Seroxat Group action – latest news

Great news about the Seroxat Withdrawal Group Litigation in England… we are on our way to trial! AT LAST!!

I’m sure if you read Bob Fiddaman’s blog you know already – see here – but I thought I’d wait until we had passed the time limit for GSK to appeal Mr Justice Foskett’s judgement to proceed with the Seroxat Withdrawal Group Litigation. That time has passed and there was no appeal… we are on our way to trial! AT LAST!!


If you happen to be one of the group claimants and you HAVE NOT received forms from Fortitude Law in the past 2 weeks, then you should contact Fortitude Law via email at lcorr@fortitudelaw.uk or telephone on 0203 667 3775 without delay.


I think I’ll say it again, just because I can … ‘Judgment has been received from the Honourable Mr. Justice Foskett to proceed with the Seroxat Withdrawal Group Litigation’. 

I think there must be quite a few people on the other side who really thought this had gone away, but I can tell them now to look out – it hasn’t gone away and it’s all too real. I’ve said before that, for me, a trial is the only to resolve this issue

The publicity of a High Court hearing will mean the mainstream press  will be free to report on ALL the evidence presented. Now… I’m thinking that this will mean a lot of GSK documents that have until now remained secret will become very public knowledge. You see a case like this, while common in the USA, is unheard of in the UK and the publicity it will generate will be huge. And all those once-secret documents and the information they hold will be available the world over for future claimants to use. I think a whole new raft of claims will be kick-started in the USA alone. I wonder what GSK’s share price will look like after all this? And how institutional investors will view a company that breaks the law and lies & cheats its way to profit?

In the 21st century, ethos & culture – the way a company actually conducts its business – are as important to a PLC as having a blockbuster product to sell. Ethos & culture are intrinsic parts of a modern corporate brand, going way beyond the generic, meaningless mission statement that we see from GSK.

I’d like to finish on a personal note. Perhaps, after all these years, I’m getting nearer to closure. For me, that simply means people will believe what happened to me was real.

More importantly, I hope that Doctors will understand what happened to me was real – and perhaps then we can start to help others who are going through the horrors of withdrawing from Seroxat/Paxil today.

 

 

2016…

Happy new year to you all – here’s to a big 2016… and who knows what might happen in the next 12 months!

As ever, this time of the year prompts one to reflect on the past – and also to think about the future – and generally just have a bit of a ramble which is what this is.

I don’t really use Facebook very much but I have seen a group there – Paroxetine Paxil Seroxat Withdrawal – which seems to be a very supportive community and I would suggest you take a look if you haven’t already.

Two things stood out for me while reading the posts on the group’s page.

Firstly, it really is beyond belief that Doctors are STILL prescribing Seroxat/Paxil in 2016. Surely by now, Docs around the world should be aware of all the problems surrounding Seroxat. Glaxo’s manipulation of the drug trials and the way the company hid negative data is no longer a secret – have a look here  and here

Secondly, it seems that healthcare ‘professionals’ have little or no idea how to advise the best way to withdraw from Seroxat. Again, in 2016, there is no excuse for this – neither is there an excuse for any Doctor to deny that patients may well suffer from terrible problems when they try to stop taking Seroxat.

Of course, Glaxo has (in)famously never offered any kind of meaningful withdrawal advice – to do so would be an admission that there is a huge problem with Seroxat… and that would would be bad for business. And we can’t have that, can we?

When I withdrew, I used the 10% rule (and liquid Seroxat) – I never reduced by more than 10% of my current dose and I stabilised for a long time between reductions, waiting until I felt strong enough to try the next reduction. I never put any time limit on the process, rather kept telling myself at least I was moving forward, no matter how slowly. It took me 22 months to stop completely and then a few years

I’ve been writing this blog for quite a while now, so apologies as I’ve just noticed some links in my posts have ‘died’ over the course of the years – I still like to think there’s a lot of good info available here on Seroxat Secrets.

So, deep breath, here we go – it’s another year coming up!

A history of SSRIs

This is a re-post from something I wrote in March 2007 – on reflection, perhaps it should be more accurately entitled A History of SSRIs and the Damage they do to Patients.

I think there may well be a lot of discussion in the coming months about Seroxat dependency and the terrible withdrawal symptoms that many people have to endure as they try to stop taking Seroxat and so I think that the download – A History of SSRIs  is more relevant today than ever.

Looking at my original post, I was remiss as I didn’t credit the author of the download – so belated apologies to Prof David Healy (I think it’s his piece).

Now read on:

Over the years I have collected a few interesting documents and I think it’s just plain selfish to keep them to myself so I’m starting to share them with you.

The one for download here – A History of SSRIs is exactly what it says it is… a history of SSRIs.

