The Seroxat (Paxil) PIL over the years – ch..ch..ch..changes!

It’s at this time of year that we all look forward to a new decade and look back on the years that have brought us to where we are today. I thought it would be useful to look back at 20 years of Glaxo spin – to review the information supplied by Glaxo over the past 20 years to patients like you and me.

The PIL – the Patient Information Leaflet is what I’m talking about.

As you download the PDFs and read them, please remember each of the leaflets is referring to EXACTLY the same drug – hard to believe.

I’m very happy to be able to supply what is a truly historic document – the very first Seroxat PIL – click on the link to download it – Original Seroxat PIL 1990.

This is a relic of a bygone age – a much simpler time for all of us. Download it and you’ll be able to read a short two page document that bears little in common with the current PIL. One thing of note is that in 1990 the PIL still stated clearly “Always keep medicine out of the reach of children. ‘Seroxat’ is not recommended for use by children.” Oh… and no mention of withdrawal.

I’ve another PIL for you to download here – Seroxat PIL 1996 – I thought I’d include this one as it is the very text I read at the time I started to take Seroxat. This has some choice phrases in it as well –

“This medicine works by bringing the levels of serotonin [in the brain] back to normal.”

“These tablets are not addictive.”

“If you stop taking your tablets too soon, your symptoms may return. Remember you cannot become addicted to to ‘Seroxat’.”

Back then I believed this – I trusted Glaxo and felt safe in the knowledge that the drug had been tested by the regulators… if only I knew then what I know now – ALL THOSE STATEMENTS ABOVE ARE LIES.

Just for comparison, here is a more recent Seroxat PIL – Seroxat PIL 2006. Please download the different versions – compare and contrast the wording – see which phrases have been carefully rewritten or removed. It’s hard to believe that the 1990 version and the 2006 version are actually referring to EXACTLY the same drug.

And finally, this the current PIL (I think) PIL.2008

I wonder what the Seroxat PIL will look like in 2015 – what will Glaxo be admitting by then, I wonder?

And by 2020…?

GSK’s Paxil bill said to be $1Billion… so far

For drug companies like Glaxo, it seems that fines to settle lawsuits because of the unsafe nature of drugs like Seroxat are just part of its overall marketing budget – you get the impression that Glaxo doesn’t care how much money it has to put aside to cover potential fines because its drugs make such huge profits – even if Seroxat has cost the company $1 billion IN FINES so far that doesn’t matter because its earned so much more profit than that already – patient safety is not the issue here… making money is, though.

This from  Bloomberg:

GlaxoSmithKline has paid out almost $1 billion to settle lawsuits related to its antidepressant Paxil, Bloomberg reports, citing court records and sources familiar with the litigation. That total includes about $390 million for suicides or suicide attempts allegedly linked to the drug. Some $200 million has gone to settle cases related to Paxil addiction and birth defects and another $400 million to settle antitrust, fraud and design claims.

Some of these settlements, of course, have been made public. And the company had a provision for legal and other disputes of $3 billion-plus at the end of 2008 (that figure includes all disputes, not just Paxil). But analyst Navid Malik of Matrix Corporate Capital told Bloomberg that the $1 billion in legal costs for Paxil “would be worse than many people are expecting.”

The company wouldn’t confirm the $1 billion tote-up. “It would be inappropriate and potentially misleading to aggregate payments in these various types of litigation,” a spokeswoman told the news service via email.

That figure could continue to grow, some industry-watchers believe. Some 600 birth-defect claims remain outstanding. But only about a dozen of the suicide-related suits haven’t been settled. “A liability totaling $1.5 billion is possible,” a Panmure Gordon analysts wrote to investors after a birth-defect case was decided in favor of the plaintiff.

But with cases remaining untried–and even some of the wrapped-up suits awaiting appeal–there’s no way of knowing where the eventual total will fall. And to put things into perspective, even a $1.5 billion legal bill won’t set any records.

Related Articles:
Jury: Glaxo’s Paxil caused birth defects
GSK exec memo cited in Paxil suit
GSK ordered to hand over emails in Paxil suit
Test Paxil case hits court next week
AP: Glaxo reps aided Paxil ghostwriting

This makes it all worthwhile

Sometimes I wonder if it’s all worthwhile and why I keep Seroxat Secrets going.

Then, out of the blue this arrives:

hey Admin
you do not know how much you really helped me, from about a year ago I send my Seroxat taking off problem at this site, and you replied at once and if it was not for your reply and help I know that things would ‘ve gone far much worse for me,
I do not know you as a person, I never met you, but honestly I appreciate what you did for me, and I thank Allah for you being in my life even if for a little while but you made a life change for me
thank you Admin I ‘ll always pray to Allah to keep safe and happy
Reham

To know that I’ve been able to help just one person makes it all worthwhile – thanks Reham and good luck.

Drug industry spends at least $20.5 billion a year on…

…research and development?

You must be joking, it’s on marketing – and this is just in the USA!

Of course the way some drug trials are rigged and the data ‘interpreted’ then many would argue that these costs should be included in the marketing spend as well.

This from the Wall Street Journal:

Despite all the job cuts for drug reps, despite the endless stream of TV drug ads, the pharma industry still spends most of its U.S. marketing money the old-fashioned way: Paying salespeople to call on doctors and other health-care providers.

Drug companies spent “at least $20.5 billion in marketing” in 2008, the  CBO said in a research brief published yesterday. (That figure doesn’t include the value of free drug samples companies give to docs, by the way.) The big categories include:

$12 billion for “detailing,” the industry term for sending sales reps to talk to doctors, nurses and other providers. Spending on detailing was highest for statins (such as Pfizer’s Lipitor), antidepressants (like Forest’s Lexapro) and antipsychotics (like Bristol-Myers Squibb’s Abilify). In each of those categories, branded drugs are competing against generics for a big market.

$4.7 billion direct-to-consumer advertising, and an additional $400 million on advertising in professional journals. CBO took a closer look at consumer advertising for about 2,000 drugs and found that TV ads accounted for 62% of spending, print ads made up 35% and online ads were 4% (those figures add up to 101% because we rounded to the nearest percentage point).

$3.4 billion sponsoring professional meetings and events. This includes sponsoring courses and talks that doctors can attend (or watch online) in order to satisfy requirements for continuing medical education (known as CME). Industry-funding of CME has been getting some attention in Congress lately, with some lawmakers calling for public disclosure of who pays for what.


%d bloggers like this: