Sunday, 27 February 2011
Paxil lawyer Aaron Zigler trawling for clients on Pxilprogress - $13,000 per hour guy joins mental health forum ???
I am one of the lawyers who represent the class in this case. So since it sounds like you are a class member - I'm your lawyer.
If you want to talk, I'm available and I would be happy to discuss...
http://www.paxilprogress.org/forums/search.php?searchid=972260
Aaron Zigler of Korein Tillery - class action lawyers earning up to $13,000 per lawyer per hour
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/article_6930a99c-412f-11e0-990b-0017a4a78c22.html
Among the victories: a $30 million settlement with Publisher's Clearing House announced in 2000 over misleading advertising; in 2001, a $40 million deal with First USA Bank over improper late fees; and a $90 million agreement with WorldCom Inc. to refund overbilling.
In 2002, AT&T and Lucent Technologies settled allegations of phone sales fraud for $350 million, and Pfizer agreed to pay $60 million in 2004 over false marketing accusations.
Tillery's latest win came in April when GlaxoSmithKline settled for almost $64 million over claims its antidepressant Paxil was more dangerous and less effective for children than marketed.
Tillery and his colleagues have taken home tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in fees, according to court records in lawsuits stemming from the firm's reorganization a few years ago. They will share some $16 million from the Paxil settlement alone.
But some critics say Tillery's success is simply the result of knowing how to work the system. They point to the Lucent settlement: Lawyers got $84 million in fees, but the company reported later that it paid out one-tenth of that - $8.4 million - to the people who claimed harm. In the Philip Morris case, nearly $1.8 billion in fees was roughly $13,000 per lawyer per hour.
extracted from - He says he fights for you. Critics say he's after the purse
Saturday, 26 February 2011
Hoormann, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline - Stephen Tillery and Aaron Zigler of Korein Tillery
Date: 05-26-2007
Case Style: Teri Hoormann, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Beecham Corp.
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=04-L-715&s=IL&d=33248
Case Number: 04-L-715
Judge: Ralph J. Mendelsohn
Court: Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Stephen Tillery and Aaron Zigler of Korein Tillery, St. Louis, Missouri and Stephen A. Swedlow of Swedlow & Associates, LLC, Chicago, Illinois
Defendant's Attorney:
Dwight Davis of King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, New York
Description:
The plaintiffs in this class action individually and on behalf of other purchasers of Paxil� manufactured and sold by GlaxoSmithKline Beecham, PLC claimed that although GSK had actual knowledge that Paxil would not work and would expose children and adolescents to dangerous side effects, it promoted Paxil� for prescription to children and adolescents while withholding and concealing negative information concerning its safety and effectiveness. Paxil� is a drug that is FDA approved used to treat depression and anxiety disorders in adults. It has not been approved for use by children. It belongs to the family of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). Also called paroxetine hydrochloride.
GlaxoSmithKline denied claims it promoted the drug to children while withholding information about negative side effects, including increased suicidal behavior. Defendant admitted no wrongdoing.
Outcome: Settled for an estimated maximum cost to Defendant of $63.8 million. Both sides agreed to a proposed settlement to avoid the cost and risk of a trial. The proposed settlement does not mean GlaxoSmithKline did anything wrong or that it violated any laws. The Class Representatives and the lawyers representing them think the proposed settlement is best for all Class Members. A $63.8 million fund will be established. Attorneys� fees, expenses, payments to Class Representatives and the costs of providing notice and administering the proposed settlement will be deducted from the fund. The balance will be used to pay consumers who submit valid claim forms in cash for the total amount they paid out of pocket, for Paxil� or Paxil CR�. The maximum amount you can receive from the proposed settlement is 100% of the amount you paid for Paxil� or Paxil CR�. Claimants will be paid $100 for Paxil� purchased by them. If, however, the total claims exceed the amount in the fund claimants could get less than $100. Anyone with a personal injury claim, including the parents of teenagers who took their own lives while taking Paxil, still can sue GlaxoSmithKline, as can insurers and governmental agencies who actually paid the bulk of the money. spacer
Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown
Defendant's Experts: Unknown
Comments: The Court awarded attorneys fees and cost in the amount of 26% of the settlement fund. The court also awarded a payment of $5,000 for each of the class representatives. Go to: How to file a Paxil claim at http://www.paxilpediatricsettlementc.om. Claims must be received by August 31, 2007.
Editor's Note: It is highly unlikely that Defendant will pay out all of the settlement fund despite publication of notice and other efforts to inform the parents of children who were given Paxil.
Case Style: Teri Hoormann, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline Beecham Corp.
http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?n=04-L-715&s=IL&d=33248
Case Number: 04-L-715
Judge: Ralph J. Mendelsohn
Court: Circuit Court, Madison County, Illinois
Plaintiff's Attorney:
Stephen Tillery and Aaron Zigler of Korein Tillery, St. Louis, Missouri and Stephen A. Swedlow of Swedlow & Associates, LLC, Chicago, Illinois
Defendant's Attorney:
Dwight Davis of King & Spalding LLP, Atlanta, New York
Description:
The plaintiffs in this class action individually and on behalf of other purchasers of Paxil� manufactured and sold by GlaxoSmithKline Beecham, PLC claimed that although GSK had actual knowledge that Paxil would not work and would expose children and adolescents to dangerous side effects, it promoted Paxil� for prescription to children and adolescents while withholding and concealing negative information concerning its safety and effectiveness. Paxil� is a drug that is FDA approved used to treat depression and anxiety disorders in adults. It has not been approved for use by children. It belongs to the family of drugs called selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRI). Also called paroxetine hydrochloride.
GlaxoSmithKline denied claims it promoted the drug to children while withholding information about negative side effects, including increased suicidal behavior. Defendant admitted no wrongdoing.
Outcome: Settled for an estimated maximum cost to Defendant of $63.8 million. Both sides agreed to a proposed settlement to avoid the cost and risk of a trial. The proposed settlement does not mean GlaxoSmithKline did anything wrong or that it violated any laws. The Class Representatives and the lawyers representing them think the proposed settlement is best for all Class Members. A $63.8 million fund will be established. Attorneys� fees, expenses, payments to Class Representatives and the costs of providing notice and administering the proposed settlement will be deducted from the fund. The balance will be used to pay consumers who submit valid claim forms in cash for the total amount they paid out of pocket, for Paxil� or Paxil CR�. The maximum amount you can receive from the proposed settlement is 100% of the amount you paid for Paxil� or Paxil CR�. Claimants will be paid $100 for Paxil� purchased by them. If, however, the total claims exceed the amount in the fund claimants could get less than $100. Anyone with a personal injury claim, including the parents of teenagers who took their own lives while taking Paxil, still can sue GlaxoSmithKline, as can insurers and governmental agencies who actually paid the bulk of the money. spacer
Plaintiff's Experts: Unknown
Defendant's Experts: Unknown
Comments: The Court awarded attorneys fees and cost in the amount of 26% of the settlement fund. The court also awarded a payment of $5,000 for each of the class representatives. Go to: How to file a Paxil claim at http://www.paxilpediatricsettlementc.om. Claims must be received by August 31, 2007.
Editor's Note: It is highly unlikely that Defendant will pay out all of the settlement fund despite publication of notice and other efforts to inform the parents of children who were given Paxil.
PAXIL lawyer got $16 million but patients got $15 to $100
Plaintiffs in $63 million Paxil case claim 'objectors' violated RICO in new class action
6/9/2007 5:00 PM By Steve Gonzalez -Edwardsville Bureau
http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/196484-plaintiffs-in-63-million-paxil-case-claim-objectors-violated-rico-in-new-class-action
Stephen Swedlow
Plaintiffs who won a nationwide $63.8 million Paxil class action case have filed another claim in Madison County Circuit Court alleging two lawyers and a citizen from Florida conspired to exploit the U.S. legal system for their own personal gain.
Last month Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn approved the whopping settlement against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in a case that alleged the pharmaceutical company promoted Paxil and Paxil CR to children under 18, while withholding information about Paxil's safety and effectiveness.
Teri Hoormann and Mary Kopsie were the class representatives in that case and again in the new one filed June 7.
In the newer case, Hoormann and Kopsie accuse defendants who objected to the settlement, lawyers N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. and Paul S. Rothstein, and citizen Lillian Rogers, of "extortionate behavior" that has caused damages to consumers across the country, while enriching the trio and their alleged co-conspirators with millions of dollars.
"As a result of these illegal activities, defendants are individually liable for three-times the amount that they have gained," the complaint states.
Hoormann and Kopsie are represented by Stephen Swedlow of Chicago. Swedlow is one of the class attorneys in the Paxil case along with Stephen Tillery.
Tillery is not listed on the new class action, though he and Swedlow work closely in several class actions in Madison County.
Hoormann and Kopsie claim Bacharach and Rothstein assisted Rogers in preparing a "frivolous" objection to the Paxil class action settlement.
Under the settlement, anyone who purchased Paxil for someone under 18 will get 100 percent of their out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed if they have proof and file a claim by Aug. 31.
Anyone who does not have proof of purchase is still entitled to receive up to $100 if the claim is supported by an affidavit swearing that Paxil was purchased.
Hoormann and Kopsie allege the objection filed by the Florida trio was not filed in good faith and was intended to mask their wrongful threat to cause economic harm by impeding and delaying payment of the settlement unless they were paid money to which they have no lawful claim.
"Rogers' sworn testimony reveals that her total damages in the Hoorman matter were 'less than $40 but not more than $60' for which the settlement provides full recovery," the complaint states.
They claim that as a result of the defendants actions, they realized that their lawful benefits will be delayed thus causing them damage.
However, on the day of the fairness hearing on April 26, which was delayed about a month because of a scheduling conflict with Mendelsohn, objector attorneys actually negotiated a better settlement for the class.
Tillery also reportedly gave some of the objectors money out of the $16.8 million in attorneys fees he was to receive in an effort to execute the settlement.
Under the preliminary agreement, undocumented claimants would have only received $15, but during negotiations, GSK raised the amount and removed the $300,000 cap on undocumented claims.
GSK had asked for the cap on undocumented claims so that it could cut losses on people who never purchased Paxil, but filed a claim anyway as a way to make a quick dollar.
Tillery also reached a settlement with attorneys in a competing class action that will compensate attorneys for the work they did.
Hoormann and Kopsie also claim this is not the first time this group of lawyers have "abused and misused" the legal process to extort money to which they have no lawful claim.
They claim the defendants are part of an enterprise that consists of themselves, other "objector" attorneys and other people who serve as objectors in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
"The Enterprise is an ongoing organization, which engages in, and whose activities affect interstate commerce," the complaint states.
Hoormann and Kopsie claim the three lawyers maintain an interest in and control of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
According to Hoormann and Kopsie, the defendants' control and participation in the enterprise is necessary for the successful operation of their scheme.
"In order to successfully obtain monies and other considerations from class settlements, defendants had to have a system which allows them to exact leverage over those classes," the complaint states. "The Enterprise provides defendants that ability."
6/9/2007 5:00 PM By Steve Gonzalez -Edwardsville Bureau
http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/196484-plaintiffs-in-63-million-paxil-case-claim-objectors-violated-rico-in-new-class-action
Stephen Swedlow
Plaintiffs who won a nationwide $63.8 million Paxil class action case have filed another claim in Madison County Circuit Court alleging two lawyers and a citizen from Florida conspired to exploit the U.S. legal system for their own personal gain.
Last month Madison County Associate Judge Ralph Mendelsohn approved the whopping settlement against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) in a case that alleged the pharmaceutical company promoted Paxil and Paxil CR to children under 18, while withholding information about Paxil's safety and effectiveness.
Teri Hoormann and Mary Kopsie were the class representatives in that case and again in the new one filed June 7.
In the newer case, Hoormann and Kopsie accuse defendants who objected to the settlement, lawyers N. Albert Bacharach, Jr. and Paul S. Rothstein, and citizen Lillian Rogers, of "extortionate behavior" that has caused damages to consumers across the country, while enriching the trio and their alleged co-conspirators with millions of dollars.
"As a result of these illegal activities, defendants are individually liable for three-times the amount that they have gained," the complaint states.
Hoormann and Kopsie are represented by Stephen Swedlow of Chicago. Swedlow is one of the class attorneys in the Paxil case along with Stephen Tillery.
Tillery is not listed on the new class action, though he and Swedlow work closely in several class actions in Madison County.
Hoormann and Kopsie claim Bacharach and Rothstein assisted Rogers in preparing a "frivolous" objection to the Paxil class action settlement.
Under the settlement, anyone who purchased Paxil for someone under 18 will get 100 percent of their out-of-pocket expenses reimbursed if they have proof and file a claim by Aug. 31.
Anyone who does not have proof of purchase is still entitled to receive up to $100 if the claim is supported by an affidavit swearing that Paxil was purchased.
Hoormann and Kopsie allege the objection filed by the Florida trio was not filed in good faith and was intended to mask their wrongful threat to cause economic harm by impeding and delaying payment of the settlement unless they were paid money to which they have no lawful claim.
"Rogers' sworn testimony reveals that her total damages in the Hoorman matter were 'less than $40 but not more than $60' for which the settlement provides full recovery," the complaint states.
They claim that as a result of the defendants actions, they realized that their lawful benefits will be delayed thus causing them damage.
However, on the day of the fairness hearing on April 26, which was delayed about a month because of a scheduling conflict with Mendelsohn, objector attorneys actually negotiated a better settlement for the class.
Tillery also reportedly gave some of the objectors money out of the $16.8 million in attorneys fees he was to receive in an effort to execute the settlement.
Under the preliminary agreement, undocumented claimants would have only received $15, but during negotiations, GSK raised the amount and removed the $300,000 cap on undocumented claims.
GSK had asked for the cap on undocumented claims so that it could cut losses on people who never purchased Paxil, but filed a claim anyway as a way to make a quick dollar.
Tillery also reached a settlement with attorneys in a competing class action that will compensate attorneys for the work they did.
Hoormann and Kopsie also claim this is not the first time this group of lawyers have "abused and misused" the legal process to extort money to which they have no lawful claim.
They claim the defendants are part of an enterprise that consists of themselves, other "objector" attorneys and other people who serve as objectors in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).
"The Enterprise is an ongoing organization, which engages in, and whose activities affect interstate commerce," the complaint states.
Hoormann and Kopsie claim the three lawyers maintain an interest in and control of the enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity.
According to Hoormann and Kopsie, the defendants' control and participation in the enterprise is necessary for the successful operation of their scheme.
"In order to successfully obtain monies and other considerations from class settlements, defendants had to have a system which allows them to exact leverage over those classes," the complaint states. "The Enterprise provides defendants that ability."
PAXIL lawyers made $16 million from GSK settlement
He says he fights for you. Critics say he's after the purse
http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/article_6930a99c-412f-11e0-990b-0017a4a78c22.html
A pack of Marlboro Lights looks a lot like it did years ago. There's the gold crest of Philip Morris, and the surgeon general's warning - quitting smoking is better for your health.
But one phrase emblazoned on packages for decades - "Lowered Tar & Nicotine" - is gone. Lawyer Stephen Tillery asserts he is largely responsible.
In 2003, Tillery and a team of lawyers won $10.1 billion in a class action lawsuit over claims that Philip Morris' "lowered tar & nicotine" marketing was a lie. It was the first win for an attorney fighting a tobacco company over consumer fraud. Almost simultaneously, Philip Morris wiped the proclamation from its packaging.
Anti-tobacco activists claimed a short-lived victory. Two years later, on technical grounds, the Illinois Supreme Court tossed out the case and Tillery's nearly $1.8 billion in fees.
Tillery refuses to admit defeat. He has pushed the lawsuit back to the state high court, essentially arguing the justices got it wrong.
The case highlights conflicting portraits of Tillery and the class action system. Like many trial lawyers, he sees himself as a prize fighter for consumers, keeping corporations honest. Critics say he may be that skilled boxer, but is in it only for the purse.
UNJUST STRATEGIES
Tillery relishes the chance to discuss the Philip Morris case.
In an interview, he talks rapidly about tobacco-specific nitrosamines, the psychology of smoking, nicotine addiction, Philip Morris' strategies, puff sizes and deep tissue lung cancers.
He is no longer just outlining the case that won him the biggest-ever award in Illinois. Tillery is trying to win it again.
His claim is that Philip Morris designed its cigarettes to fool Federal Trade Commission analysis machines to produce a lower readout of tar and nicotine than smokers actually inhale. He argues consumers thought they were getting something safer, because of that little phrase "Lowered Tar & Nicotine."
"Smoking Marlboro Lights, you're actually more likely to get cancer than you are smoking Marlboro Reds, " Tillery says.
The tobacco company denies many of his arguments. Altria, Philip Morris' parent company, declined to comment for this story but opposes reopening the case.
Tillery found motivation in his mother-in-law's death: "She smoked Marlboro Lights, had for years, thought they were better for her. She was just a wonderful, wonderful, wonderful lady and died in less than a year from metastasized lung cancer."
He also has paid to help his own office employees to kick the habit.
PEOPLE'S CHAMP
From his U.S. Bank building offices, 36 floors above downtown St. Louis, Tillery can almost see into the ballpark. Few others have a higher window on this part of the Midwest. Not bad for a man who grew up in Divernon, Ill., a hamlet south of Springfield with a population of 1,145.
The son of working-class parents - his father was a diesel mechanic, his mother worked at a bank - Tillery represented railroad workers early in his career. That work led to allegations he paid union officials to steer cases his way. He was acquitted of some federal racketeering charges in 1993 and prosecutors dropped others.
He eventually focused on class action law, and his firm, Korein Tillery, and its predecessor, Carr Korein Tillery, have claimed more than $1 billion in class action verdicts and settlements in recent years.
Among the victories: a $30 million settlement with Publisher's Clearing House announced in 2000 over misleading advertising; in 2001, a $40 million deal with First USA Bank over improper late fees; and a $90 million agreement with WorldCom Inc. to refund overbilling.
In 2002, AT&T and Lucent Technologies settled allegations of phone sales fraud for $350 million, and Pfizer agreed to pay $60 million in 2004 over false marketing accusations.
Tillery's latest win came in April when GlaxoSmithKline settled for almost $64 million over claims its antidepressant Paxil was more dangerous and less effective for children than marketed.
Tillery and his colleagues have taken home tens, if not hundreds, of millions of dollars in fees, according to court records in lawsuits stemming from the firm's reorganization a few years ago. They will share some $16 million from the Paxil settlement alone.
But some critics say Tillery's success is simply the result of knowing how to work the system. They point to the Lucent settlement: Lawyers got $84 million in fees, but the company reported later that it paid out one-tenth of that - $8.4 million - to the people who claimed harm. In the Philip Morris case, nearly $1.8 billion in fees was roughly $13,000 per lawyer per hour.
After the Post-Dispatch disclosed the discrepancy between the lawyers' fees and the payout to plaintiffs in the Lucent case, Tillery went back to court to try to get Lucent to pay out more money.
Tillery's defenders point to the millions of people who have been eligible for refunds.
"(His career) is not about making the money, " said Judy Cates, a Swansea lawyer, former law partner with Tillery and the past president of the Illinois Trial Lawyers Association. "It's about helping people."
Nonetheless, those figures have prompted a campaign from business interests that want class action reform legislation. President George W. Bush himself came to Madison County to deliver a speech for federal tort reform, including the Class Action Fairness Act passed in 2005.
"Mr. Tillery is the poster child for big-dollar, worldwide, eye-catching, anti-business lawsuits, " said state Sen. Kirk Dillard, R-Westmont, who has sponsored tort reform legislation.
Tillery says that class actions are unfairly maligned. The media only reports fees, not the facts, he says. When asked about the critics of his multimillion-dollar paychecks - he gets flustered.
"If a person came in with a $5,000 claim against Philip Morris and said, 'I want to pursue a consumer fraud claim, not for personal injury, but to recover my damages, ' how could you ever take that case? How could anybody spend millions of dollars in anticipating a verdict for damages that hardly amount to anything?"
TOP ACCESS
For all his success, Tillery is unassuming. During an interview in his office, he is laid-back, wearing a white polo shirt and slacks. He doesn't talk about what he does with his millions.
His political contributions, though, are no secret. In the past 10 years, he has channeled over $150,000 to mostly Democratic state and local candidates and groups in Illinois and Missouri, according to campaign finance reports. He's given tens of thousands more on the federal level.
His and his firm's political contributions, including those to Nicholas G. Byron, the judge who handed down the Philip Morris decision, have opened Tillery up to criticism. Activists allege that the campaign donations from attorneys give the trial bar an advantage in the Edwardsville court house.
Judges and Tillery himself decry that suggestion. But it's clear his money in some instances has earned him access to high-ranking politicians.
"Steve's been a great supporter and a great friend, " said Democratic presidential hopeful John Edwards, a successful trial lawyer in his own right, whose recent fundraiser in St. Louis was hosted at Tillery's law office. "People like that play an important role."
But Tillery's donations go beyond politics, friends argue.
Dr. Patricia Wolff heads Meds and Food for Kids, a St. Louis nonprofit that operates a nutrition and health program in Haiti. She calls Tillery her biggest donor. At her first fundraiser, he came uninvited to offer a challenge: "I'll give $30,000 if someone else will match it."
Tillery has since gone to Haiti twice to volunteer. While there, "he basically bought $1,000 of shoes for a village, " Wolff said.
A 'CAREER EVENT'
Philip Morris had many arguments against Tillery at trial, but the state Supreme Court's decision to toss out the award hinged primarily on one point. The justices ruled the corporation was protected from a consumer fraud claim because the Federal Trade Commission had authorized the use of the labels about lowered tar and nicotine.
But anti-tobacco activists say that's not true and cite recent briefs from the U.S. Solicitor General and a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court opinion this summer in a separate case. Those documents may give Tillery enough ground to ask the Illinois Supreme Court to reconsider, said Edward Sweda, of the Tobacco Products Liability Project at Northeastern University in Boston.
It's hardly certain the state court would reverse itself, but Tillery's attempt has already raised alarm bells.
"He is probably one of the most creative and greedy of all the trial lawyers, " said Ed Murnane, president of the Illinois Civil Justice League, a pro-tort reform political lobby that has routinely criticized Tillery and other plaintiff attorneys. "Here's a guy that has a case that has been shot down by the Illinois Supreme Court, and yet, here he is, he's still trying to figure out a way to open the case."
But for Tillery, Byron's verdict was a "career event" that got him named one of the 10 lawyers of the year in 2003 by Lawyers USA, a national legal magazine. He estimates more than $14 million has been spent first to win and then to resurrect the case.
Don't expect him to give up soon. Even if he fails against Philip Morris, he represents plaintiffs in two nearly identical claims; lawsuits against cigarette companies Brown & Williams and R.J. Reynolds have already been filed in Madison County.
Toran Henry & Sara Carlin - what do they have in common - substance abuse & binge drinking
++++++++
Experts also point out that depression and anxiety can manifest as agitation and irritability in adolescents, as can substance abuse which, in Toran's case, mainly involved binge drinking.
The grimmest evidence a coroner learned during a two-week inquest into an Oakville teen’s suicide was her heavy cocaine and booze consumption, he told a jury in his summary Tuesday
++++++++
The coroner told the jury that trying to determine a direct link between Paxil and Carlin’s suicide posed a “serious challenge” for them. He said he learned of her cocaine and alcohol use only during testimony.