You can read about the first SSRI – Zelmid – which was patented in 1972 and made it to market in 1982 before any of the others. I suppose not many of you remember Zelmid though as it was discovered in rare cases to cause a serious neurological disorder called Guillain-Barré Syndrome. This potentially fatal disorder led to the immediate removal of the drug from the market.

But Astra had already begun the development of a derivative of Zelmid, called alaproclate, when Zelmid ran into trouble. Alaproclate was being investigated for both depression and Alzheimer’s disease. But it caused liver problems in one strain of laboratory mice and this was enough to lead Astra to drop it. Shortly after this, Astra introduced an innovative antipsychotic, remoxipride, which looked like it would have significantly fewer side effects than older agents. Several months after its launch, however, remoxipride was reported to cause aplastic anemia in a small number of people and it too was withdrawn.

Notice a pattern here?

And did you know this about Prozac? As Eli Lilly were trying to launch Prozac in Germany they came up against a slight problem with the view of the German regulators on fluoxetine (Prozac) as of May 1984: “Considering the benefit and the risk, we think this preparation totally unsuitable for the treatment of depression”.

A History of SSRIs is an enlightening document – with a large section on Seroxat…

 

 

The Antidepressant Era: the movie

No apologies here, this article (and videos) have been lifted straight from David Healy’s excellent website.

It’s important that as many people as possible have the chance to read the piece and take time to watch the film.

As far as the pharmaceutical industry is concerned, I can tell you from first hand experience that the industry still believes in its own hype… do more, feel better and live longer is Glaxo’s strapline and no one in that company thinks there’s even a hint of irony in that.

Now for Dr Healy’s piece:

The Antidepressant Era: the movie

The Antidepressant Era was written in 1995, and first published in 1997. A paperback came out in 1999. It was close to universally welcomed – see reviews 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 . It was favorably received by reviewers from the pharmaceutical industry, perhaps because it made clear that this branch of medical history had not been shaped by great men or great institutions but that other players, company people, had been at least as important.

Nobody objected to it, perhaps because at this point I had not agreed to be an expert witness in a pharmaceutical induced injury case. There were likely no PR companies who had a brief to manage Healy. I knew before The Creation of Psychopharmacology came out in 2002 that the response to it would be very different.

Disease Mongering & the Myth of Lowered Serotonin

Many of the ideas in The Antidepressant Era had appeared earlier. The idea that a lowering of serotonin (chapter 5) was a marketing myth and had nothing to do with science, first appeared in my doctoral thesis in 1985, and later in Psychopharmacological Revolutions in 1987. The idea that companies market diseases as a way of marketing medicines (chapter 6) first appeared in 1990 in Notes toward a History and The Marketing of 5HT.

The Antidepressant Era in turn contained many of the elements of Pharmageddon – the key role of the 1962 amendments to the Food and Drugs Act which, through product patents, prescription-only status for new drugs and the role of clinical trials, have created modern healthcare.

Is Valium a better drug than Prozac?

In 2000 I was approached by Duncan Dallas, an independent television producer from Leeds who wanted to do something critical on the antidepressants. Prozac was still at this point widely seen as a miracle of modern medicine, rather than an inferior drug to older antidepressants. Bioethicists and social scientists were still lining up to herald the creation of the New Man through modern genetics and modern psychotropic drugs.

Saying that what we were witnessing was a triumph of modern marketing rather than modern science caused a frisson in most circles. There were no natural allies – not in psychopharmacology or biological psychiatry but not in social science circles either.

But this is what Duncan wanted. The Antidepressant Era, the movie, opens with some of the hype around SSRIs, has astonishing footage of Roland Kuhn and Alan Broadhurst, two of the key people behind the discovery of imipramine, and outlines the overthrow of the benzodiazepines and their replacement by antidepressants.

It shows how rating scales and screening are used in psychiatry to create problems for which a drug becomes the answer.  It was the first program to wheel on stage the marketing men who created the social anxiety campaigns that sold Paxil, and it outlined the role of DSM III in the creation of depression.

Duncan’s version has a wonderful artistry. The book opens with a quote from George Oppen’s The Skyscraper. The “movie” closes with the same quote.

The Building of the Skyscraper

The steelworker on the girder
Learned not to look down, and does his work
And there are words we have learned
Not to look at,
Not to look for substance
Below them. But we are on the verge
Of Vertigo.

There are words that mean nothing
But there is something to mean.
Not a declaration which is truth
But a thing
Which is ..

Oh, the tree, growing from the sidewalk –
It has a little life, sprouting
Little green buds
Into the culture of the streets.
We look back
Three hundred years and see bare land.
And suffer vertigo.

Downfall – Adolf  Who? 

