to
Phil for putting up with my troubles.
The final offer is not what I asked for but it is a substantial amount of
dough - enough to get me out to the States or even Toronto Dave!!!
The newsgroup member website has been a godsend to me - it has kept me busy
doing something that I really enjoy - chewing over AC/DC and having a good
belly laugh at the same time.
My only worries are that it is gonna be hard for me once this whole thing is
over. Something that I have been fighting for over 4 years will no longer be
a fight.
However, it is nice to know that the 'small man' CAN win if he has a passion
and if he has the support of people from all corners of the globe.
People - I salute you
*21 GUNS*
--
and remember...
KEEP IT STIFF
Ballbreaker 375
Sunday, 25 July 2010
media interest can stimulate reporting through the Yellow Card - source MHRA
Scheme, and the publicity surrounding the safety of fluoxetine in 1990 caused an increase
in reporting of suicidal thoughts and self-harm associated with fluoxetine. There was
also some effect on reporting rates for other SSRIs. The reporting rate of suicidal
behaviour with fluoxetine then dropped between 1991 and 1993, and continued to fall
gradually until 1998. In the years 1995 to 1998, the reporting rates for fluoxetine,
paroxetine and sertraline were very similar, figure 7.2. This argues against this
phenomenon being a particular adverse reaction to fluoxetine. Reporting rates for
venlafaxine were comparatively higher between 1995 and 1998 (figure 7.3), although this
coincides with the first few years of marketing of this drug. After 1998, reporting rates
for venlafaxine fell to similar level as the other SSRIs.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/pl-p/documents/drugsafetymessage/con019472.pdf
Saturday, 24 July 2010
Seroxat share of market = 6% - there is NO Seroxat problem in UK
source - http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/
Seroxat Group Litigation “Defining Issue” …..
Seroxat Group Litigation “Defining Issue” …..
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/07/seroxt-group-litigation-defining-issue.html
appears to state, that the whole Seroxat Group Litigation is dependant on Seroxat being worse to withdraw from than any and all other drug in the SSRI class - there is however wide-ranging evidence to the contrary.
"Does Seroxat have a capacity to cause asverse effects consequent upon or following discontinuance (withdrawl) such as prevent or make more difficult the ability of users to discontinue, withdraw from or remain free from taking Seroxat to a greater extent than all other Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)"
……….. NB - spelling errors as per original document.
HM Courts Service: Seroxat Group Litigation Order no: 68.
It would also appear that if this case continues and is settled either in or out of court - it will affectively block those on the other seven drugs in the SSRI drug class from any possible legal redress or claim for compensation for the same problems.
The case seems to have been contrived to fit a loophole made available in the consumer documentation by the law – rather than the case being brought for the benefit of the litigants, to affect change in pharmaceutical regulation or make the pharmaceutical companies, in this case GSK, accountable – significantly this litigation has no social purpose, and will achieve nothing of true value.
(The blog will return to the merits and pitfalls of group litigations, their dubious success rates and pitiful litigant benefit records and the part the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and Solicitors play in the process at a later date.)
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/2010/07/seroxt-group-litigation-defining-issue.html
appears to state, that the whole Seroxat Group Litigation is dependant on Seroxat being worse to withdraw from than any and all other drug in the SSRI class - there is however wide-ranging evidence to the contrary.
"Does Seroxat have a capacity to cause asverse effects consequent upon or following discontinuance (withdrawl) such as prevent or make more difficult the ability of users to discontinue, withdraw from or remain free from taking Seroxat to a greater extent than all other Selective Serotonin Re-uptake Inhibitors (SSRIs)"
……….. NB - spelling errors as per original document.
HM Courts Service: Seroxat Group Litigation Order no: 68.
It would also appear that if this case continues and is settled either in or out of court - it will affectively block those on the other seven drugs in the SSRI drug class from any possible legal redress or claim for compensation for the same problems.
The case seems to have been contrived to fit a loophole made available in the consumer documentation by the law – rather than the case being brought for the benefit of the litigants, to affect change in pharmaceutical regulation or make the pharmaceutical companies, in this case GSK, accountable – significantly this litigation has no social purpose, and will achieve nothing of true value.
(The blog will return to the merits and pitfalls of group litigations, their dubious success rates and pitiful litigant benefit records and the part the Legal Services Commission (LSC) and Solicitors play in the process at a later date.)
http://the-uk-seroxat-litigation-chronicles.blogspot.com/
Tuesday, 20 July 2010
Seroxat/Paxil PPHN death suit settles out of court
Files indicate settlement in Paxil lawsuit
By WAYNE ORTMAN (AP) – 14 hours ago
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed against a pharmaceutical company by a Watertown woman who linked her prescribed use of Paxil to the death of her infant son, according to court files.
Jennifer Berg of Watertown sued SmithKline Beecham, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, in October 2007. The complaint said Nathan Berg died in 2004 because of a heart disorder caused by her use of the antidepressant Paxil while she was pregnant.
The federal court lawsuit sought unspecified damages from the company for failing to warn of a link between the two. Letters from her attorneys to the presiding judge indicate there's a settlement. No settlement documents have been filed in court.
Lawyers at a California firm handling the case for Berg did not immediately return a phone call Monday for comment.
GlaxoSmithKline said last week that it expects to take a $2.36 billion charge against second-quarter earnings for settlements, agreements to settle and other provisions for long-standing legal cases over Paxil, the diabetes drug Avandia and other issues. The company said settlement details would be confidential.
According to the lawsuit, Nathan Berg was born Aug. 20, 2004 at Watertown and was immediately transferred to a Minneapolis hospital where he died 58 days later of Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn (PPHN), a disorder which prevents proper oxygenation of the blood.
"At the time Paxil was prescribed to Ms. Berg, GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) knew or should have known through pre-market studies and post-market studies and reports that Paxil was associated with an increased risk of PPHN in babies whose mothers ingested Paxil during pregnancy," according to the lawsuit.
Last October, a jury in Philadelphia ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay $2.5 million to a woman whose son was born in October 2005 with heart defects after she took Paxil while pregnant. The Food and Drug Administration in September 2005 began warning that the drug might be associated with birth defects.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7UU4otrHhelqaJFcC3ttvwj4bYgD9H29RK00
By WAYNE ORTMAN (AP) – 14 hours ago
SIOUX FALLS, S.D. — A settlement has been reached in a lawsuit filed against a pharmaceutical company by a Watertown woman who linked her prescribed use of Paxil to the death of her infant son, according to court files.
Jennifer Berg of Watertown sued SmithKline Beecham, doing business as GlaxoSmithKline, in October 2007. The complaint said Nathan Berg died in 2004 because of a heart disorder caused by her use of the antidepressant Paxil while she was pregnant.
The federal court lawsuit sought unspecified damages from the company for failing to warn of a link between the two. Letters from her attorneys to the presiding judge indicate there's a settlement. No settlement documents have been filed in court.
Lawyers at a California firm handling the case for Berg did not immediately return a phone call Monday for comment.
GlaxoSmithKline said last week that it expects to take a $2.36 billion charge against second-quarter earnings for settlements, agreements to settle and other provisions for long-standing legal cases over Paxil, the diabetes drug Avandia and other issues. The company said settlement details would be confidential.
According to the lawsuit, Nathan Berg was born Aug. 20, 2004 at Watertown and was immediately transferred to a Minneapolis hospital where he died 58 days later of Persistent Pulmonary Hypertension of the Newborn (PPHN), a disorder which prevents proper oxygenation of the blood.
"At the time Paxil was prescribed to Ms. Berg, GSK (GlaxoSmithKline) knew or should have known through pre-market studies and post-market studies and reports that Paxil was associated with an increased risk of PPHN in babies whose mothers ingested Paxil during pregnancy," according to the lawsuit.