The Evidence is Clear, that in latching on to these tragic events, Fiddaman is only giving that part of the Story, that he thinks, will give him a one way ticket into the new world.
Am I a Commissioner for CCHR? No, but I sure would like to be
PAXIL - Judge dismisses Ragsdale suit against doctors
Judge dismisses Ragsdale suit against doctors
By Erin Alberty
The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Feb 25 2011 07:01PM
Updated Feb 25, 2011 07:01PM
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit that claimed David Ragsdale's prescription medications contributed to him shooting his wife to death in a Lehi church parking lot in 2008.
The children of David and Kristy Ragsdale, through their conservator, had sued their father's doctor and nurse practitioner for prescribing antidepressants and other medications that allegedly carried risks of psychiatric complications. Third District Judge Denise Lindberg dismissed the case earlier this month, writing that the children could not pursue a medical malpractice lawsuit because they were not the patients.
"The Court is not persuaded that ... the non-patient plaintiffs may step into David Ragsdale's shoes to pursue a malpractice lawsuit," Lindberg wrote.
The Ragsdale children were 4 and 19 months old when David Ragsdale approached his wife, Kristy, in their church parking lot during Sunday meeting Jan. 6, 2008. He gunned down Kristy, 30, who had requested a restraining order against him.
In the months before the murder, his nurse practitioner, Trina West, prescribed a cocktail of steroids, antidepressants and other medications, the lawsuit claimed. Other drugs were added to the combination one month before the shooting at an appointment where David Ragsdale discussed his marital problems and the restraining order, the suit alleged.
Ragsdale, who pleaded guitly to first-degree felony aggravated murder, said he took full responsibility for his wife's death but would not have murdered her had he not been on medications.
His children's lawsuit sought damages from West, Ragsdale's physician Hugo Rodier and Pioneer Comprehensive Medical Clinic.
The clinic's attorney has said Ragsdale's care was "exceptional and appropriate," and other qualified health care providers would have made similar decisions.
Lindberg's decision does not address whether the medications played a role in the murder of Kristy Ragsdale.
David Ragsdale was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51291409-76/ragsdale-david-lawsuit-medications.html.csp
By Erin Alberty
The Salt Lake Tribune
First published Feb 25 2011 07:01PM
Updated Feb 25, 2011 07:01PM
A judge has dismissed a lawsuit that claimed David Ragsdale's prescription medications contributed to him shooting his wife to death in a Lehi church parking lot in 2008.
The children of David and Kristy Ragsdale, through their conservator, had sued their father's doctor and nurse practitioner for prescribing antidepressants and other medications that allegedly carried risks of psychiatric complications. Third District Judge Denise Lindberg dismissed the case earlier this month, writing that the children could not pursue a medical malpractice lawsuit because they were not the patients.
"The Court is not persuaded that ... the non-patient plaintiffs may step into David Ragsdale's shoes to pursue a malpractice lawsuit," Lindberg wrote.
The Ragsdale children were 4 and 19 months old when David Ragsdale approached his wife, Kristy, in their church parking lot during Sunday meeting Jan. 6, 2008. He gunned down Kristy, 30, who had requested a restraining order against him.
In the months before the murder, his nurse practitioner, Trina West, prescribed a cocktail of steroids, antidepressants and other medications, the lawsuit claimed. Other drugs were added to the combination one month before the shooting at an appointment where David Ragsdale discussed his marital problems and the restraining order, the suit alleged.
Ragsdale, who pleaded guitly to first-degree felony aggravated murder, said he took full responsibility for his wife's death but would not have murdered her had he not been on medications.
His children's lawsuit sought damages from West, Ragsdale's physician Hugo Rodier and Pioneer Comprehensive Medical Clinic.
The clinic's attorney has said Ragsdale's care was "exceptional and appropriate," and other qualified health care providers would have made similar decisions.
Lindberg's decision does not address whether the medications played a role in the murder of Kristy Ragsdale.
David Ragsdale was sentenced to 20 years to life in prison.
http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/home/51291409-76/ragsdale-david-lawsuit-medications.html.csp
Prozac New Zealand - Toran Henry used Prozac as "recreational drug"
* Medicated him immediately without conducting a thorough assessment
* Made no diagnosis of depression or any other mental disorder
* Failed to monitor his reaction to medication
* Ignored Toran and Maria’s repeated reports that he was suffering the sideeffects of medication which are known pre-cursors of suicide
* Failed to treat general medical conditions revealed in blood tests undertaken by his GP at his mother’s request
* Failed to check that concurrent use of an SSRI and Toran’s migraine medication was safe (it is not, and can cause potentially fatal serotonin syndrome).
* Provided Toran with a pamphlet advising that SSRIs protect against suicide and that it is safe to overdose on Prozac. (This pamphlet has been withdrawn after the Ministry of Health advised Waitemata District Health Board [WDHB] that overdosing on Prozac can be fatal).
* Took no action when she discovered Toran had used fluoxetine as a recreational drug and self harmed several hours later.
* In error provided Toran with prescriptions for 6 months worth of Prozac in a 24 day period.
* Increased his dose of medication in response to Toran’s worsening moods and behaviours.
Surely even a psychiatric registrar would know the dangers of stopping an SSRi abruptly? It's basically cold turkey and although Prozac has a longer half life than most SSRi's, more than 48 hours without it could push even the mildest mannered of people over the edge.
Friday, 25 February 2011
Seroxat - was David Healy kite flying & the lay media blew it out of all proportion - Healy proposes a debate
extract from - http://www.healyprozac.com/ re - Goodwin Healy Debate.doc
Department of Psychological Medicine
Hergest Unit
Ysbyty Gwynedd
BANGOR
Gwynedd LL57 2PW
Tel : (01248) 384452
Fax : (01248) 371397
12th October 2004
Professor Guy Goodwin
WA Handley Professor of Psychiatry
University Department of Psychiatry
Warneford Hospital
Headington
Oxford
OX3 7JX
Dear Guy
In the wake of the recent Panorama programme the BMJ ran an editorial by John
Geddes, as it has previously run commentaries by Phil and others after previous
programmes. The editorial, and a further piece in that edition of the BMJ by
Patrick Waller, suggests that the harm the media may be doing in this area may
outweigh any good.
The problem, John’s editorial suggests, if it exists at all, is small. However, even
a very small problem multiplied up by 50-100 million people can become the
biggest drug problem of all time. It is a matter of some importance therefore to
establish whether there is a problem or not, or perhaps a problem on balance or
not.
Patrick Waller’s piece complained that distinguished voices gave rise to concerns
but no data was presented. Programmes like Panorama however are not well
suited to the presentation of data. They do not pretend to offer an academic
forum.
To this end I am writing to you to propose a public airing of the issues. A debate
is one format but the volume of available data that needs to be presented may
make this unrealistic. Also, my experience of other debates in this area is that
this format can become quite ad hominem, owing to canvassing by some of the
companies who have attempted to cloud the issues by planting questions aimed
at impugning my motives and otherwise throwing sand in the eyes of any
audience.
A better format might involve a somewhat lengthier exposition of the clinical trial
and epidemiological evidence than a debate would allow in a manner that might
manuscript and slides.
Whatever format, it would be a good idea if the audience included
representatives of the major academic media such as the BMJ, the Lancet and
the British Journal of Psychiatry. It would also be useful to have representatives
of Panorama, the Guardian and other media of your choosing, as well
representatives from the regulatory apparatus and even formal company
representation. If the issues have been blown out of all proportion by the lay
media, I would imagine it should be pretty clear at the end of the evening that this
was the case and that this might dispel undue media frenzy. I agree fully that, if I
am wrong on the issues, dispelling misconceptions would be for the best. For
this reason I would invite you to set up a presentation/encounter. Editorials and
comments even in the BMJ are no substitute for a proper and open debate.
I will also be writing to Robin Murray on this issue, as even before this latest fuss
I had proposed such an idea to Simon Wessely.
Yours sincerely
Dr David Healy
Director of the North Wales Department of Psychological Medicine
cc.
Professor John Geddes, Senior Clinical Research Fellow, Dept of Psychiatry,
University of Oxford, Warneford Hospital, Headington, Oxford OX3 7JX
Dr Kamran Abbasi, Acting Editor, British Medical Journal, BMJ Publishing Group,
BMA House, Tavistock Square, London WC1H 9JR
Dr Richard Horton, Editor, The Lancet, The Lancet Publishing Group, 32
Jamestown Road, London NW1 7BY
Professor David Weatherall, The Weatherall Institute of Molecular Medicine,
John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford OX3 9DS
Dr M Shooter, President of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, 17 Belgrave
Square, London SW1X 8PG
Professor P Tyrer, Editor, British Journal of Psychiatry, Royal College of
Psychiatrists
Sarah Boseley, Health Correspondent, The Guardian, 119 Farringdon Road,
London EC1R 3ER
SCIENTOLOGY & BOB FIDDAMAN - 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
Thursday, 24 February 2011
GSK says 300 person UK lawsuit on Seroxat is without merit - 2008
GSK says UK lawsuit on Seroxat is without merit
UK News / World News
January 10, 2008
Kevin Grogan
GlaxoSmithKline has again spoken out in defence of Seroxat as reports re-emerged concerning lawsuits being filed in the UK against the firm and its blockbuster antidepressant.
The news agency Bloomberg reported that GSK is being sued for around £15.7 million by over 300 patients who claim the company was negligent or committed a statutory breach of duty dating back to 1997 regarding Seroxat (paroxetine), which is sold as Paxil in the USA. Mark Harvey of Wales-based law firm Hugh James Solicitors filed the suit at the London High Court on December 19 on behalf of the plaintiffs who are alleging that they suffered withdrawal symptoms when stopping treatment of the drug.
The law firm has been speaking to other media outlets over the past few months about the suit but the reality is that the case is not likely to be heard for several years.
A GSK spokesman told PharmaTimes World News that the filing did not represent any call for alarm and the firm does not feel it has any case to answer. He said that "we believe there is no merit in this litigation. Seroxat has benefited millions of people worldwide who have suffered from depression”, adding that “this is a routine step in the litigation which we are continuing to defend."
A class action lawsuit has already been filed against GSK in the USA over paroxetine, which claims that the firm withheld important information on the drug's effect on children. GSK has repeatedly rejected suggestions that it has behaved improperly in terms of covering up unfavourable data.
Links
www.gsk.com
http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/08-01-10/GSK_says_UK_lawsuit_on_Seroxat_is_without_merit.aspx
UK News / World News
January 10, 2008
Kevin Grogan
GlaxoSmithKline has again spoken out in defence of Seroxat as reports re-emerged concerning lawsuits being filed in the UK against the firm and its blockbuster antidepressant.
The news agency Bloomberg reported that GSK is being sued for around £15.7 million by over 300 patients who claim the company was negligent or committed a statutory breach of duty dating back to 1997 regarding Seroxat (paroxetine), which is sold as Paxil in the USA. Mark Harvey of Wales-based law firm Hugh James Solicitors filed the suit at the London High Court on December 19 on behalf of the plaintiffs who are alleging that they suffered withdrawal symptoms when stopping treatment of the drug.
The law firm has been speaking to other media outlets over the past few months about the suit but the reality is that the case is not likely to be heard for several years.
A GSK spokesman told PharmaTimes World News that the filing did not represent any call for alarm and the firm does not feel it has any case to answer. He said that "we believe there is no merit in this litigation. Seroxat has benefited millions of people worldwide who have suffered from depression”, adding that “this is a routine step in the litigation which we are continuing to defend."
A class action lawsuit has already been filed against GSK in the USA over paroxetine, which claims that the firm withheld important information on the drug's effect on children. GSK has repeatedly rejected suggestions that it has behaved improperly in terms of covering up unfavourable data.
Links
www.gsk.com
http://www.pharmatimes.com/Article/08-01-10/GSK_says_UK_lawsuit_on_Seroxat_is_without_merit.aspx
Scientology - Rehabilitation Project Force
The Rehabilitation Project Force, or RPF, is a controversial program set up by the Church of Scientology Sea Organization, intended to rehabilitate members of the Sea Organization (not everyday parishioners) who have not lived up to the Church expectations or have violated certain policies. As part of this program, and in addition to the application of Scientology procedures, members do manual labor tasks around Sea Org bases. There have been some reports of overwork and mistreatment at RPF facilities[1], and the program can take years to complete.[2][3][4]
Contents [hide]
1 Development
2 Controversy
3 Castile Canyon School
4 Motto
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Contents [hide]
1 Development
2 Controversy
3 Castile Canyon School
4 Motto
5 See also
6 References
7 External links
Paxil a short "half life" drug - but Efexor Effexor is much shorter - The Evidence is clear
Seroxat/paroxetine half life = 21 to 26 hours,
Efexor/venlafaxine half life = 5 (5 to 11) hours
Venlafaxine in doses up to 150mg is an SSRI. Over 150 mg it also inhibitsnoradrenaline reuptake. Duloxetine is a potent serotonin reuptake inhibitor butnot selective to the serotonin system
You can access this file at the URL:http://groups.yahoo.com/group/SSRI-Crusaders/files/Healy_Withdrawal_june_09.pdf
Complaint Allegations:
http://bobfiddaman.blogspot.com/2011/02/paxil-withdrawal-reactions-class-action.html
1) The lawsuit further alleges that Paxil is a short "half life" drug which means it leaves
the body at a relatively fast rate. GSK uses this feature to distinguish it from its
competitors alleging that, as a result, it has a shorter
duration of adverse events, decreased drug accumulation over time, better management
of sexual dysfunction, and reduction of time to establish steady state drug regimen. The
great disadvantage of a short half life
substance, however, is that it is more addictive, has a greater tendency to induce
physical and psychological dependency, and causes withdrawal reactions. While these
characteristics of "half life" substances have been well known among Defendant and
psychopharmacologists, such information is not generally known by general practice
physicians or even psychiatrists.
Paxil Withdrawal Reactions Class Action 2001- Fact sheet from Robin McCall of Baum Hedlund
Fact Sheet - Paxil Withdrawal Reactions Class Action
Posted on: Saturday, August 25, 2001 at 16:40:33 (EDT)
http://www.stuartshipko.com/FAQ//paxilclass.html
Paxil is being touted as the "nonaddicting" treatment for panic disorder with a "more favorable side effect profile". It may be that it is highly addicting and loaded with side effects.
Fact Sheet - Paxil Withdrawal Reactions Class Action
The 35 plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are from AZ, CA, CO, FL, IN,KY, LA, MN, MO, NC,
NE, NJ, NV, OK, OR, TN, TX, UT, WI, and WY. Several of them are willing to talk to the
media. If you wish to speak with a victim please call
Robin McCall listed in the contact information.
Plaintiffs' lawyers have argued for years that antidepressants, such as Prozac, Paxil and
Zoloft, can induce some to experience adverse reactions which can result in suicide and
violence.
This summer, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled that had it not been for David
John Hawkins' ingestion of Zoloft, he would not have strangled his wife of 50 years.
Last month GlaxoSmithKline was ordered by a federal jury in Cheyenne,Wyoming to pay
$6.4 million to relatives of Donald Schell, age 60, who had been taking Paxil for just 48
hours when he experienced hallucinations and shot and killed his wife, his daughter, his
granddaughter and then himself.
In the Spring of 2000, a Connecticut man, Christopher DeAngelo, was acquitted of armed
bank robbery based on his suffering from a manic reaction to Prozac at the time of his
crime.
This Paxil Class Action is the first of its kind against an SSRI maker, i.e.,in connection
with the drug's withdrawal reactions.
The first SSRI to reach the U.S. market was Prozac. The second was Zoloft, then came
Paxil. Collectively, the SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) have been
approved for marketing in the U.S. for such conditions as depression, obsessive
compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress syndrome, and "premenstrual dysphoric
disorder."
SSRI's effect the brain's ability to reabsorb serotonin, a neurotransmitter in the brain,
which is supposed to affect mood, sleep and appetite.
Complaint allegations re victims:
An exemplar of the plaintiffs in this Class Action are briefly described below as well as
what they have suffered, according to the complaint:
Plaintiff #1 of North Hollywood, California was originally prescribed Paxil in September
1999, by her OB GYN. In the year 2000, she attempted to discontinue use of the drug
with her doctor's approval. Upon initial discontinuation of dosage and continuing
thereafter until February 2001, she experienced severe withdrawal reactions including,
but not limited to, restlessness and pain which severely impaired her ability to perform
activities of daily living. She did not know she was experiencing Paxil withdrawal.
Plaintiff #2 of Hollywood, California is a website designer who was prescribed Paxil by her
doctor for "panic attacks." Soon after taking the drug, her ability to eat and sleep were
severely impaired, and she was "nerved out all the time." When she decided to stop
taking the drug, her physician instructed her to lower her dose to 10mg. After about a
month and shortly after her last pill was consumed, she experienced frightening physical
sensations, including the sensation of being shocked with electrical charges,
uncontrollable shaking and unwanted intrusive thoughts. She did not know this was
caused by Paxil.
Plaintiff #3 of San Diego, California, first took Paxil in July 2000 which was prescribed by
her internist and allergist. When she tried to discontinue use of Paxil, she experienced
unwanted sensations of sharp,
intermittent stabbing pain in her head, severe headaches, dizziness,nausea, weakness in
her body and legs, shakiness, and severely impaired ability to perform mental functions.
As time passed, the reactions got worse and she became bedridden. She thought she
was losing her mind and that she had a brain tumor. She was hospitalized and had a CT
scan. It was not until later that she discovered her reactions were caused by
Paxil withdrawal. As of April 2001, she continues to suffer the injurious effects of Paxil
withdrawal.
Plaintiff #4 of El Cajon was prescribed Paxil in June 2000. Because she quickly gained 25
pounds on the drug, she was prescribed to discontinue the use of Paxil. She was
prescribed a tapering regime which was extremely painful and she suffered painful
reactions. At the time, she did not know these reactions were due to Paxil. From October
2000 to January 2001, she kept taking Paxil to combat her withdrawal reactions.
As of February 2001, she was still suffering shocks from Paxil withdrawal.
Plaintiff #5 of San Diego, California a Texas Tech University graduate, an ex Marine, and
a veteran of Desert Storm. In the spring of 1995, he was first prescribed Paxil. Initially
his physician told him that Paxil's side effects were mild, and specifically that there were
no problems stopping the drug if it was done gradually over a few weeks. After 5 years
on the drug, while discontinuing use of Paxil, he suffered debilitating physical and
psychological reactions, and became at times disabled. Unbeknownst to him, the
reactions were Paxil withdrawal. In August 2000, still suffering as he tried to reduce his
Paxil usage, he saw the television program "20/20" regarding Paxil withdrawal. It was at
that time he became determined to
wean himself off of Paxil once and for all. He continues to suffer Paxil withdrawal until the
end of the year 2000.
None of the named plaintiffs were ever informed before starting Paxil that it was
addictive, induced dependency, or created withdrawal problems when dosage was
reduced or terminated.
The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the class and of other Paxil withdrawal victims. Each
of the Plaintiffs and class members were
uninformed of the hazards in reducing or terminating their Paxil dosage.
Each of them did, in fact, reduce or terminate their daily Paxil intake. Within one or two
days thereafter, severe withdrawal reactions appeared.
Complaint Allegations:
1) The lawsuit further alleges that Paxil is a short "half life" drug which means it leaves
the body at a relatively fast rate. GSK uses this feature to distinguish it from its
competitors alleging that, as a result, it has a shorter
duration of adverse events, decreased drug accumulation over time, better management
of sexual dysfunction, and reduction of time to establish steady state drug regimen. The
great disadvantage of a short half life
substance, however, is that it is more addictive, has a greater tendency to induce
physical and psychological dependency, and causes withdrawal reactions. While these
characteristics of "half life" substances have been well known among Defendant and
psychopharmacologists, such information is not generally known by general practice
physicians or even psychiatrists.
2) The habit-forming nature of Paxil has not been fully divulged to physicians in the
United States, hence neither physician nor patient has had sufficient information to
weigh the benefits/risks associated with Paxil. Serious habit forming characteristics
affect the patient, and he/she is
unable to wean himself/herself off of the drug after therapeutic use is no longer needed.
Physical and psychological dependency on Paxil is the result. When withdrawal problems
arise, the patient often feels entrapped, in despair, and desolate.
3) From 1992 to the present, patients attempting to taper down or discontinue use of
Paxil have suffered withdrawal reactions and dependency/withdrawal syndrome, as noted
above. In addition to the physical reactions mentioned above, patients can also
experience
psychiatric reactions such as anxiety, agitation, lability of mood, nervousness,
hypersexuality, crying spells, irritability and despair. The result of these combined
reactions is that many patients continue to take Paxil because they are unable to endure
the withdrawal reactions.
4) "Relapse" is not "withdrawal." Relapse occurs when a patient who has improved his/her
depressive state, then reverts back to a more seriously depressed state. Symptoms
exhibited during relapse are frequently
comparable to reactions exhibited during withdrawal. As indicated elsewhere in this
complaint, it is alleged on information and belief that GSK, over the years, categorized
numerous patients' withdrawal reactions as relapse symptoms. GSK did this in order to
gain FDA approval for Paxil and avoid revealing the drug's withdrawal problems.
5) After representing to the FDA that Paxil had been systematically tested for withdrawal
and that the tests were successful, Paxil was approved for marketing in the United
States. However, at that time and prior thereto, GSK knew of the withdrawal problems
with Paxil (particularly from its clinical trials, including those held in Yugoslavia). Contrary
to obtaining its marketing approval from the FDA based on its "systematic testing," GSK's
label for Paxil stated:
DRUG ABUSE AND DEPENDENCE. Physical and Psychologic Dependence: "Paxil has not
been systematically studied in animals or human for its potential for abuse, tolerance, or
physical dependence. While the clinical trials did not reveal any tendency for any drug
seeking behavior, these observations were not systematic and it is not possible to
predict on the basis of this limited experience the extent to which a . . . (central nervous
system) . . . active drug will be misused, diverted and/or abused once
marketed. Consequently, patients should be evaluated carefully for history of drug abuse,
and such patients should be observed closely for signs of Paxil misuse or abuse (e.g.,
development of tolerance, incrementations of dose, drug seeking behavior).
The above prescribing information and labeling is false and misleading on its face.
6) Evidence of GSK's knowledge of the withdrawal reactions its drug causes can also be
found in a report to Dr. Martin Brecher of the FDA which disclosed subjective reporting
gathered from patients by cinical investigators who told GSK management that Paxil was
dangerously addictive. A group of 108 patients ending their participation in a trial told
GSK that Paxil had caused them to suffer "withdrawal" reactions ("Group
of 108 Complaining Patients' Study"). Out of the 1293 patients in that trial, the 108
complaining patients constituted 8.3% of the participants. GSK improperly reclassified
these patients' withdrawal reactions as
"relapse" symptoms.
Complaint Allegation Claims:
First Claim for Relief for Fraud and Deceit
Since December 29, 1992, when Paxil was first approved by the FDA, GSK has defrauded
the medical profession in general, Plaintiffs' and their physicians in particular, and the
Paxil patient population in general, in that
it, among other acts:
(a) Knowingly mischaracterized and miscoded withdrawal syndrome occurring during the
clinical trials so as to reduce the number of recorded occurrences of withdrawal
reactions;
(b) Failed to inform the medical community that a significant number of individuals taking
Paxil during foreign clinical trials experienced withdrawal reactions and
dependency/withdrawal syndrome;
(c) Knowingly misrepresented and continues to misrepresent that its clinical trials and
investigations adequately tested for dependency withdrawal syndrome;
(d) Knowingly claimed that Paxil's withdrawal problems were a relapse, when in fact they
were not;
(e) Actively deceived Plaintiffs and class members by representations in written labeling
and oral communications suggesting that Paxil is not addictive, that it does not cause
physical or psychologic dependency, and
that it would not cause withdrawal reactions if dosage were reduced or terminated.
(f) Answering the question: "Is Paxil addictive?" with the response: "Paxil has been
studied both in short- and long-term use and is not associated with dependence or
addiction."
(g) Implementing false and misleading techniques to hide the linkage between
dependency/withdrawal syndrome on one hand, and Paxil on the other. After censoring
the word "withdrawal" from company files and
instructing its agents similarly, defendant GSK, began to dilute the medical vocabulary by
using misleading medical terms to substitute for withdrawal such as "discontinuation
syndrome."
(h) Over-promoting Paxil in order to increase its sale at the expense of revealing the
truth about the addictive/dependency nature of Paxil.
(i) Fraudulently conveyed to all health care providers in the U.S. that Paxil's side effects
were only "mild," when in fact GSK knew many of the drug's withdrawal side effects were
severe.
(j) Fraudulently conveyed to all health care providers in the U.S. that a British study
involving 13,741 patients illustrated that all of the SSRI's exhibited a similar rate of
withdrawal, when in fact GSK knew that study
illustrated Paxil to have the highest rate of withdrawal among SSRI's as recorded and
reported by the authors.
1. As a result of GSK's fraudulent acts and omissions as set forth herein, GSK has
deceived the medical community, including Plaintiffs' physicians, into believing Paxil does
not have the addictive qualities and does not cause dependency/withdrawal syndrome
which defendant GSK knows it in fact does.
2. When said representations were made by defendant GSK, it knew those
representations to be false, or in the alternative, willfully and wantonly and recklessly
disregarded whether the representations were true. These representations were made by
GSK, with the intent of defrauding and deceiving the public in general and the medical
community and to induce the medical community to recommend, prescribe, and dispense
Paxil and for the public to take it.
3. At the time the aforesaid representations were made by the defendant GSK, and at
the time that Plaintiffs ingested Paxil, both Plaintiffs and their prescribing physicians were
unaware of the falsity of said representations and reasonably relied on GSK's assertions,
promulgated through its
aggressive sales force to Plaintiffs' physicians as set forth herein, that the
drug was safe. In reliance upon said representations, Plaintiffs' physicians
did prescribe Paxil and Plaintiffs were induced to and did take Paxil. Had
Plaintiffs known of the actual dangers of Paxil, through their physicians or otherwise,
they would not have ingested Paxil.
4. GSK's motive of deliberately failing to advise physicians and the public of the adverse
effects that can lead to withdrawal problems (and that it knew a percentage of users of
the drug inevitably would experience) was for financial gain and its fear that, if properly
labeled, GSK would lose its share of the SSRI market through the efforts of competing
manufacturers who would adversely compare Paxil's half-life to their own. GSK's goal, at
the expense of those who took its antidepressant, was for Paxil to
become the dominant SSRI on the market.
5. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of defendant GSK, as set forth herein above,
was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive toward Plaintiffs and the public generally. GSK
conducted itself in a willful, wanton and
reckless manner as set forth herein above. Despite its specific knowledge as set forth
above, defendant GSK deliberately recommended, manufactured, produced, marketed,
sold, distributed, merchandized,
packaged, promoted and advertised the dangerous and defective drug Paxil. All of the
foregoing constitute an utter, wanton and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
a large segment of the public, and by
reason thereof, defendant GSK, is guilty of reckless, willful and wanton acts and
omissions which evidence a total and conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs and
class members.
6. As a proximate cause of defendant GSK's fraudulent and deceitful conduct and
representations and due to Paxil's addictive qualities, inducement of physical and
psychological dependency, and inducement of
dependency/withdrawal syndrome, all Plaintiffs and class members unexpectedly suffered
prolonged physical and mental anguish, harm, and suffering and have sustained damages
and other losses in an amount to be proven at trial.
Second Claim for Relief for Negligence
7. GSK owed Plaintiffs and class members a standard of care to ensure that they and
their physicians were adequately warned of Paxil's addictive qualities and
dependency/withdrawal characteristics before any were prescribed the drug. GSK
violated that standard of care through active
misrepresentations and failure to warn when it was GSK's duty to do so.
See complaint for more.
Third Claim for Relief for Strict Liability per § 402 Restatement (Torts)
8. At all times herein mentioned, defendants knew or should have known that Paxil was
and is addictive and causes withdrawal syndrome.
9. At all times hereinafter mentioned, neither members of the general medical community
nor members of the general public knew of the withdrawal dangers existing with respect
to the administration of Paxil.
10. Paxil was used by Plaintiffs and class members in the manner and amounts in which
the defendants intended it to be used.
11. At all times material hereto, in the United States, Paxil was not properly labeled by
defendants; in fact it was mislabeled and was not accompanied by proper warnings that
Paxil can cause withdrawal reactions and dependency/withdrawal syndrome.
12. Defendants promoted and maintained Paxil on the market both to physicians and
directly to patients/consumers with the knowledge of
Paxil's unreasonable risk to the public in general, and specifically to Plaintiffs and class
members.
13. Paxil, as used by Plaintiffs and class members, was defective and unreasonably
dangerous when sold by defendants, and defendants are strictly liable for the injuries
arising from its manufacture and Plaintiffs and class members' use.
14. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and class members
sustained damages and other losses according to proof.
Fourth Claim for Relief for Breach of Express Warranty - see complaint for information.
Fifth Claim for Relief for Breach of Implied Warranty - see complaint for information.
Posted on: Saturday, August 25, 2001 at 16:40:33 (EDT)
http://www.stuartshipko.com/FAQ//paxilclass.html
Paxil is being touted as the "nonaddicting" treatment for panic disorder with a "more favorable side effect profile". It may be that it is highly addicting and loaded with side effects.
Fact Sheet - Paxil Withdrawal Reactions Class Action
The 35 plaintiffs named in the lawsuit are from AZ, CA, CO, FL, IN,KY, LA, MN, MO, NC,
NE, NJ, NV, OK, OR, TN, TX, UT, WI, and WY. Several of them are willing to talk to the
Robin McCall listed in the contact information.
Plaintiffs' lawyers have argued for years that antidepressants, such as Prozac, Paxil and
Zoloft, can induce some to experience adverse reactions which can result in suicide and
violence.
This summer, the New South Wales Supreme Court ruled that had it not been for David
John Hawkins' ingestion of Zoloft, he would not have strangled his wife of 50 years.
Last month GlaxoSmithKline was ordered by a federal jury in Cheyenne,Wyoming to pay
$6.4 million to relatives of Donald Schell, age 60, who had been taking Paxil for just 48
hours when he experienced hallucinations and shot and killed his wife, his daughter, his
granddaughter and then himself.
In the Spring of 2000, a Connecticut man, Christopher DeAngelo, was acquitted of armed
bank robbery based on his suffering from a manic reaction to Prozac at the time of his
crime.
This Paxil Class Action is the first of its kind against an SSRI maker, i.e.,in connection
with the drug's withdrawal reactions.
The first SSRI to reach the U.S. market was Prozac. The second was Zoloft, then came
Paxil. Collectively, the SSRI's (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors) have been
approved for marketing in the U.S. for such conditions as depression, obsessive
compulsive disorder, post traumatic stress syndrome, and "premenstrual dysphoric
disorder."
SSRI's effect the brain's ability to reabsorb serotonin, a neurotransmitter in the brain,
which is supposed to affect mood, sleep and appetite.
Complaint allegations re victims:
An exemplar of the plaintiffs in this Class Action are briefly described below as well as
what they have suffered, according to the complaint:
Plaintiff #1 of North Hollywood, California was originally prescribed Paxil in September
1999, by her OB GYN. In the year 2000, she attempted to discontinue use of the drug
with her doctor's approval. Upon initial discontinuation of dosage and continuing
thereafter until February 2001, she experienced severe withdrawal reactions including,
but not limited to, restlessness and pain which severely impaired her ability to perform
activities of daily living. She did not know she was experiencing Paxil withdrawal.
Plaintiff #2 of Hollywood, California is a website designer who was prescribed Paxil by her
doctor for "panic attacks." Soon after taking the drug, her ability to eat and sleep were
severely impaired, and she was "nerved out all the time." When she decided to stop
taking the drug, her physician instructed her to lower her dose to 10mg. After about a
month and shortly after her last pill was consumed, she experienced frightening physical
sensations, including the sensation of being shocked with electrical charges,
uncontrollable shaking and unwanted intrusive thoughts. She did not know this was
caused by Paxil.
Plaintiff #3 of San Diego, California, first took Paxil in July 2000 which was prescribed by
her internist and allergist. When she tried to discontinue use of Paxil, she experienced
unwanted sensations of sharp,
intermittent stabbing pain in her head, severe headaches, dizziness,nausea, weakness in
her body and legs, shakiness, and severely impaired ability to perform mental functions.
As time passed, the reactions got worse and she became bedridden. She thought she
was losing her mind and that she had a brain tumor. She was hospitalized and had a CT
scan. It was not until later that she discovered her reactions were caused by
Paxil withdrawal. As of April 2001, she continues to suffer the injurious effects of Paxil
withdrawal.
Plaintiff #4 of El Cajon was prescribed Paxil in June 2000. Because she quickly gained 25
pounds on the drug, she was prescribed to discontinue the use of Paxil. She was
prescribed a tapering regime which was extremely painful and she suffered painful
reactions. At the time, she did not know these reactions were due to Paxil. From October
2000 to January 2001, she kept taking Paxil to combat her withdrawal reactions.
As of February 2001, she was still suffering shocks from Paxil withdrawal.
Plaintiff #5 of San Diego, California a Texas Tech University graduate, an ex Marine, and
a veteran of Desert Storm. In the spring of 1995, he was first prescribed Paxil. Initially
his physician told him that Paxil's side effects were mild, and specifically that there were
no problems stopping the drug if it was done gradually over a few weeks. After 5 years
on the drug, while discontinuing use of Paxil, he suffered debilitating physical and
psychological reactions, and became at times disabled. Unbeknownst to him, the
reactions were Paxil withdrawal. In August 2000, still suffering as he tried to reduce his
Paxil usage, he saw the television program "20/20" regarding Paxil withdrawal. It was at
that time he became determined to
wean himself off of Paxil once and for all. He continues to suffer Paxil withdrawal until the
end of the year 2000.
None of the named plaintiffs were ever informed before starting Paxil that it was
addictive, induced dependency, or created withdrawal problems when dosage was
reduced or terminated.
The claims of Plaintiffs are typical of the class and of other Paxil withdrawal victims. Each
of the Plaintiffs and class members were
uninformed of the hazards in reducing or terminating their Paxil dosage.
Each of them did, in fact, reduce or terminate their daily Paxil intake. Within one or two
days thereafter, severe withdrawal reactions appeared.
Complaint Allegations:
1) The lawsuit further alleges that Paxil is a short "half life" drug which means it leaves
the body at a relatively fast rate. GSK uses this feature to distinguish it from its
competitors alleging that, as a result, it has a shorter
duration of adverse events, decreased drug accumulation over time, better management
of sexual dysfunction, and reduction of time to establish steady state drug regimen. The
great disadvantage of a short half life
substance, however, is that it is more addictive, has a greater tendency to induce
physical and psychological dependency, and causes withdrawal reactions. While these
characteristics of "half life" substances have been well known among Defendant and
psychopharmacologists, such information is not generally known by general practice
physicians or even psychiatrists.
2) The habit-forming nature of Paxil has not been fully divulged to physicians in the
United States, hence neither physician nor patient has had sufficient information to
weigh the benefits/risks associated with Paxil. Serious habit forming characteristics
affect the patient, and he/she is
unable to wean himself/herself off of the drug after therapeutic use is no longer needed.
Physical and psychological dependency on Paxil is the result. When withdrawal problems
arise, the patient often feels entrapped, in despair, and desolate.
3) From 1992 to the present, patients attempting to taper down or discontinue use of
Paxil have suffered withdrawal reactions and dependency/withdrawal syndrome, as noted
above. In addition to the physical reactions mentioned above, patients can also
experience
psychiatric reactions such as anxiety, agitation, lability of mood, nervousness,
hypersexuality, crying spells, irritability and despair. The result of these combined
reactions is that many patients continue to take Paxil because they are unable to endure
the withdrawal reactions.
4) "Relapse" is not "withdrawal." Relapse occurs when a patient who has improved his/her
depressive state, then reverts back to a more seriously depressed state. Symptoms
exhibited during relapse are frequently
comparable to reactions exhibited during withdrawal. As indicated elsewhere in this
complaint, it is alleged on information and belief that GSK, over the years, categorized
numerous patients' withdrawal reactions as relapse symptoms. GSK did this in order to
gain FDA approval for Paxil and avoid revealing the drug's withdrawal problems.
5) After representing to the FDA that Paxil had been systematically tested for withdrawal
and that the tests were successful, Paxil was approved for marketing in the United
States. However, at that time and prior thereto, GSK knew of the withdrawal problems
with Paxil (particularly from its clinical trials, including those held in Yugoslavia). Contrary
to obtaining its marketing approval from the FDA based on its "systematic testing," GSK's
label for Paxil stated:
DRUG ABUSE AND DEPENDENCE. Physical and Psychologic Dependence: "Paxil has not
been systematically studied in animals or human for its potential for abuse, tolerance, or
physical dependence. While the clinical trials did not reveal any tendency for any drug
seeking behavior, these observations were not systematic and it is not possible to
predict on the basis of this limited experience the extent to which a . . . (central nervous
system) . . . active drug will be misused, diverted and/or abused once
marketed. Consequently, patients should be evaluated carefully for history of drug abuse,
and such patients should be observed closely for signs of Paxil misuse or abuse (e.g.,
development of tolerance, incrementations of dose, drug seeking behavior).
The above prescribing information and labeling is false and misleading on its face.
6) Evidence of GSK's knowledge of the withdrawal reactions its drug causes can also be
found in a report to Dr. Martin Brecher of the FDA which disclosed subjective reporting
gathered from patients by cinical investigators who told GSK management that Paxil was
dangerously addictive. A group of 108 patients ending their participation in a trial told
GSK that Paxil had caused them to suffer "withdrawal" reactions ("Group
of 108 Complaining Patients' Study"). Out of the 1293 patients in that trial, the 108
complaining patients constituted 8.3% of the participants. GSK improperly reclassified
these patients' withdrawal reactions as
"relapse" symptoms.
Complaint Allegation Claims:
First Claim for Relief for Fraud and Deceit
Since December 29, 1992, when Paxil was first approved by the FDA, GSK has defrauded
the medical profession in general, Plaintiffs' and their physicians in particular, and the
Paxil patient population in general, in that
it, among other acts:
(a) Knowingly mischaracterized and miscoded withdrawal syndrome occurring during the
clinical trials so as to reduce the number of recorded occurrences of withdrawal
reactions;
(b) Failed to inform the medical community that a significant number of individuals taking
Paxil during foreign clinical trials experienced withdrawal reactions and
dependency/withdrawal syndrome;
(c) Knowingly misrepresented and continues to misrepresent that its clinical trials and
investigations adequately tested for dependency withdrawal syndrome;
(d) Knowingly claimed that Paxil's withdrawal problems were a relapse, when in fact they
were not;
(e) Actively deceived Plaintiffs and class members by representations in written labeling
and oral communications suggesting that Paxil is not addictive, that it does not cause
physical or psychologic dependency, and
that it would not cause withdrawal reactions if dosage were reduced or terminated.
(f) Answering the question: "Is Paxil addictive?" with the response: "Paxil has been
studied both in short- and long-term use and is not associated with dependence or
addiction."
(g) Implementing false and misleading techniques to hide the linkage between
dependency/withdrawal syndrome on one hand, and Paxil on the other. After censoring
the word "withdrawal" from company files and
instructing its agents similarly, defendant GSK, began to dilute the medical vocabulary by
using misleading medical terms to substitute for withdrawal such as "discontinuation
syndrome."
(h) Over-promoting Paxil in order to increase its sale at the expense of revealing the
truth about the addictive/dependency nature of Paxil.
(i) Fraudulently conveyed to all health care providers in the U.S. that Paxil's side effects
were only "mild," when in fact GSK knew many of the drug's withdrawal side effects were
severe.
(j) Fraudulently conveyed to all health care providers in the U.S. that a British study
involving 13,741 patients illustrated that all of the SSRI's exhibited a similar rate of
withdrawal, when in fact GSK knew that study
illustrated Paxil to have the highest rate of withdrawal among SSRI's as recorded and
reported by the authors.
1. As a result of GSK's fraudulent acts and omissions as set forth herein, GSK has
deceived the medical community, including Plaintiffs' physicians, into believing Paxil does
not have the addictive qualities and does not cause dependency/withdrawal syndrome
which defendant GSK knows it in fact does.
2. When said representations were made by defendant GSK, it knew those
representations to be false, or in the alternative, willfully and wantonly and recklessly
disregarded whether the representations were true. These representations were made by
GSK, with the intent of defrauding and deceiving the public in general and the medical
community and to induce the medical community to recommend, prescribe, and dispense
Paxil and for the public to take it.
3. At the time the aforesaid representations were made by the defendant GSK, and at
the time that Plaintiffs ingested Paxil, both Plaintiffs and their prescribing physicians were
unaware of the falsity of said representations and reasonably relied on GSK's assertions,
promulgated through its
aggressive sales force to Plaintiffs' physicians as set forth herein, that the
drug was safe. In reliance upon said representations, Plaintiffs' physicians
did prescribe Paxil and Plaintiffs were induced to and did take Paxil. Had
Plaintiffs known of the actual dangers of Paxil, through their physicians or otherwise,
they would not have ingested Paxil.
4. GSK's motive of deliberately failing to advise physicians and the public of the adverse
effects that can lead to withdrawal problems (and that it knew a percentage of users of
the drug inevitably would experience) was for financial gain and its fear that, if properly
labeled, GSK would lose its share of the SSRI market through the efforts of competing
manufacturers who would adversely compare Paxil's half-life to their own. GSK's goal, at
the expense of those who took its antidepressant, was for Paxil to
become the dominant SSRI on the market.
5. At all times relevant herein, the conduct of defendant GSK, as set forth herein above,
was malicious, fraudulent and oppressive toward Plaintiffs and the public generally. GSK
conducted itself in a willful, wanton and
reckless manner as set forth herein above. Despite its specific knowledge as set forth
above, defendant GSK deliberately recommended, manufactured, produced, marketed,
sold, distributed, merchandized,
packaged, promoted and advertised the dangerous and defective drug Paxil. All of the
foregoing constitute an utter, wanton and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of
a large segment of the public, and by
reason thereof, defendant GSK, is guilty of reckless, willful and wanton acts and
omissions which evidence a total and conscious disregard for the safety of Plaintiffs and
class members.
6. As a proximate cause of defendant GSK's fraudulent and deceitful conduct and
representations and due to Paxil's addictive qualities, inducement of physical and
psychological dependency, and inducement of
dependency/withdrawal syndrome, all Plaintiffs and class members unexpectedly suffered
prolonged physical and mental anguish, harm, and suffering and have sustained damages
and other losses in an amount to be proven at trial.
Second Claim for Relief for Negligence
7. GSK owed Plaintiffs and class members a standard of care to ensure that they and
their physicians were adequately warned of Paxil's addictive qualities and
dependency/withdrawal characteristics before any were prescribed the drug. GSK
violated that standard of care through active
misrepresentations and failure to warn when it was GSK's duty to do so.
See complaint for more.
Third Claim for Relief for Strict Liability per § 402 Restatement (Torts)
8. At all times herein mentioned, defendants knew or should have known that Paxil was
and is addictive and causes withdrawal syndrome.
9. At all times hereinafter mentioned, neither members of the general medical community
nor members of the general public knew of the withdrawal dangers existing with respect
to the administration of Paxil.
10. Paxil was used by Plaintiffs and class members in the manner and amounts in which
the defendants intended it to be used.
11. At all times material hereto, in the United States, Paxil was not properly labeled by
defendants; in fact it was mislabeled and was not accompanied by proper warnings that
Paxil can cause withdrawal reactions and dependency/withdrawal syndrome.
12. Defendants promoted and maintained Paxil on the market both to physicians and
directly to patients/consumers with the knowledge of
Paxil's unreasonable risk to the public in general, and specifically to Plaintiffs and class
members.
13. Paxil, as used by Plaintiffs and class members, was defective and unreasonably
dangerous when sold by defendants, and defendants are strictly liable for the injuries
arising from its manufacture and Plaintiffs and class members' use.
14. As a direct and proximate result of the foregoing, Plaintiffs and class members
sustained damages and other losses according to proof.
Fourth Claim for Relief for Breach of Express Warranty - see complaint for information.
Fifth Claim for Relief for Breach of Implied Warranty - see complaint for information.
Paxil withdrawal class action 2001 comprised of only 35 people
LOS ANGELES (CNN) -- Thirty-five people who say they suffered from "severe withdrawal reactions" after taking the anti-depressant Paxil filed a class-action complaint against the drug's maker Friday in California Superior Court.
The complaint against pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which produces Paxil, alleges that the drug "is more addictive" and "has a greater tendency to induce physical and physiological dependency" than other anti-depressants.
Paxil, which was introduced to the U.S. market in December of 1992, is one of several anti-depressants classified as a selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor, or an S.S.R.I. drug. Other well known S.S.R.I. drugs are Prozac, which is manufactured by Eli Lilly; and Zoloft, made by Pfizer.
A section of the complaint charges that "GlaxoSmithKline has known for years the distinct characteristics of Paxil which make it prone to cause withdrawal reactions when discontinued."
The lawsuit was filed by Karen Barth in association with Mary Schiavo of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages along with attorney's fees.
A U.S.-based spokeswoman for GSK, which has its headquarters in London, said the company does not have a statement at this time.
August 25, 2001
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/08/25/paxil.suit/
The complaint against pharmaceutical giant GlaxoSmithKline, which produces Paxil, alleges that the drug "is more addictive" and "has a greater tendency to induce physical and physiological dependency" than other anti-depressants.
Paxil, which was introduced to the U.S. market in December of 1992, is one of several anti-depressants classified as a selective seratonin reuptake inhibitor, or an S.S.R.I. drug. Other well known S.S.R.I. drugs are Prozac, which is manufactured by Eli Lilly; and Zoloft, made by Pfizer.
A section of the complaint charges that "GlaxoSmithKline has known for years the distinct characteristics of Paxil which make it prone to cause withdrawal reactions when discontinued."
The lawsuit was filed by Karen Barth in association with Mary Schiavo of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei, Guilford & Schiavo. The plaintiffs are seeking unspecified damages along with attorney's fees.
A U.S.-based spokeswoman for GSK, which has its headquarters in London, said the company does not have a statement at this time.
August 25, 2001
http://edition.cnn.com/2001/HEALTH/08/25/paxil.suit/
Wednesday, 23 February 2011
Paxil Heart Defect Warning Lawsuit torpedoed - failure to warn does not mean proximate cause
Pennsylvania Judge: Dead Doctor Torpedoes Paxil Heart Defect Warning Lawsuit
LexisNexis® Mealey's™ Emerging Drugs & Devices Legal News
PHILADELPHIA - A Pennsylvania judge on Jan. 12 issued an opinion denying reconsideration of summary judgment to GlaxoSmithKline PLC (GSK) in a Paxil heart defect case because without the testimony of the deceased prescribing physician, the plaintiff was unable to prove that a better warning would have changed his decision to prescribe the drug (Anna Carolina Blyth, et al. v. GlaxoSmithKline LLC, No. 070902205, Pa. Comm. Pls., Philadelphia Co.; See 12/16/10, Page 21). Full story on lexis.com
Tuesday, 22 February 2011
Suicide Group Launched In Auckland - founded by Scientology / CCHR
Steve Green, Director of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) also spoke of his support as a founding member of CASPER,
Suicide Group Launched In Auckland
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/suicide-group-launched-auckland/5/60064
A new group has been formed by people concerned with the huge numbers of people dying in New Zealand from suicide. CASPER or Community Action on Suicide Prevention, Education & Research was launched at a function on the North Shore last night.
North Shore woman Maria Bradshaw who lost her 17 year old son Toran presented up to date damning research to a large group of people including bereaved family members, health professionals, youth workers, young people, businessmen and women, NGOs and counsellors. Many were visibly shocked by information from the Child and Youth Mortality Review Committee that 10% of deaths of 10 year olds in New Zealand are from suicide, that Maori and Pacific youth account for almost 50% of youth suicides and that suicide amongst young women show an upward trend.
With around 10 people committing suicide a week in New Zealand, a call was made for families and communities to be provided with the information on suicide they need to keep their members safe. The information provided by SPINZ and the Ministry of Health that suicide rates are falling and that current prevention activities are effective were strongly challenged with data showing the figures these organisations produce and their analysis are inaccurate and misleading. Their latest report revealed that 483 people had committed suicide in 2007 when the recently released figures from the Chief Coroner showed that the correct figure was 541, a huge increase on the year before.
Mental health is often touted as the solution, however it was disclosed psychiatric intervention and treatments can worsen the risks of suicide to the point of double.
A 2004 study published in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry showed that the introduction of mental health initiatives rather than preventing suicide, actually increased suicide. This was a large study reviewing suicide prevention strategies of 100 countries.
Steve Green, Director of the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) also spoke of his support as a founding member of CASPER, encouraging people to find out the facts and raise awareness of these issues. "People need practical help not psychotropic drugs with their horrendous side effects; it's time a thorough inquiry is conducted into suicide, its causes, prevention and mental health failings must be a part of this," Mr Green said.
CASPER aims to achieve a voice for families bereaved by suicide and to ensure they are accorded similar rights of families who were victims of crime.
What CASPER Believe:
Knowledge is power
Suicide is a social, not medical, issue.
Empowered, well informed families and communities are the key to suicide prevention
Suicide flourishes in silence.
Current suicide prevention strategies do not, and can not, work.
What CASPER does:
Gather and analyse national and international information on suicide and its prevention.
Put the information into a format able to be shared with those who can make a difference - families and the community.
Lobby for changes to legislation, policy and practice.
Support families seeking truth, justice and accountability
http://www.voxy.co.nz/national/suicide-group-launched-auckland/5/60064
New Zealand - Concerns raised over group's scientology link - Toran Henry
A new lobby group for families affected by suicide has sparked concerns over links with the Church of Scientology.
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/4062089/Concerns-raised-over-groups-scientology-link
Casper (Community Action on Suicide Prevention, Education & Research) was formed by two mothers who lost their children to suicide.
However, Green MP Kevin Hague said the Citizens Commission for Human Rights (CCHR) was closely associated with Casper, and was established as an arm of the Church of Scientology.
Maria Bradshaw, mother of suicide victim Toran Henry, 17, said the new group would provide a voice for families affected by suicide, and lobby for legislative and policy changes.Families should have the same rights and support as victims of crime during coroner's inquests, she said.
"We have the information and support we need to keep our children safe from poisoning, drowning and drink-driving. We deserve to have the same information about an issue that causes 10 deaths a week in New Zealand."
Bradshaw said the new group hoped to meet with Prime Minister John Key to present its ideas.
"The Government needs to accept that what it is doing is not working, and to implement radical change in its approach to suicide prevention and the support of the families it affects," she said.
Bradshaw said suicide should be treated as a social issue as treating it as a medical issue actually increased suicide rates.
However, Hague said the Church of Scientology had a radical agenda against psychiatry and mental health services.
The CCHR website said it was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and professor of psychiatry emeritus Dr Thomas Szasz.
Bradshaw said the CCHR had helped her and other families affected by suicide.
She was aware some members were scientologists, but she did not care about their religious views. "We don't feel that we have been captured, we are not scientologists, we just want people to have access to groups that provide counselling services."
http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/health/4062089/Concerns-raised-over-groups-scientology-link
Casper (Community Action on Suicide Prevention, Education & Research) was formed by two mothers who lost their children to suicide.
However, Green MP Kevin Hague said the Citizens Commission for Human Rights (CCHR) was closely associated with Casper, and was established as an arm of the Church of Scientology.
Maria Bradshaw, mother of suicide victim Toran Henry, 17, said the new group would provide a voice for families affected by suicide, and lobby for legislative and policy changes.Families should have the same rights and support as victims of crime during coroner's inquests, she said.
"We have the information and support we need to keep our children safe from poisoning, drowning and drink-driving. We deserve to have the same information about an issue that causes 10 deaths a week in New Zealand."
Bradshaw said the new group hoped to meet with Prime Minister John Key to present its ideas.
"The Government needs to accept that what it is doing is not working, and to implement radical change in its approach to suicide prevention and the support of the families it affects," she said.
Bradshaw said suicide should be treated as a social issue as treating it as a medical issue actually increased suicide rates.
However, Hague said the Church of Scientology had a radical agenda against psychiatry and mental health services.
The CCHR website said it was co-founded in 1969 by the Church of Scientology and professor of psychiatry emeritus Dr Thomas Szasz.
Bradshaw said the CCHR had helped her and other families affected by suicide.
She was aware some members were scientologists, but she did not care about their religious views. "We don't feel that we have been captured, we are not scientologists, we just want people to have access to groups that provide counselling services."
Experts back NHS compensation moves - put the Fiddaman's out of business !!
Experts back NHS compensation moves
(UKPA) 2 days ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLRt2Xzqn-TdEM6CtTK3T4JNbZlQ?docId=N0054691298170783920A
A panel of independent experts has backed plans to reform the system of NHS compensation claims.
The No-Fault Compensation Review Group, headed by medical law and ethics professor Sheila McLean, was set up by ministers in 2009.
The body has recommended a change to the system which would mean patients who have suffered loss, injury or damage as a result of their treatment receive compensation without having to take the NHS to court.
The new arrangement would still require proof that harm was caused but would remove the need to prove negligence.
The review group's report suggests a no-fault system would allow for fair and adequate compensation while being speedier and more time- and cost-effective than the current one. A similar scheme is used in Sweden, New Zealand and several other countries.
The British Medical Association (BMA) welcomed the findings, saying no-fault compensation will end the "blame culture" within the NHS.
Scottish secretary Martin Woodrow said: "A system of no-fault compensation with maximum financial limits would benefit both doctors and patients, speeding up the process and reducing the legal expenses incurred by the current system. More importantly, however, it would address the blame culture within the NHS which discourages doctors from reporting accidents and would end the practice of defensive medicine."
Mr Woodrow said it was important that any new scheme did not significantly increase costs to the NHS and take money away from patient care.
Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said it was important that victims of medical mistakes have some form of redress but that it was in "no-one's best interests" to have to endure delays as the case goes through the courts or see taxpayers' money spent on expensive legal fees.
Ms Sturgeon said: "No-fault compensation would be a sensible way to ensure people who have been affected are compensated without tying up either patients or the health service in years of litigation. It's very encouraging that the review group's report has recommended this system."
Copyright © 2011 The Press Association. All rights reserved
(UKPA) 2 days ago
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5iLRt2Xzqn-TdEM6CtTK3T4JNbZlQ?docId=N0054691298170783920A
A panel of independent experts has backed plans to reform the system of NHS compensation claims.
The No-Fault Compensation Review Group, headed by medical law and ethics professor Sheila McLean, was set up by ministers in 2009.
The body has recommended a change to the system which would mean patients who have suffered loss, injury or damage as a result of their treatment receive compensation without having to take the NHS to court.
The new arrangement would still require proof that harm was caused but would remove the need to prove negligence.
The review group's report suggests a no-fault system would allow for fair and adequate compensation while being speedier and more time- and cost-effective than the current one. A similar scheme is used in Sweden, New Zealand and several other countries.
The British Medical Association (BMA) welcomed the findings, saying no-fault compensation will end the "blame culture" within the NHS.
Scottish secretary Martin Woodrow said: "A system of no-fault compensation with maximum financial limits would benefit both doctors and patients, speeding up the process and reducing the legal expenses incurred by the current system. More importantly, however, it would address the blame culture within the NHS which discourages doctors from reporting accidents and would end the practice of defensive medicine."
Mr Woodrow said it was important that any new scheme did not significantly increase costs to the NHS and take money away from patient care.
Health Secretary Nicola Sturgeon said it was important that victims of medical mistakes have some form of redress but that it was in "no-one's best interests" to have to endure delays as the case goes through the courts or see taxpayers' money spent on expensive legal fees.
Ms Sturgeon said: "No-fault compensation would be a sensible way to ensure people who have been affected are compensated without tying up either patients or the health service in years of litigation. It's very encouraging that the review group's report has recommended this system."
Copyright © 2011 The Press Association. All rights reserved
Monday, 21 February 2011
Hal Ozsan & Fiddaman - and he want's a payout from GSK to take down his blog
The Evidence However is Clear ....Fiddaman was bought years ago
Fiddaman's award presented by Hal Ozsan - Hal Ozsan - Scientology Service Completions
source -
I've been hugged by a zillion people, chaperoned around Hollywood, been treated like a movie star because there's a bunch of people across the pond who can actually see what I have been up against during my time writing this blog. Special thanks to the British actor, Hal Ozsan, who presented me with my award with a very touching introduction.
source - http://www.truthaboutscientology.com/stats/by-name/h/hal-ozsan.html
Toran Henry's scientology poodle mom fails to admit Prozac is approved for children in UK - source European Medicines Agency (EMEA)
Mrs Bradshaw disagrees: "I learned that the medication was not approved for people under the age of 18 some months after Toran's death and was absolutely shocked."
http://bobfiddaman.blogspot.com/2011/02/new-zealand-mom-just-another.html
In the United States the FDA require a "Black Box" warning to be displayed on all packets of fluoxetine. The warning explicitly states that "anti-depressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behaviour in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder and other psychiatric disorders"
=================================
Now check out the situation in UK & Europe and learn how Fiddaman only tells part of the story .......... yeah! the part that suits him.
source ©independent.co.uk
The EMEA review of all the data concluded: "Overall, the benefits of Prozac are greater than its potential risks for the treatment of moderate to severe major depressive episode in children and adolescents."
In the United States the FDA require a "Black Box" warning to be displayed on all packets of fluoxetine. The warning explicitly states that "anti-depressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behaviour in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder and other psychiatric disorders"
=================================
Now check out the situation in UK & Europe and learn how Fiddaman only tells part of the story .......... yeah! the part that suits him.
source ©independent.co.uk
Prozac was considered to be the only drug that could be safe among children and the British government last year asked the makers, Eli Lilly, to submit an application to the EMEA for its use among under 18s.
It recommended that children start on a small dose of 10mg of Prozac a day, which could then be increased to 20mg after one or two weeks. Only patients who have not responded to at least four sessions of psychological therapy should be prescribed the drug and if no benefit is seen after nine weeks the treatment should be reconsidered.
New Zealand Mom - just another Scientology puppet - Maria Bradshaw mother of Toran Henry
Mrs Bradshaw continues her crusade. In November 2008 she is a guest speaker at an exhibition organised by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) founded by the Church of Scientology.
She tells the audience: "I've breached the Coroner's Act so many times I don't care. There is nothing I have to lose any more and nothing I won't do to have the truth told about my child."
Eighteen months after Toran Henry killed himself, his mother finally gets to have her say on whether an anti-depressant had an influence on his death. Chris Barton looks at the case that has raised questions about the drug's use
Toran Henry. Photo / Supplied
When Toran Tiavare Henry took his own life he was 17.
He left behind a grief-stricken mother, an absent father, devastated school friends and a string of questions.
The unfathomable why of it. Why one so young, so intelligent, with an active social life would take such a despairing, final step.
The question continues to haunt his mother and friends and even here, in the Auckland Coroner's Court, there is unlikely to be a satisfactory answer.
Inescapably with suicide, there are morbid questions of how? The method of death is explained to the court in matter-of-fact detail, but cannot be published because the Coroner's Act prohibits it - the rationale being such media reports may lead to copycat suicide attempts.
Talk is free, however, and Toran's friends, the staff and many students at Toran's school, Takapuna Grammar, all know how he did it and how he was found by his mother, Maria Bradshaw.
"There are no words to describe the shock of what I saw," his mother tells the court.
"It is a sight so shocking, so unnatural, that it is impossible for the brain to register what it is seeing."
Then there are questions about whether anything could have been done to stop such tragedy and who might be to blame. There are many "if only ... " possibilities.
His mother, in a frantic dash to get home to her son, arrives too late.
Several friends stop by just before he dies, but decide not to walk down the driveway to his house.
Teachers know Toran has been humiliated in a fight outside the school the day before his death, but no one contacts his mother.
A social worker, speaking by telephone to Toran just hours before he kills himself, notes an escalating situation: "He said that he was trying to reach out for help and his trust had been broken ... that this had been his last option and it hadn't worked out ... that he felt he had nowhere else to turn."
But the question that generates most debate in the inquest is what part, if any, his medication played in his death. Toran was taking Fluox, a generic form of the drug fluoxetine, better known as Prozac, for depression.
What's not commonly known about the drug is that it can have unwanted side effects, including suicidal thinking leading to suicide attempts. Could side effects have happened here?
The question is controversial. The consensus in New Zealand, and the advice from Medsafe, is there is "diminished but persisting increased risk of self-harm, hospitalisations, but not suicide, in patients prescribed a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI)" - the class of drugs which includes Prozac.
What can't be ignored, however, is special blood tests ordered after Toran's autopsy found fluoxetine at the low end of therapeutic levels. He also had a blood alcohol level of 148 milligrams per 100 millilitres.
Toran's mother is adamant Toran was caught in the grip of a medication induced "activation syndrome" - a cluster of symptoms including irritability, agitation, aggressiveness, impulsiveness and mood swings - that have been linked to an increased risk of suicide.
The health professionals involved in Toran's care are unconvinced - arguing that he didn't have side effects from the drug and other factors, such as depression, were more likely explanations for his death.
Expert witness Dr Sabina Dosani says the question of whether SSRIs are associated with an increase in suicidal events is still under debate in the academic and clinical psychiatric communities.
She refers to Dr David Healy, a professor in psychological medicine at Cardiff University who has published widely on the subject and who has for most of his career "held the view that fluoxetine (Prozac) and other SSRIs can lead to suicide".
Dr Dosani says the association between fluoxetine activation syndrome and suicide continues to be controversial. "No definitive conclusion yet exists. Against this backdrop, prescribing SSRI medication is standard practice and endorsed by the main regulatory and professional bodies."
Deborah Marshall, representing Waitemata District Health Board, asks Dr Dosani directly for her views.
Ms Marshall: Professor Healy has concluded that: "There is a compelling case that Prozac can trigger suicide in susceptible individuals." Would you agree with that statement?
Dr Dosani: I would not agree that there is a compelling case.
Ms Marshall: This next statement is: "There is little evidence that it is likely to be of benefit in patients in Toran Henry's age bracket." Would you agree with that?
Dr Dosani: No, I disagree with that.
Dr Healy, the author of more than 150 peer-reviewed articles and 20 books including Let Them Eat Prozac, and who has testified in 20 cases in which SSRI anti-depressants have been involved in cases of suicide or homicide, responds to Dr Dosani's evidence by a letter to the coroner.
He points to analysis of adult placebo controlled drug trials by the United States Food and Drug Administration (FDA) in 2006 which show a 2.3 fold increased rate of suicidal behaviours in people aged 18-24 years. Dr Healy refers also to drug trial data from Eli Lilly, the makers of Prozac.
"If we analyse the data as presented here it will be obvious to all members of the Court, even those without statistical or mathematical expertise, that the risk is significantly greater on Fluoxetine than on placebo. Infinitely greater."
By the time the inquest begins on November 9, some 19 months after his death on 20 March 2008, Toran's suicide has already been widely publicised in the press and on TV - primarily because Toran's mother speaks out.
Mrs Bradshaw ignores the Coroner's Act, which says no one can say a death is by suicide until the coroner says so. Even then, all that can normally be said is the name, address and occupation of the person and that the death was self-inflicted.
Media reports vary. Some are sensational. Some get the facts wrong. Some blatantly breach the act, announcing the death as suicide. Others use code words "tragic", "sudden" or "referred to the coroner".
Mrs Bradshaw doesn't stop speaking out. For several months after Toran's death, she is active on a website dedicated to her son.
Many of the posts on the site are outpourings of grief, but there is also detailed discussion about Toran's death and reactions from his friends.
The site serves also to organise a protest march up Queen St on May 13, 2008, the day Toran would have turned 18. In the face of a mother's grief, the Coroner's Act is impotent.
Mrs Bradshaw levels accusations at others involved in her son's care - Takapuna Grammar and the Marinoto North Child and Adolescent Mental Health Service of the Waitemata District Health Board.
The publicity appears to have some effect.
The school decides to conduct an independent inquiry headed by Sir Ian Barker. The Education Review Office investigates student safety at the school and Marinoto commissions an external review of Toran's engagement with the service.
Both the school and Marinoto make public the findings of their respective investigations.
Technically both have also breached the Coroner's Act, a point not lost on coroner Murray Jamieson: "I am confronted by some evidence that the Takapuna Grammar School and Waitemata District Health Board have engaged with the media in respect of matters which pertain to the proceedings before this court."
Mrs Bradshaw continues her crusade. In November 2008 she is a guest speaker at an exhibition organised by the Citizens Commission on Human Rights (CCHR) founded by the Church of Scientology.
She tells the audience: "I've breached the Coroner's Act so many times I don't care. There is nothing I have to lose any more and nothing I won't do to have the truth told about my child."
In March 2009, unhappy with results of the school's inquiry and still critical of Marinoto, Mrs Bradshaw releases her own report - Lessons Learned From The Death Of Toran Tiavare Henry - a 161-page, footnoted document with appendices.
Shortly after its release the coroner issues an order prohibiting making public any evidence or submissions about Toran's death. Even then, days before the inquest, he has to remind media organisations of the suppression order.
The reminder comes following postings on the Trade Me message board about the inquest and a news report in which Bradshaw confirms she wants to file a private manslaughter prosecution against a psychiatrist who treated Toran.
The coroner is not impressed: "The materials appear to contain statements or postings from an interested person in respect of the forthcoming inquest."
The net result of Mrs Bradshaw's actions is a swarm of lawyers - for the school, the Waitemata District Health Board, the police, plus two barristers representing two psychiatrists involved in Toran's care - bristling with evidence to counter her allegations.
The inquest, one of the longest on record, lasts 18 days.
Mrs Bradshaw is on the stand for four days, including two and a half days of robust cross examination. When her lawyer, Moira Macnab, raises concerns about the type of questioning the coroner points out it is happening, in part, because of suggestions by Mrs Bradshaw that she "intends to pursue individuals giving evidence at this inquest in venues other than this".
Senior Constable Paul Herman is the first to give evidence about the possible influence of fluoxetine. "Some of the friends would notice a difference when he was on the medication and then when he was not on the medication ... When he was on the medication it was a different type of behaviour that showed up." Mrs Bradshaw maintains her son suffered side effects including extreme fatigue and aggressiveness.
Those involved with his care point out there were other explanations for the tiredness, that it can also result from depression, and that Toran had exhibited aggressive and self-harming behaviour when he wasn't on medication.
Experts also point out that depression and anxiety can manifest as agitation and irritability in adolescents, as can substance abuse which, in Toran's case, mainly involved binge drinking. In the period of care leading up to his death, Marinoto staff maintain they were not told about Toran's increasing anger and aggression.
Medsafe group manager Dr Stewart Jessamine tells the court that because fluoxetine is not approved for major depressive disorder treatment in children and adolescents in New Zealand, the only way it can be given to that age group is by what's known as "off label" prescribing.
"This means informed consent must be obtained from the patient," he says.
Marinoto staff prescribing fluoxetine for Toran, in the two periods in 2007 and 2008 he was under their care, say informed consent was sought and, in the second instance, Toran asked to go back on the medication.
Both Toran and his mother were given information pamphlets which included information about side effects. Staff also say they discussed with Toran and his mother that the drug was not approved for those under 18 and that it carried a "Black Box" warning in the United States.
Mrs Bradshaw disagrees: "I learned that the medication was not approved for people under the age of 18 some months after Toran's death and was absolutely shocked."
In the United States the FDA require a "Black Box" warning to be displayed on all packets of fluoxetine. The warning explicitly states that "anti-depressants increased the risk compared to placebo of suicidal thinking and behaviour in children, adolescents, and young adults in short-term studies of major depressive disorder and other psychiatric disorders".
The coroner asks Dr Jessamine why Medsafe doesn't require such a warning here. He says the Medicines Act doesn't allow for such a requirement and new legislation would be necessary to make it compulsory. Medsafe does, however, make consumer information about the drug available on its website.
After each expert witness testimony, the lawyer assisting the coroner asks three questions.
"Do you have any experience of suicidal thinking in such patients whilst you are treating them on fluoxetine?" All the experts say they have.
"Do you have any experience of suicide attempts in such patients?" Two of the experts say they have and one also has experience of a completed suicide.
"Can you give the coroner your view on how information about fluoxetine ought to be best provided to adolescent patients with depression and their parents, guardians and GPs?" Answers vary, but most indicate discussion followed by standardised written material would be desirable.
All experts also point out that while the drug can have side effects there is strong evidence that fluoxetine has benefits in the treatment of depression.
One of the psychiatrists who prescribed the drug for Toran is asked directly whether it was a mistake: "When prescribing fluoxetine to Toran I did not mean to harm him, which is part of our oath, and I prescribed him with my best intentions, as we prescribe to many other young people in New Zealand, and I do honestly not believe that by doing so I caused any harm to Toran whatsoever."
On the last day of the inquest the coroner makes an oral ruling: "On the evidence presented to me I am satisfied that the death was intentional and self-inflicted. No other persons were directly involved and I now adjourn this inquest for my written finding."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)