Its central moment is an astonishing sequence featuring the then President of Hoffman-la-Roche, Adolf Jann, embarking on a rant that looks now like an uncanny forerunner of the famous Adolf Hitler rant in the movie Downfall. The rant that launched a thousand You-Tubes. Adolf Jahn thumps his fist on the table, voice rising, as he angrily tells an interviewer in effect “You – none of you – can do without us – just try”. See section at 20 minutes 50 seconds to 22 minutes.

There is nothing specific to Jann or Roche here. This was and is the common credo of the pharmaceutical industry. This is what the CEOs of GSK, Pfizer, Merck and Lilly are saying to governments today. Healthcare is not sustainable unless we develop drugs that get people well so they aren’t a burden on the State, and if healthcare is not sustainable democracy may not be either. Facilitate us or society as you know it goes down the drain.

It would be a mistake to see this as a horrible modern manifestation of rapacious capitalism. Socialists from George Bernard Shaw in the early twentieth century onwards have turned to biology as an answer to social problems. If we cannot get mankind to agree to change for the better, perhaps we can improve on mankind. This belief powered the efforts of governments to eliminate the unfit from the late nineteenth century through to the eugenics movement and underpins some of our hopes for the New Genetics.

Eugenics looks terrible in retrospect while modern genetics looks like our only hope – but the same impulse underpins both.  There is no better example of what good history is about than this. Anyone writing the history of eugenics should really portray its prime movers in the same light as we now portray the heroes of the the Human Genome Project.

We should always remember that the nominees for the 1937 Nobel Peace Prize included both Gandhi and Hitler. There was a time when one looked at least as likely as the other to contribute to modern civilization.

Revolution’s Little Helper

The same dynamic made Valium look like a very dark drug in 2000 – so that even its name was withdrawn. Prozac in contrast looked like the gateway to the hoped for shiny uplands of the future, when by the mid-1990s Prozac should have been seen as a far darker drug than Valium.

Valium entered a world in which psychiatry in many ways led medicine as it had done for almost a hundred years. Psychiatry was the first branch of medicine to have specialist hospitals and specialist journals. And Valium really did work remarkably well. Far from being simply a superficial treatment it likely led to the disappearance of catatonia and saved a lot of lives.

Valium probably did a lot to stimulate the Revolution of 1968. The conventional wisdom now is that Valium was Mother’s Little Helper and in this role that it played a part in the imprisonment of women in suburbia. In fact, Valium and other benzodiazepines undo conditioned avoidance. They were advertised initially as being among other things useful for salesmen – to overcome their inhibitions. They almost certainly disinhibited many women to speak out against patriarchy. They helped students breach the double-binds that Ronnie Laing and others in the 1960s were preaching were holding back society.

Prozac and the SSRIs in contrast far more often produce an apathy that is destructive to engagement in society as Who Cares in Sweden shows.  Prozac, Paxil, Zoloft, Efexor, Pristiq, and Cymbalta are far more likely to lead to suicide and murderous violence including school shootings than Valium ever did. And the SSRIs lead to just as many cases of dependence as the benzos ever did.

Tamiflu – PharMessiah?

Are we incapable of learning? Will we always be seduced by the latest PharMessiah?

The Antidepressant Era, the movie, contains an extraordinary comment on just this that no one could have foreseen when it was finished in 2001. It almost looks like the Scriptwriter in the Sky must have inserted the clip of Adolf Jahn telling us that if we don’t facilitate him and Roche society will collapse. We can only afford to keep our economy and society going if he and his company are let develop new drugs.

Well Roche got to develop Tamiflu. Where Valium was the headline drug in the 1980s for the problems a rampant pharmaceutical industry might pose, Tamiflu is now. Governments throughout the Western world stockpiled billions of dollars worth of Tamiflu on the promise that it would prevent the transmission of influenza and other viruses, and would either keep people in work or get them back to work faster, thus saving our economies huge amounts of money.

Except the drug now appears to be close to worthless and to have always been so. It seems that the impression that Tamiflu might help could only have been created because companies can hide the existence of many and in some cases most of their clinical trials and hide the data from all of them, ghostwriting the ones that are published in a manner that keeps all data out of the public domain.

Facilitate us too much and we will lead to your Downfall.

Stephen Whitehead, ABPI – missing the point completely

I read this article in the New Statesman today and made me really quite annoyed…

It featured a letter written to the New Statesman by the CEO of the Association of the British Pharmaceutical Industry (ABPI), Stephen Whitehead, as a response to issues Ben Goldacre’s new book, Bad Pharma.

It’s amazing just how stupid a response it is – in fact I have to ask if Stephen has actually bothered to read the book at all or if the’s just gone into classic big Pharma knee jerk mode (after all, Stephen did spend 10 years of his career working at Glaxo and Eli Lily).