Last October, a jury in Philadelphia ordered GlaxoSmithKline to pay $2.5 million to a woman whose son was born in October 2005 with heart defects after she took Paxil while pregnant. The Food and Drug Administration in September 2005 began warning that the drug might be associated with birth defects.
Copyright © 2010 The Associated Press. All rights reserved
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5j7UU4otrHhelqaJFcC3ttvwj4bYgD9H29RK00
Monday, 19 July 2010
Seroxat - important court decisions affecting product liability and personal injury claims
http://www.dac.co.uk/documents/resources/toptens/Product_Liability_and_Personal_Injury_Top_Ten_2006
Last year saw a number of important court decisions affecting product liability and
personal injury claims. Common themes of many were the international nature of the
issues that were grappled with. One case involved English claimants wishing to sue in
the US whilst another concerned Bangladeshi citizens wishing to sue in England. Yet
a third addressed the question of whether an English citizen injured whilst on holiday
was entitled to English or Australian levels of damages. These cases demonstrate the
international nature of product liability and personal injury claims with products
manufactured in one country being marketed worldwide and the globalisation of
international trade and travel.
We are therefore pleased to nominate our Top Ten cases for 2006 – in no particular
order, as they say on Strictly Come Dancing.
More generally, 2006 continued to be a difficult year for claimants in group actions
within the product liability and personal injury field. There are now very few cases
supported by public funding, with the withdrawal of support for the MMR vaccine
and the foetal anticonvulsant cases and the refusal to support other groups such as
Vioxx and Seroxat. Group Litigation Orders also took a knock with the refusal of the
court to issue a Group Litigation Order in the miners’ case of Hobson v Ashton
Moreton Slack.
The absence of many pharmaceutical product liability claims pending trial will deprive
us of the opportunity to clarify the unsatisfactory position left by some aspects of
Mr Justice Burton’s seminal decision in A v National Blood Authority, particularly in
relation to the development risk defence and the applicability of the learned
intermediary rule to prescribed products – two aspects of his judgment most
frequently criticised. Certainly, the signs of the most recent Court of Appeal decision
in Tesco v Pollard suggest that Mr Justice Burton’s purposeful approach to
interpretation of the European Product Liability Directive might not be universally
favoured by the English judiciary. Similarly in the case of Palmer v Palmer, which did
not make the Top Ten, the court took a more traditional approach to deciding
product liability /personal injury
top ten 2006 davies arnold cooper reviews the year’s highlights
whether a product was defective in the context of its being misused. The court found
that a seatbelt which could have excessive slack if not properly fitted was defective
because the risks were not adequately pointed out to consumers within the instruction
leaflet.
On a broader front, July 2006 saw the DTI’s consultation paper on Representative
Actions. Its proposals envisage designated consumer bodies bringing claims on behalf of
named consumers who have suffered similar but financially low-level losses and who
would otherwise be unlikely to be able to seek redress. Consumer groups and the OFT
have criticised the paper as being too modest and are pressing for wider reforms,
including opt-out proposals whereby all members of a class are included within a claim
unless they specifically choose not to be. These organisations are also seeking costs
regimes inconsistent with the principle that the loser pays the costs of the winner. There
will be a need to monitor developments on this front.
On the consumer safety side, the General Product Safety Regulations of 2005 have
now implemented the revised General Product Safety Directive and apply to all
products to the extent that sector-specific directives do not apply, and in respect of
notification obligations, now cover all industries except for food and pharmaceuticals
which are more comprehensively regulated by their own regulations.
Finally, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill is going through
Parliament. It will make it easier to prosecute companies for manslaughter by removing
the focus on individual failings and looking at the conduct of senior management
collectively. It is considered in our D&O / Financial Institutions Top Ten 2006.
With such major issues up in the air, 2007 is bound to be an interesting year.
Davies Arnold Cooper
January 2007
Last year saw a number of important court decisions affecting product liability and
personal injury claims. Common themes of many were the international nature of the
issues that were grappled with. One case involved English claimants wishing to sue in
the US whilst another concerned Bangladeshi citizens wishing to sue in England. Yet
a third addressed the question of whether an English citizen injured whilst on holiday
was entitled to English or Australian levels of damages. These cases demonstrate the
international nature of product liability and personal injury claims with products
manufactured in one country being marketed worldwide and the globalisation of
international trade and travel.
We are therefore pleased to nominate our Top Ten cases for 2006 – in no particular
order, as they say on Strictly Come Dancing.
More generally, 2006 continued to be a difficult year for claimants in group actions
within the product liability and personal injury field. There are now very few cases
supported by public funding, with the withdrawal of support for the MMR vaccine
and the foetal anticonvulsant cases and the refusal to support other groups such as
Vioxx and Seroxat. Group Litigation Orders also took a knock with the refusal of the
court to issue a Group Litigation Order in the miners’ case of Hobson v Ashton
Moreton Slack.
The absence of many pharmaceutical product liability claims pending trial will deprive
us of the opportunity to clarify the unsatisfactory position left by some aspects of
Mr Justice Burton’s seminal decision in A v National Blood Authority, particularly in
relation to the development risk defence and the applicability of the learned
intermediary rule to prescribed products – two aspects of his judgment most
frequently criticised. Certainly, the signs of the most recent Court of Appeal decision
in Tesco v Pollard suggest that Mr Justice Burton’s purposeful approach to
interpretation of the European Product Liability Directive might not be universally
favoured by the English judiciary. Similarly in the case of Palmer v Palmer, which did
not make the Top Ten, the court took a more traditional approach to deciding
product liability /personal injury
top ten 2006 davies arnold cooper reviews the year’s highlights
whether a product was defective in the context of its being misused. The court found
that a seatbelt which could have excessive slack if not properly fitted was defective
because the risks were not adequately pointed out to consumers within the instruction
leaflet.
On a broader front, July 2006 saw the DTI’s consultation paper on Representative
Actions. Its proposals envisage designated consumer bodies bringing claims on behalf of
named consumers who have suffered similar but financially low-level losses and who
would otherwise be unlikely to be able to seek redress. Consumer groups and the OFT
have criticised the paper as being too modest and are pressing for wider reforms,
including opt-out proposals whereby all members of a class are included within a claim
unless they specifically choose not to be. These organisations are also seeking costs
regimes inconsistent with the principle that the loser pays the costs of the winner. There
will be a need to monitor developments on this front.
On the consumer safety side, the General Product Safety Regulations of 2005 have
now implemented the revised General Product Safety Directive and apply to all
products to the extent that sector-specific directives do not apply, and in respect of
notification obligations, now cover all industries except for food and pharmaceuticals
which are more comprehensively regulated by their own regulations.
Finally, the Corporate Manslaughter and Corporate Homicide Bill is going through
Parliament. It will make it easier to prosecute companies for manslaughter by removing
the focus on individual failings and looking at the conduct of senior management
collectively. It is considered in our D&O / Financial Institutions Top Ten 2006.
With such major issues up in the air, 2007 is bound to be an interesting year.
Davies Arnold Cooper
January 2007
Seroxat suit comprises only 314 clients © 2009 FierceMarkets
GSK Seroxat suit comprises only 314 clients © 2009 FierceMarkets
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:HVY-Qp_p-YAJ:www.fiercepharma.com/story/uk-patients-sue-paxil-withdrawal/2008-01-09+harvey+seroxat&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk
Poor Paxil. It was the first antidepressant to be slapped with a suicide-risk warning. It's drawn fire--and lawsuits--from U.S. patients who say they went into withdrawal when trying to quit treatment. Now, a group of UK patients are suing GlaxoSmithKline for the same withdrawal problems, seeking up to $98,000 per patient, or $31 million-plus with the 314 patients participating so far. Of course, it's not simply the monetary damages that could hurt, but the attendant publicity, which might turn off potential patients.
Sold as Seroxat in the UK, the drug is "defective" under Britain's 1987 Consumer Protection Act--or so says the patients' attorney, Mark Harvey of the law firm Hugh James. A few of his clients have not been able to stop taking Seroxat because of their withdrawal symptoms, he says. When they began treatment, not only was there no warning of withdrawal problems on the drug's label, but it specifically stated that the drug was not addictive.
Harvey has been working on this suit since at least 2004, when it first became fashionable to sue Glaxo for Paxil/Seroxat-related woes. The drug was banned in the UK for kids under 18 in 2003; since then, lawsuits over paroxetine's side effects have flown on both sides of the Atlantic.Read more: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:HVY-Qp_p-YAJ:www.fiercepharma.com/story/uk-patients-sue-paxil-withdrawal/2008-01-09+harvey+seroxat&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk
http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:HVY-Qp_p-YAJ:www.fiercepharma.com/story/uk-patients-sue-paxil-withdrawal/2008-01-09+harvey+seroxat&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk
Poor Paxil. It was the first antidepressant to be slapped with a suicide-risk warning. It's drawn fire--and lawsuits--from U.S. patients who say they went into withdrawal when trying to quit treatment. Now, a group of UK patients are suing GlaxoSmithKline for the same withdrawal problems, seeking up to $98,000 per patient, or $31 million-plus with the 314 patients participating so far. Of course, it's not simply the monetary damages that could hurt, but the attendant publicity, which might turn off potential patients.
Sold as Seroxat in the UK, the drug is "defective" under Britain's 1987 Consumer Protection Act--or so says the patients' attorney, Mark Harvey of the law firm Hugh James. A few of his clients have not been able to stop taking Seroxat because of their withdrawal symptoms, he says. When they began treatment, not only was there no warning of withdrawal problems on the drug's label, but it specifically stated that the drug was not addictive.
Harvey has been working on this suit since at least 2004, when it first became fashionable to sue Glaxo for Paxil/Seroxat-related woes. The drug was banned in the UK for kids under 18 in 2003; since then, lawsuits over paroxetine's side effects have flown on both sides of the Atlantic.Read more: http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:HVY-Qp_p-YAJ:www.fiercepharma.com/story/uk-patients-sue-paxil-withdrawal/2008-01-09+harvey+seroxat&cd=14&hl=en&ct=clnk
Seroxat Solicitors fraud - Ministry of Justice are continuing to monitor the position
Whilst complaints about solicitors are a matter for the Legal Complaints Service to deal with, both this Department and the Ministry of Justice are continuing to monitor the position.
see
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/350/7102210.htm
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/350/7102210.htm
Saturday, 17 July 2010
Seroxat solicitors Hugh James - Indications of fraud in the case of Mrs Ann Elizabeth Evans
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/350/7102210.htm
Seroxat Scientology lawyer George W. "Skip" Murgatroyd - penalized for his illegal ambulance-chasing and solicitation of clients
Seroxat Scientology lawyer George W. "Skip" Murgatroyd - penalized for his illegal ambulance-chasing and solicitation of clients
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/26a56394f61258ae/3d92c7b5bf53c7e4?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=George+%22Prozac%22+Murgatroyd&pli=1
This is a repost of my original message, which includes two iterations of the
"Scientology Shyster's List" as well as every other non-redundant mention of the
crime cult lawyer George W. "Skip" Murgatroyd III, the cocksucking Scientology
crime cult legal whore who threatened lawsuits against people who discussed his
extensive history with the crime cult of Scientology, as well as his bullshit
lawsuits on behalf of the crime cult of Scientology, as well as how he was cited
for ambulance-chasing for exercising ethics typical of a Scientology crime
cultist in his legal practice. The Indiana Bar penalized Murgatroyd for his
illegal ambulance-chasing and solicitation of clients within the state of
Indiana. He is not the only Scientology crime cultist lawyer sanctioned for
blatant ambulance-chasing. John Coale, husband of Greta van Susteren, also
shares this dubious honor.
Needless to say, lawsuit threats aside, the cultist is obviously a cultist, as
he is a Patron of the IAS, meaning he has not only purchased a lifetime
membership in the crime cult group the "International Association of
Scientologists" but has in addition thrown away $40,000 for absolutely nothing
so he can be listed in inscrutably tiny print in issues of crime cult magazine
Impact. I don't know who this crime cult fuckup thought he was fooling by
denying to be a member of the Mafia cult of Scientology, or if he is responsible
for it disappearing from Google groups, but the crime cultist can be absolutely
certain the information will continue to be out there, whatever insane lies he
tells.
---
A bit over a year ago, Disturber of the Peace was distributing his CO$ Shyster
list listing all lawyers who have whored for the crime cult of Scientology.
One of these scumbags was George W. Murgatroyd. Murgatroyd went utterly
bugfuck and flatly denied the allegation, sending threatening letters and
harassing DP at work.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.religion.scientology/browse_thread/thread/26a56394f61258ae/3d92c7b5bf53c7e4?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=George+%22Prozac%22+Murgatroyd&pli=1
This is a repost of my original message, which includes two iterations of the
"Scientology Shyster's List" as well as every other non-redundant mention of the
crime cult lawyer George W. "Skip" Murgatroyd III, the cocksucking Scientology
crime cult legal whore who threatened lawsuits against people who discussed his
extensive history with the crime cult of Scientology, as well as his bullshit
lawsuits on behalf of the crime cult of Scientology, as well as how he was cited
for ambulance-chasing for exercising ethics typical of a Scientology crime
cultist in his legal practice. The Indiana Bar penalized Murgatroyd for his
illegal ambulance-chasing and solicitation of clients within the state of
Indiana. He is not the only Scientology crime cultist lawyer sanctioned for
blatant ambulance-chasing. John Coale, husband of Greta van Susteren, also
shares this dubious honor.
Needless to say, lawsuit threats aside, the cultist is obviously a cultist, as
he is a Patron of the IAS, meaning he has not only purchased a lifetime
membership in the crime cult group the "International Association of
Scientologists" but has in addition thrown away $40,000 for absolutely nothing
so he can be listed in inscrutably tiny print in issues of crime cult magazine
Impact. I don't know who this crime cult fuckup thought he was fooling by
denying to be a member of the Mafia cult of Scientology, or if he is responsible
for it disappearing from Google groups, but the crime cultist can be absolutely
certain the information will continue to be out there, whatever insane lies he
tells.
---
A bit over a year ago, Disturber of the Peace was distributing his CO$ Shyster
list listing all lawyers who have whored for the crime cult of Scientology.
One of these scumbags was George W. Murgatroyd. Murgatroyd went utterly
bugfuck and flatly denied the allegation, sending threatening letters and
harassing DP at work.
Wednesday, 14 July 2010
Avandia scare stories - Experts ease fears over Glaxo drug By Daily Mail Reporter
Experts ease fears over Glaxo drug By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 10:32 PM on 14th July 2010
Comments (0) Add to My Stories GlaxoSmithKline received a major boost in its fight with US regulators as a majority of American health advisers said its blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia did not raise concerns about the risk of death and should stay on the market in some form.
Twenty members of the 33-member expert panel gave the drug their backing. Only 12 members voted to recommend that the authorities withdraw the pill.
By a closer 12-to-7 margin, the panel found no death concern with Avandia compared with Takeda Pharmaceutical's Actos, a drug in the same class as Avandia. Fourteen could not decide.
Major Boost: US health advisers said that Glaxo's Avandia should stay on the market in some form
However, the scientific experts found Avandia did raise a heart attack concern compared with other classes of diabetes drugs, and when compared Actos.
Avandia's US sales were just 1.5 per cent of Glaxo's 2009 revenues, but investors fear the company could face more lawsuits if the drug is pulled from the market.
The Food and Drug Administration convened the panel of outside experts to help the agency settle a three-year safety dispute over Avandia.
In 2007, an advisory panel voted 20-to-3 that Avandia may increase the chances of a heart attack for some patients. But they voted 22-to-1 to recommend that the drug stay on the market.
Analysts believe that the authorities will this time allow the drug to remain available, but with increased warnings.
The FDA will make its final decision in the coming months, but usually follows the advice of its panels.
The debate on Avandia's safety has raged since warnings were placed on the drug in 2007 saying some research linked the drug to a higher heart attack risk but the data is 'inconclusive'.
Shares in Glaxo closed up 5p at 1181.5p.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1294776/Experts-ease-fears-Glaxo-drug.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0thQBUQvh
Last updated at 10:32 PM on 14th July 2010
Comments (0) Add to My Stories GlaxoSmithKline received a major boost in its fight with US regulators as a majority of American health advisers said its blockbuster diabetes drug Avandia did not raise concerns about the risk of death and should stay on the market in some form.
Twenty members of the 33-member expert panel gave the drug their backing. Only 12 members voted to recommend that the authorities withdraw the pill.
By a closer 12-to-7 margin, the panel found no death concern with Avandia compared with Takeda Pharmaceutical's Actos, a drug in the same class as Avandia. Fourteen could not decide.
Major Boost: US health advisers said that Glaxo's Avandia should stay on the market in some form
However, the scientific experts found Avandia did raise a heart attack concern compared with other classes of diabetes drugs, and when compared Actos.
Avandia's US sales were just 1.5 per cent of Glaxo's 2009 revenues, but investors fear the company could face more lawsuits if the drug is pulled from the market.
The Food and Drug Administration convened the panel of outside experts to help the agency settle a three-year safety dispute over Avandia.
In 2007, an advisory panel voted 20-to-3 that Avandia may increase the chances of a heart attack for some patients. But they voted 22-to-1 to recommend that the drug stay on the market.
The FDA will make its final decision in the coming months, but usually follows the advice of its panels.
The debate on Avandia's safety has raged since warnings were placed on the drug in 2007 saying some research linked the drug to a higher heart attack risk but the data is 'inconclusive'.
Shares in Glaxo closed up 5p at 1181.5p.
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/money/article-1294776/Experts-ease-fears-Glaxo-drug.html?ito=feeds-newsxml#ixzz0thQBUQvh
Monday, 12 July 2010
Seroxat - Sara Carlin was not alone - 50 teen suicides Ontario each year
well they wern't all on Paxil/Seroxat otherwise we would never hear the end of it....so what causes this, booze, long cold dark winters ? ....read on
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/criticalpsychiatry/message/62929
source
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/07/11/14679041.html
OAKVILLE — Joanne Genovy's youngest child was just 15 the first time she tried to end her life.
It's a memory etched in her mind — receiving a call from a friend's mom alerting her Cassandra had "swallowed a bunch of pills," racing home frantically, not knowing if her daughter would be alive or dead when she got there.
That was 14 months ago and fortunately her daughter survived.
But Joanne has lived in fear every day since, wondering when her daughter will try to end her life again.
"We never thought she was capable of something like that," Joanne told The Sun recently.
Teen suicides have doubled in Canada since 1961 and rates here remain among the highest in industrialized nations. In Ontario, more than 50 teens commit suicide annually.
There are various and conflicting explanations — including our long winters — but universal agreement among experts that there is a woefully inadequate lack of funding, treatment facilities and trained child psychiatrists in Canada.
For desperate parents, the harsh reality is there are few places to turn to for help.
While Joanne admits there was some dysfunction in her home in the past, not unlike most families, she has tried to give her youngest of four girls all the attention and love she can muster hoping to help her overcome depression and a severe eating disorder.
She's even been off work for the last year trying to care for Cassandra, a decision that's caused major financial strain for her family.
But despite her efforts, her now 17-year-old daughter's mental health has only worsened. In fact, she has now attempted suicide, or come dangerously close, five times in just over a year — three times in the last few months.
"Each time it gets scarier," Joanne said. "I'm terrified that the next time she goes to the hospital will be in a body bag."
In spite of multiple stays in the psychiatric ward at Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital, where Cassandra was last checked in on June 11, finding the right help to save her child's life has been next to impossible.
Joanne pointed out that getting immediate help for someone who is suicidal is easy enough, you can simply call 911 or visit the emergency department at any hospital.
But a hospital stay is only a temporary fix, something she has learned the hard way.
Cassandra's most recent admission to Oakville-Trafalgar lasted two weeks, but only because her mom pleaded repeatedly with staff not to release her.
As is often the case, drugs and alcohol are part of Cassandra's problem, exacerbated by an eating disorder.
Joanne has looked into an assortment of aftercare programs, for both inpatients and outpatients. But they are few and far between and it can take six months to a year, or even longer, to get into such programs.
Her biggest fear is that her bulimic daughter will end up like Sara Carlin, another 17-year-old Oakville girl, who hung herself in her parents' basement in 2007. Carlin's death was recently at the centre of an inquiry into the use of Paxil, a prescription drug used to treat depression and anxiety.
After her initial suicide attempt, Cassandra was prescribed anti-depressants and began attending an eating disorder program in Halton Region. But Joanne claims she was dubbed "too risky" and was "kicked out."
Upset she was no longer allowed to attend the group counselling sessions, Cassandra stopped taking her medication.
A few days later she tried to kill herself for the second time.
The troubled teen was then admitted into a program at North York General Hospital. Her mom drove her into Toronto every day and she was "doing good" for a while.
But Cassandra managed to convince her counsellors and doctors that she was "fine" and they sent her on her way, the girl's mom claims.
"We told everybody she wasn't ready, but nobody would listen," Joanne said, adding her daughter soon fell back into her old habits.
Twice this year, in May following a break-up with a boyfriend, and on her 17th Birthday, the troubled teen again tried to kill herself.
Cassandra's illness has been tearing her family apart.
"My daughter wants help. And I can't be with her every minute of every day," said Joanne, who is now faced with either returning to work and leaving her daughter completely unattended or selling her home.
She believes her daughter needs to be admitted as an inpatient to a program with round-the-clock care. But that's easier said than done.
So far, Joanne claims she's been told her daughter is too old, too young, too sick or not sick enough, among other things.
"It shouldn't be so hard," said Joanne. She is currently trying desperately to get her daughter into Homewood, a private facility in Guelph.
Homewood has only one OHIP-covered bed and the wait for that spot is more than a year.
"All I want to do is save my child and I'll do whatever it takes to keep her alive and get her well, even if that means she ends up hating me."
http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/criticalpsychiatry/message/62929
source
http://www.torontosun.com/news/torontoandgta/2010/07/11/14679041.html
OAKVILLE — Joanne Genovy's youngest child was just 15 the first time she tried to end her life.
It's a memory etched in her mind — receiving a call from a friend's mom alerting her Cassandra had "swallowed a bunch of pills," racing home frantically, not knowing if her daughter would be alive or dead when she got there.
That was 14 months ago and fortunately her daughter survived.
But Joanne has lived in fear every day since, wondering when her daughter will try to end her life again.
"We never thought she was capable of something like that," Joanne told The Sun recently.
Teen suicides have doubled in Canada since 1961 and rates here remain among the highest in industrialized nations. In Ontario, more than 50 teens commit suicide annually.
There are various and conflicting explanations — including our long winters — but universal agreement among experts that there is a woefully inadequate lack of funding, treatment facilities and trained child psychiatrists in Canada.
For desperate parents, the harsh reality is there are few places to turn to for help.
While Joanne admits there was some dysfunction in her home in the past, not unlike most families, she has tried to give her youngest of four girls all the attention and love she can muster hoping to help her overcome depression and a severe eating disorder.
She's even been off work for the last year trying to care for Cassandra, a decision that's caused major financial strain for her family.
But despite her efforts, her now 17-year-old daughter's mental health has only worsened. In fact, she has now attempted suicide, or come dangerously close, five times in just over a year — three times in the last few months.
"Each time it gets scarier," Joanne said. "I'm terrified that the next time she goes to the hospital will be in a body bag."
In spite of multiple stays in the psychiatric ward at Oakville Trafalgar Memorial Hospital, where Cassandra was last checked in on June 11, finding the right help to save her child's life has been next to impossible.
Joanne pointed out that getting immediate help for someone who is suicidal is easy enough, you can simply call 911 or visit the emergency department at any hospital.
But a hospital stay is only a temporary fix, something she has learned the hard way.
Cassandra's most recent admission to Oakville-Trafalgar lasted two weeks, but only because her mom pleaded repeatedly with staff not to release her.
As is often the case, drugs and alcohol are part of Cassandra's problem, exacerbated by an eating disorder.
Joanne has looked into an assortment of aftercare programs, for both inpatients and outpatients. But they are few and far between and it can take six months to a year, or even longer, to get into such programs.
Her biggest fear is that her bulimic daughter will end up like Sara Carlin, another 17-year-old Oakville girl, who hung herself in her parents' basement in 2007. Carlin's death was recently at the centre of an inquiry into the use of Paxil, a prescription drug used to treat depression and anxiety.
After her initial suicide attempt, Cassandra was prescribed anti-depressants and began attending an eating disorder program in Halton Region. But Joanne claims she was dubbed "too risky" and was "kicked out."
Upset she was no longer allowed to attend the group counselling sessions, Cassandra stopped taking her medication.
A few days later she tried to kill herself for the second time.
The troubled teen was then admitted into a program at North York General Hospital. Her mom drove her into Toronto every day and she was "doing good" for a while.
But Cassandra managed to convince her counsellors and doctors that she was "fine" and they sent her on her way, the girl's mom claims.
"We told everybody she wasn't ready, but nobody would listen," Joanne said, adding her daughter soon fell back into her old habits.
Twice this year, in May following a break-up with a boyfriend, and on her 17th Birthday, the troubled teen again tried to kill herself.
Cassandra's illness has been tearing her family apart.
"My daughter wants help. And I can't be with her every minute of every day," said Joanne, who is now faced with either returning to work and leaving her daughter completely unattended or selling her home.
She believes her daughter needs to be admitted as an inpatient to a program with round-the-clock care. But that's easier said than done.
So far, Joanne claims she's been told her daughter is too old, too young, too sick or not sick enough, among other things.
"It shouldn't be so hard," said Joanne. She is currently trying desperately to get her daughter into Homewood, a private facility in Guelph.
Homewood has only one OHIP-covered bed and the wait for that spot is more than a year.
"All I want to do is save my child and I'll do whatever it takes to keep her alive and get her well, even if that means she ends up hating me."
Saturday, 10 July 2010
Fiddaman used by Neil Carlin to publish - JURY VERDICT ANALYSIS
read full post here -
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7DQe0v56xNwJ:fiddaman.blogspot.com/+seroxat+blog&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
NOTE - no other media is reporting it, not even it seems class action cheerleader Evelyn Pringle. We wonder why?
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:7DQe0v56xNwJ:fiddaman.blogspot.com/+seroxat+blog&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Church of England pays woman drugged at care home - Kendall House in Gravesend, Kent
Church pays woman drugged at home
source
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/uk-ireland/church-pays-woman-drugged-at-home-14868828.html
The Church of England has paid "substantial" damages to a woman who claimed she was heavily sedated during her time at a children's home, it has been disclosed.
Teresa Cooper, 43, accepted the out-of-court settlement from church authorities after alleging that she was abused and restrained with doses of tranquillisers and other drugs.
A BBC investigation last year revealed that some girls who were heavily sedated while living at Church of England-run Kendall House in Gravesend, Kent, in the 1970s and 1980s went on to have children with a range of birth defects.
According to files from Kendall House, which is no longer a children's home, girls were given massive doses of a number of drugs over long periods of time.
Former resident Ms Cooper's three children all have birth defects and she has fought an 18-year campaign to secure justice, she said. Her eldest son was born with respiratory difficulties, her second son was born blind and developed learning difficulties, and her daughter was born with a cleft palate and a short lower jaw.
Ms Cooper, who left the home in 1984 at 16, was given medication at least 1,248 times over a 32-month period. This included three major tranquillisers, drugs to counter side-effects and anti-depressants, including up to 10 times the current recommended dose of Valium.
The Diocese of Rochester said it has not admitted liability but said it hopes Ms Cooper would now be able to move on with her life. In a statement, it said: "Although Ms Cooper instructed a legal firm, no legal proceedings were issued. In reaching a settlement, no admissions of liability were made. It is our fervent hope that the terms of the settlement agreed will assist Teresa Cooper move forward with her life."
Ms Cooper, a writer who lives near Chelmsford, Essex, said she would like a public apology from the church. She said: "The settlement is a step in the right direction. The church has worked with me on an equal level, which took a long time to achieve and I'm quite happy with what they have done. But I would like them to investigate what happened, what went wrong and to investigate the drugs that were used that saw girls go on to have children with birth defects.
"There are lots of things the church can do and which I believe is their Christian duty to do, and I would also like a public apology at the Synod. Hopefully, we will now get justice for the other girls."
A statement through her solicitors, Lavelle Coleman, said: "In a recent settlement, Teresa Cooper has received substantial High Court damages and has concluded her years of effort to secure justice in her case. Represented by Lavelle Coleman solicitors and Elizabeth Anne Grumble QC, Teresa was finally vindicated and her pain and suffering were properly acknowledged."
Read more: http://www.blogger.com/goog_1660074975
source
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/breaking-news/uk-ireland/church-pays-woman-drugged-at-home-14868828.html
The Church of England has paid "substantial" damages to a woman who claimed she was heavily sedated during her time at a children's home, it has been disclosed.
Teresa Cooper, 43, accepted the out-of-court settlement from church authorities after alleging that she was abused and restrained with doses of tranquillisers and other drugs.
A BBC investigation last year revealed that some girls who were heavily sedated while living at Church of England-run Kendall House in Gravesend, Kent, in the 1970s and 1980s went on to have children with a range of birth defects.
According to files from Kendall House, which is no longer a children's home, girls were given massive doses of a number of drugs over long periods of time.
Former resident Ms Cooper's three children all have birth defects and she has fought an 18-year campaign to secure justice, she said. Her eldest son was born with respiratory difficulties, her second son was born blind and developed learning difficulties, and her daughter was born with a cleft palate and a short lower jaw.
Ms Cooper, who left the home in 1984 at 16, was given medication at least 1,248 times over a 32-month period. This included three major tranquillisers, drugs to counter side-effects and anti-depressants, including up to 10 times the current recommended dose of Valium.
The Diocese of Rochester said it has not admitted liability but said it hopes Ms Cooper would now be able to move on with her life. In a statement, it said: "Although Ms Cooper instructed a legal firm, no legal proceedings were issued. In reaching a settlement, no admissions of liability were made. It is our fervent hope that the terms of the settlement agreed will assist Teresa Cooper move forward with her life."
Ms Cooper, a writer who lives near Chelmsford, Essex, said she would like a public apology from the church. She said: "The settlement is a step in the right direction. The church has worked with me on an equal level, which took a long time to achieve and I'm quite happy with what they have done. But I would like them to investigate what happened, what went wrong and to investigate the drugs that were used that saw girls go on to have children with birth defects.
"There are lots of things the church can do and which I believe is their Christian duty to do, and I would also like a public apology at the Synod. Hopefully, we will now get justice for the other girls."
A statement through her solicitors, Lavelle Coleman, said: "In a recent settlement, Teresa Cooper has received substantial High Court damages and has concluded her years of effort to secure justice in her case. Represented by Lavelle Coleman solicitors and Elizabeth Anne Grumble QC, Teresa was finally vindicated and her pain and suffering were properly acknowledged."
Read more: http://www.blogger.com/goog_1660074975
Friday, 9 July 2010
Effexor Doubles Risk of Miscarriage in Pregnant Women
Effexor Doubles Risk of Miscarriage in Pregnant Women
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.salient-news.com/2010/07/effexor-pristiq-side-effects-pregnancies/
Adding to the growing list of worries associated with antidepressants, a new study has found that the risk of miscarriage is significantly higher in women who take SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and SNRI (serotonin-nonrepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) antidepressants, such as Effexor, early in their pregnancies.
According to a May 31, 2010 study published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by scientists at the University of Montreal, women who take antidepressants like Effexor, Lexapro, Celexa, Prozac and Zoloft during the first trimester of their pregnancy were significantly more likely to miscarry than women who did not take antidepressants. Researchers found that the risk associated with miscarriage was 68 percent higher in women who used the drugs. The researchers also found that Effexor was among the antidepressants which carried the highest risk.
Researchers took data from the Quebec Pregnancy Registry. They studied pregnancies since 1997 and compared women who miscarried in their 20th week with women who did not lose their babies early in the pregnancy. The results showed that the risk of miscarriage nearly doubled with the use of venlaxafine (Effexor). The data has led researchers to warn that the use of antidepressants, especially venlaxafine, should be used with extreme caution during pregnancy
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://www.salient-news.com/2010/07/effexor-pristiq-side-effects-pregnancies/
Adding to the growing list of worries associated with antidepressants, a new study has found that the risk of miscarriage is significantly higher in women who take SSRI (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and SNRI (serotonin-nonrepinephrine reuptake inhibitor) antidepressants, such as Effexor, early in their pregnancies.
According to a May 31, 2010 study published online in the Canadian Medical Association Journal by scientists at the University of Montreal, women who take antidepressants like Effexor, Lexapro, Celexa, Prozac and Zoloft during the first trimester of their pregnancy were significantly more likely to miscarry than women who did not take antidepressants. Researchers found that the risk associated with miscarriage was 68 percent higher in women who used the drugs. The researchers also found that Effexor was among the antidepressants which carried the highest risk.
Researchers took data from the Quebec Pregnancy Registry. They studied pregnancies since 1997 and compared women who miscarried in their 20th week with women who did not lose their babies early in the pregnancy. The results showed that the risk of miscarriage nearly doubled with the use of venlaxafine (Effexor). The data has led researchers to warn that the use of antidepressants, especially venlaxafine, should be used with extreme caution during pregnancy
Thursday, 8 July 2010
DMCA the weapon of choice for Internet bullies?
Internet bullies are taking matters into their own hands by trying to use the "safe harbor" provisions of the DMCA to wrongfully intimidate others. It is crucial for all Internet service providers, including website operators, bloggers and other web services with user-generated content, etc. to fully understand the state of the law in order to avoid unneccesary harassment.
New Media Rights has received e-mails regarding DMCA scare tactics being used in inappropriate ways. Some of these threats are misinterpretations of the law, while others are flat out lies.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9Af2RGclvYgJ:https://www.newmediarights.org/blog/dmca/copyright/is_dmca_weapon
_choice_internet_bullies+dmca+bullies&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Here is a brief list of some misleading and untrue statements regarding DMCA threats:
•"Owner of content can use the DMCA to block your site from major search engines as well as demanding you remove said content."
•"Using copyrighted material even with manipulation is necessarily a violation of the DMCA." (not necesarily, i.e. fair use of material)
•"An unrelated third party (ie a bully) can act to bring about a takedown."
Section 512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) creates "safe harbor" provisions for online service providers who allow user generated content. Under these provisions, online service providers are granted some protection against copyright infringement claims as long as certain procedures are followed. Generally, a copyright holder must send a "take down" notice to the service provider, and the service provider will inform the user the content has been taken down. In response, the user may reply with a "counter notice" letter to try and have the content re-posted.
1). DMCA provisions ONLY apply to websites registered with the U.S. Copyright Office
However, it is extremely important to realize that DMCA safe harbor provisions are ONLY applicable for sites that have availed themselves of the DMCA. In order to do this, the website must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. By registering, you essentially agree to the terms of the above procedures and in return you are given a chance to remove the copyrighted material posted by other users before litigation ensues. If the website has NOT availed itself of the DMCA then regular copyright law applies and since there is no intent required for liability, you could be either secondarily or directly liable IF the content is infringing and not a fair use (See link for more on what constitues a Fair Use). There are advantages of registering for DMCA protection and it may be a good idea to protect your website from liability. To summarize, someone cannot use the DMCA safe harbor provisions against you unless you are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
2). Third party copyright threats are NEVER enforceable
Another noteworthy point, for DMCA or regular copyright claims, is that the copyright holder themselves MUST be the one seeking the take down. Any threats by a third party are not enforceable, so before you back down make sure the claim is a legitimate one!
New Media Rights has received e-mails regarding DMCA scare tactics being used in inappropriate ways. Some of these threats are misinterpretations of the law, while others are flat out lies.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:9Af2RGclvYgJ:https://www.newmediarights.org/blog/dmca/copyright/is_dmca_weapon
_choice_internet_bullies+dmca+bullies&cd=3&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Here is a brief list of some misleading and untrue statements regarding DMCA threats:
•"Owner of content can use the DMCA to block your site from major search engines as well as demanding you remove said content."
•"Using copyrighted material even with manipulation is necessarily a violation of the DMCA." (not necesarily, i.e. fair use of material)
•"An unrelated third party (ie a bully) can act to bring about a takedown."
Section 512 of the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) creates "safe harbor" provisions for online service providers who allow user generated content. Under these provisions, online service providers are granted some protection against copyright infringement claims as long as certain procedures are followed. Generally, a copyright holder must send a "take down" notice to the service provider, and the service provider will inform the user the content has been taken down. In response, the user may reply with a "counter notice" letter to try and have the content re-posted.
1). DMCA provisions ONLY apply to websites registered with the U.S. Copyright Office
However, it is extremely important to realize that DMCA safe harbor provisions are ONLY applicable for sites that have availed themselves of the DMCA. In order to do this, the website must be registered with the U.S. Copyright Office. By registering, you essentially agree to the terms of the above procedures and in return you are given a chance to remove the copyrighted material posted by other users before litigation ensues. If the website has NOT availed itself of the DMCA then regular copyright law applies and since there is no intent required for liability, you could be either secondarily or directly liable IF the content is infringing and not a fair use (See link for more on what constitues a Fair Use). There are advantages of registering for DMCA protection and it may be a good idea to protect your website from liability. To summarize, someone cannot use the DMCA safe harbor provisions against you unless you are registered with the U.S. Copyright Office.
2). Third party copyright threats are NEVER enforceable
Another noteworthy point, for DMCA or regular copyright claims, is that the copyright holder themselves MUST be the one seeking the take down. Any threats by a third party are not enforceable, so before you back down make sure the claim is a legitimate one!
50,000 uk kids took seroxat - but how many suicides before 2003?
This information is extracted with URL from a site run by Parker Waichman Alonso LLP which is a major firm of plaintifs lawyers active in the fields of big tobacco & pharma litigation.
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/61033
So according to them 50,000 UK children took Seroxat prior to 2003 ............it would be interesting to learn from reliable sources just how many completed suicides there were & how many were exclusively blaned only on Seroxat
source -
Roughly 50,000 British children took the drug before it was banned in 2003 for use by patients under the age of 18. The documentary claims that GSK knew of the risks in the late 1990s.
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12494
BBC: Glaxo Hid Safety Concerns Related to Seroxat (Paxil)
Jan 31, 2007
NewsInferno.com According to journalists at the BBC, GlaxoSmithKline intentionally distorted and covered up damaging information about their antidepressant Seroxat and its link to an increased risk of suicide in children. Researchers for the BBC documentary series Panorama obtained three critical documents suggesting that the company had conducted trials proving the drug was unsafe, but failed to accurately disclose that information. (Seroxat is a brand name for paroxetine, a selective serotonin ...
read on http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12494
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/uksurvivors/message/61033
So according to them 50,000 UK children took Seroxat prior to 2003 ............it would be interesting to learn from reliable sources just how many completed suicides there were & how many were exclusively blaned only on Seroxat
source -
Roughly 50,000 British children took the drug before it was banned in 2003 for use by patients under the age of 18. The documentary claims that GSK knew of the risks in the late 1990s.
http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12494
BBC: Glaxo Hid Safety Concerns Related to Seroxat (Paxil)
Jan 31, 2007
NewsInferno.com According to journalists at the BBC, GlaxoSmithKline intentionally distorted and covered up damaging information about their antidepressant Seroxat and its link to an increased risk of suicide in children. Researchers for the BBC documentary series Panorama obtained three critical documents suggesting that the company had conducted trials proving the drug was unsafe, but failed to accurately disclose that information. (Seroxat is a brand name for paroxetine, a selective serotonin ...
read on http://www.yourlawyer.com/articles/read/12494
False dichotomy
False dichotomy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us
Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 12:30 that "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in a speech discussing the Chief Committee for Political Education, told the assembled delegates that "It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco." [3]
George Orwell wrote in his 1942 essay "Pacifism and the War", "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security."
Benito Mussolini declared in speeches across fascist Italy: "O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." [4]
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/You're_either_with_us,_or_against_us
Jesus Christ stated in Matthew 12:30 that "He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters."
Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, in a speech discussing the Chief Committee for Political Education, told the assembled delegates that "It is with absolute frankness that we speak of this struggle of the proletariat; each man must choose between joining our side or the other side. Any attempt to avoid taking sides in this issue must end in fiasco." [3]
George Orwell wrote in his 1942 essay "Pacifism and the War", "If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me’. The idea that you can somehow remain aloof from and superior to the struggle, while living on food which British sailors have to risk their lives to bring you, is a bourgeois illusion bred of money and security."
Benito Mussolini declared in speeches across fascist Italy: "O con noi o contro di noi"--You're either with us or against us.
Hillary Clinton said on September 13, 2001: "Every nation has to either be with us, or against us. Those who harbor terrorists, or who finance them, are going to pay a price." [4]
President George W. Bush, in an address to a joint session of Congress on September 20, 2001 said, "Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists
Tuesday, 6 July 2010
Scientology lawyer admits "media attention not a good idea" as child gets 30 years
The case spurred a media maelstrom, with the attorneys making numerous television appearances, even allowing CBS News' "48 Hours" to tape their daily "war room" sessions for a special aired after the trial ended. But in retrospect, Menzies said the media attention may not have been a good idea.
If he had been convicted of voluntary manslaughter, Pittman could have been sentenced to anything from two to 30 years in prison, with the possibility of early release, although prosecutors only wanted the maximum. With a murder conviction, he faced a mandatory minimum of 30 years in prison, with no possibility of parole.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/aug/28/defense-team-made-mistakes-lawyers-say/
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/aug/28/defense-team-made-mistakes-lawyers-say/
Seroxat's Karen Barth Menzies admits failing child who got 30 years in jail - Christopher Pittman
Menzies testified during the second day of testimony in a hearing that will determine if Pittman gets a new trial.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/aug/28/defense-team-made-mistakes-lawyers-say/
Scientology/litigant stooge case classic failure
Scientology/litigant stooge case classic failure
If ever there was a case that showed how counter productive the Baum Hedlund(Scientology) lawyer scam was it must be the sad case of a young child who shot dead his grand parents.
Chris Pittman was 12 when he pulled the trigger & was USED by this cult as a poster boy case to prove the theory that " ZOLOFT made me do it"
And where did it get Pittman ..................well thirty years in an adult jail & he was lucky the trial wasn't elsewhere in the USA (land of the free) because he would have got fried in the electric chair.
Compare & contrast that outcome with Bulger killers UK (Venables & Thompson) who were out after a few years.
Now it would seem Barth Menzies (of Scientology's Baum Hedlund) is going to try back track the whole case because Pittman didn't get a proper defence in the first instance !
So for all you people playing the circular hero/victim game please keep in mind that the little people, the patients are being sold down the river.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/aug/28/defense-team-made-mistakes-lawyers-say/
A 12-year-old South Carolina boy who killed his grandparents, blaming Zoloft, might have been better off if his attorneys had been focused on his defense instead of on drawing attention to the possible side effects of antidepressants, one of the boy's lawyers testified Thursday.
"The biggest fear that I had was that we needed more perspective from a criminal defense lawyer in South Carolina," said Karen Menzies, a civil litigator who was one of several attorneys on Christopher Pittman's original team.
Menzies testified during the second day of testimony in a hearing that will determine if Pittman gets a new trial.
If ever there was a case that showed how counter productive the Baum Hedlund(Scientology) lawyer scam was it must be the sad case of a young child who shot dead his grand parents.
Chris Pittman was 12 when he pulled the trigger & was USED by this cult as a poster boy case to prove the theory that " ZOLOFT made me do it"
And where did it get Pittman ..................well thirty years in an adult jail & he was lucky the trial wasn't elsewhere in the USA (land of the free) because he would have got fried in the electric chair.
Compare & contrast that outcome with Bulger killers UK (Venables & Thompson) who were out after a few years.
So for all you people playing the circular hero/victim game please keep in mind that the little people, the patients are being sold down the river.
http://www.postandcourier.com/news/2009/aug/28/defense-team-made-mistakes-lawyers-say/
A 12-year-old South Carolina boy who killed his grandparents, blaming Zoloft, might have been better off if his attorneys had been focused on his defense instead of on drawing attention to the possible side effects of antidepressants, one of the boy's lawyers testified Thursday.
"The biggest fear that I had was that we needed more perspective from a criminal defense lawyer in South Carolina," said Karen Menzies, a civil litigator who was one of several attorneys on Christopher Pittman's original team.
Menzies testified during the second day of testimony in a hearing that will determine if Pittman gets a new trial.
Are you guys proud of your work ?
Are you guys proud of your work ?
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/psychiatry-research/message/21308
Seroxat in freefall whilst the rest of the brand totals soar into the sun. Who needs pharma sales reps when the class action lawyers have the media in tow.
See also - http://tuesday1st.blogspot.com/2009/05/doh-1998-2008-england-ssri-snri_07.html#comments
& note how innocent individuals are targeted
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/psychiatry-research/message/21308
See also - http://tuesday1st.blogspot.com/2009/05/doh-1998-2008-england-ssri-snri_07.html#comments
& note how innocent individuals are targeted
Monday, 5 July 2010
Friendly advice to Bob buffoon - June 2001
Bob, I have been reading your posts regarding your problems in the work force.
My friendly advice to you is this: Stop posting about it.
They are making the NG uncomfortable, they are casting you as a
buffoon in the eyes of many, and speaking for myself, the NG has
seemed to become alt.whataboutbob.trials.and.tribulations
Now, you have contributed alot to the NG in the positive sense, with
your NG website and such, but really, the last couple of days of
posting have been really kinda embarrassing to watcha, entertaining,
but embarrassing.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/78b377eb0eda3e62/6142dcf5a08a5667?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+buffoon&pli=1
My friendly advice to you is this: Stop posting about it.
They are making the NG uncomfortable, they are casting you as a
seemed to become alt.whataboutbob.trials.and.tribulations
Now, you have contributed alot to the NG in the positive sense, with
your NG website and such, but really, the last couple of days of
posting have been really kinda embarrassing to watcha, entertaining,
but embarrassing.
http://groups.google.co.uk/group/alt.rock-n-roll.acdc/browse_thread/thread/78b377eb0eda3e62/6142dcf5a08a5667?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=fiddaman+buffoon&pli=1
Saturday, 3 July 2010
Seroxat Panorama 4.7 million prescriptions but the BBC only received 1374 emails
An estimated 4.4m people recently watched “Secrets of Seroxat” (Panorama, BBC-TV), a 50-minute
programme about paroxetine, an SSRI antidepressant for which UK general practitioners wrote an estimated
4.7m prescriptions in 2001. The programme attracted a record response, including some 65,000
telephone calls, 124,000 website hits, and 1,374 emails.We systematically analysed the contents of these
emails, and in this paper consider how they might help clinicians and their patients, as well as providing
an indispensable element in pharmacovigilance and post-marketing drug surveillance.
Following publication of an extensive review [1], one of us (CM) has also managed a website
(ADWEB) on which user problems relating to paroxetine and other SSRI antidepressants have been
widely discussed, both editorially and in unmoderated ‘discussion boards’. For comparison we also examined 862 emails posted to this website before the Panorama broadcast (13 October 2002). These
emails came from one major ‘thread’ of an interactive (user to user) discussion on ADWEB, about problems
of paroxetine withdrawal [2].
Together with MIND (National Association of Mental Health), Panorama later developed a questionnaire
that was sent to those who had emailed the programme (excluding reports of suicide, which were
followed up individually). Replies to this questionnaire were analysed separately; the results were reported
to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA).
Most of this evidence has been posted on the Internet, inviting further examination and critical analysis
[3]. Based partly on this feedback, a follow-up Panorama programme is provisionally scheduled for
May 2003.
programme about paroxetine, an SSRI antidepressant for which UK general practitioners wrote an estimated
4.7m prescriptions in 2001. The programme attracted a record response, including some 65,000
telephone calls, 124,000 website hits, and 1,374 emails.We systematically analysed the contents of these
emails, and in this paper consider how they might help clinicians and their patients, as well as providing
an indispensable element in pharmacovigilance and post-marketing drug surveillance.
Following publication of an extensive review [1], one of us (CM) has also managed a website
(ADWEB) on which user problems relating to paroxetine and other SSRI antidepressants have been
widely discussed, both editorially and in unmoderated ‘discussion boards’. For comparison we also examined 862 emails posted to this website before the Panorama broadcast (13 October 2002). These
emails came from one major ‘thread’ of an interactive (user to user) discussion on ADWEB, about problems
of paroxetine withdrawal [2].
Together with MIND (National Association of Mental Health), Panorama later developed a questionnaire
that was sent to those who had emailed the programme (excluding reports of suicide, which were
followed up individually). Replies to this questionnaire were analysed separately; the results were reported
to the Medicines Control Agency (MCA).
Most of this evidence has been posted on the Internet, inviting further examination and critical analysis
[3]. Based partly on this feedback, a follow-up Panorama programme is provisionally scheduled for
May 2003.
Paroxetine, Panorama and user reporting of ADR's
Charles Medawar a,∗, Andrew Herxheimer b, Andrew Bell c and Shelley Jofre c
a Social Audit Ltd., London, UK
bDIPEx Project, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
c British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), London, UK
http://www.motkur.no/paroxetine.pdf
Abstract. We systematically analysed two complementary samples of emails relating to patients’ problems with the popular SSRI antidepressant, paroxetine. These mainly concerned serious mood disorders and drug withdrawal symptoms. 1,374 emails were immediate responses to a major BBC-TV documentary programme. These were contrasted with 862 messages on similar themes sent to a website discussion forum over a period of nearly three years. Despite the limitations of most individual email reports, we judged their collective weight to be profound. We also suggest that the value of “immersion” in a large body of such
data may be greater than continuing exposure to a variable trickle of reports.We discuss the significance of these data in relation to the patient–prescriber relationship and pharmacovigilance. We suggest that the Internet offers unparalleled opportunities for soliciting and monitoring patients’ reports of adverse drug reactions, and propose practical initiatives to capture peoples’ experiences and thereby promote safer and more effective drug use.
read on - http://www.motkur.no/paroxetine.pdf
a Social Audit Ltd., London, UK
bDIPEx Project, Department of Primary Health Care, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
c British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), London, UK
http://www.motkur.no/paroxetine.pdf
Abstract. We systematically analysed two complementary samples of emails relating to patients’ problems with the popular SSRI antidepressant, paroxetine. These mainly concerned serious mood disorders and drug withdrawal symptoms. 1,374 emails were immediate responses to a major BBC-TV documentary programme. These were contrasted with 862 messages on similar themes sent to a website discussion forum over a period of nearly three years. Despite the limitations of most individual email reports, we judged their collective weight to be profound. We also suggest that the value of “immersion” in a large body of such
data may be greater than continuing exposure to a variable trickle of reports.We discuss the significance of these data in relation to the patient–prescriber relationship and pharmacovigilance. We suggest that the Internet offers unparalleled opportunities for soliciting and monitoring patients’ reports of adverse drug reactions, and propose practical initiatives to capture peoples’ experiences and thereby promote safer and more effective drug use.
read on - http://www.motkur.no/paroxetine.pdf
Bob Fiddaman to give up blogging - yes, no maybe?
originally posted here
http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2010/07/sara-carlin-inquest-setting-record.html
available now here via extract from Google cache - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-q7ZK0D0DbcJ:fiddaman.blogspot.com/2010/07/sara-carlin-inquest-setting-record.html+fiddaman+hiatus+from+blogging&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
read it in full here - Fiddaman's words on google cache -
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-q7ZK0D0DbcJ:fiddaman.blogspot.com/2010/07/sara-carlin-inquest-setting-record.html+fiddaman+hiatus+from+blogging&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2010/07/sara-carlin-inquest-setting-record.html
available now here via extract from Google cache - http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-q7ZK0D0DbcJ:fiddaman.blogspot.com/2010/07/sara-carlin-inquest-setting-record.html+fiddaman+hiatus+from+blogging&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
read it in full here - Fiddaman's words on google cache -
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:-q7ZK0D0DbcJ:fiddaman.blogspot.com/2010/07/sara-carlin-inquest-setting-record.html+fiddaman+hiatus+from+blogging&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=uk
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)