You might think that after all the years of doctors and patients all around the world saying Seroxat is highly addictive – oops, sorry, causes dependence and severe withdrawal reactions – that Glaxo would simply undertake the definitive study to prove us all wrong and to show the world once and for all really how safe and non-addictive Seroxat is…
Well, the truth is Glaxo could have done this years ago but it has not. Why? I leave that simple question to you to answer.
In fact, the official Paxil prescribing information (produced by Glaxo, current version) confirms this by saying:
DRUG ABUSE AND DEPENDENCE
Controlled Substance Class: PAXIL is not a controlled substance.
Physical and Psychologic Dependence: PAXIL has not been systematically studied in animals or humans for its potential for abuse, tolerance or physical dependence…
Again, I ask Glaxo why have no systematic studies been done? Why not put an end to all the stories about ‘poop out’ (tolerance) and withdrawal nightmares and prove once and for all what it says is true and we are wrong?
Or maybe, just maybe Glaxo isn’t telling us the whole truth…
The following exchange is from a transcript of a video deposition taken from Dr. David Wheadon, who was at the time, Vice President Regulatory Affairs and Product Professional Services, GlaxoSmithKline, in Philadelphia, PA on Thursday, October 19, 2000 prior to the Tobin/Schell civil suit.
Questioning Dr. Wheadon were California attorney Donald J. Farber and Texas attorney Andy Vickery.
Paxil Victim’s Attorney: I’m asking you to kind of elevate yourself above this particular paper and go to your general knowledge now on Paxil. You have been now with the company eight years, and you have studied and are aware, I presume, of Paxil’s traits in either causing or unrelated to addiction and withdrawal, and based on that general knowledge I think you probably have, do you consider as a labeling instruction today that this paragraph, physical and psychological dependence, is a good labeling instruction?
GlaxoSmithKline’s Dr. Wheadon: Well, quite frankly, it is an outdated labeling instruction, because there have been a number of systematic studies in humans looking at the potential for Paxil for abuse, tolerance and physical dependence. So actually, there is data to date to negate the statement that it has not been systematically studied, because, in fact, it has been.
I’m getting confused now – under oath, Dr Wheadon clearly stated Paxil (Seroxat) has been studied a number of times in humans looking at the potential for Paxil for abuse, tolerance and physical dependence…
Hang on though, the current, official Paxil prescribing information says that:
…PAXIL has not been systematically studied in animals or humans for its potential for abuse, tolerance or physical dependence…
So while Wheadon said one thing (under oath) in 2000, Glaxo says the EXACT OPPOSITE in its current official prescribing information.
The question remains – how addictive is Seroxat?
Who knows the answer – Glaxo or David Wheadon?
One thing is for sure, the public aren’t being told the truth…