But no matter, as the New Statesman has printed Ben’s reply to the response.

However the comment I really found strange from Stephen Whitehead was this “…references to companies (GSK, Lilly, Pfizer) being fined are all examples from the US and simply not relevant to the UK market…”

GSK’s fine was, to remind you, the largest healthcare fraud settlement in history at $3bn.

How it isn’t relevant to the UK is beyond me – because what we’re talking about here is not just illegal marketing of drugs – not just bribing doctors to prescribe GSK products – what we’re talking about here are dead people.

Patients died because they were taking drugs that weren’t safe, drugs that weren’t even approved for their treatment.

In the case of Avandia, the drug is so dangerous that it can no longer be prescribed in Europe – it had to be withdrawn from the market because of high levels of heart attack, heart failure and stroke in patients. It had to be withdrawn from the market because it killed too many people.

How’s that “simply not relevant” to patients in the UK, Stephen?

Should we trust GlaxoSmithKline – and Andrew Witty…?

Trust GlaxoSmithKline?

Trust GSK? – you must be mad.

Sarah Boseley in The Guardian writes:

“The British drugs company GlaxoSmithKline is to open up the detailed data from its clinical trials to the scrutiny of scientists in a bid to help the discovery of new medicines and end the suspicions of critics that it has secrets to hide.

In a speech today [11 Oct] to the Wellcome Trust in London, the chief executive, Andrew Witty, will say openness to the public and active collaboration with scientists and firms outside GSK are essential to finding new drugs to treat the diseases plaguing the world, from novel antibiotics to cures for malaria and tuberculosis.

He told the Guardian GSK had already done much to advance transparency in clinical research, including publishing a summary of every drug trial – whether a success or not – on its website

Said Sir Mark Walport, director of the Wellcome Trust – “In its commitment towards more openness and collaboration, GSK is setting an example of how the pharmaceutical industry must adapt to help drive forward medical advances. Real breakthroughs do not come out of nowhere, but are borne of scientists sharing their knowledge and learning from each other. GSK’s moves are bold and innovative, a very positive sign of its commitment to tackle some of the greatest health challenges facing the world today.”

But hold on a minute – Dr Ben Goldacre’s not sure about GSK :

“But we should judge drug companies by their actions, not by their promises, especially when similar promises have been made in the past, and then broken.

In 1998 GlaxoWellcome promised to set up a clinical trials register, amidst outcry over withheld trial results. But when the company merged with SKB to create GSK, in 2002, this register was unceremonially deleted from the internet. This tragic story is described in an excellent open access article on this history of attempts to get access to hidden data, by Iain Chalmers.

Then, in 2003, GSK were caught withholding clinical trial data showing that their drug seroxat increases the risk of suicide in young people. As part of the settlement on fraud charges, in the US in 2004, GSK were forced to promise to post all trial results on a public website. But in 2012 GSK paid a new $3bn fine for criminal and civil fraud: this included charges over withholding data on the diabetes drug Avandia, as late as 2007, well after this earlier promise of transparency was made”.

That’s a pretty poor record, I’m sure you’ll agree.

As far as GSK is concerned, talk is cheap and promises are routinely broken with no compunction whatsoever.

 

GlaxoSmithKline avoided £34m tax in 2011

GlaxoSmithKline, what a bunch of…

Drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline avoided up to £34m in UK corporation tax last year through a deal with Luxembourg, according to an investigation by the BBC.

The UK firm set up a new company in the European tax haven in 2009 and the next year the subsidiary lent the parent £6.34bn.

In return, the UK firm paid nearly £124m in interest back to the Luxembourg unit – meaning it did not have to pay British corporation tax of 28 per cent on the money.

The Luxembourg tax authorities charged a levy of less than 0.5 per cent – costing GSK just over £300,000, according to Panorama. ‘As a result, GSK potentially avoided up to £34m in UK corporation tax,’ the BBC claimed.

Chancellor George Osborne is trying to crack down on tax avoidance in the UK by major corporations and wealthy individuals. Tax avoidance by big business is reckoned to cost between £1.5bn and £6bn a year.

Former HMRC investigator Richard Brooks said: ‘We’re seeing…exactly how companies avoid tax through a jurisdiction that wants to help them do it.’

GSK struck a deal with HMRC in 2011 and closed down the £6.34bn loan operation through Luxembourg.

Tax expert Richard Murphy said the scheme was ‘absolutely, without a shadow of a doubt, legal’. But he added: ‘I’m still able to ask the question, is this acceptable?

‘Look, this is purely artificial structuring which is designed to undermine the tax revenues of the UK.’

Thanks to Truthman for the story.

%d bloggers like this: