I have emailed Addleshaw & Goddard via their website with the following:
With reference to the letter you sent to Hugh James Solicitors regarding the posting and comment of your client GSK.
I have prepared and posted a statement and apology and would be grateful if Addleshaw and Goddard could confirm in writing within 7 days of receipt of yourselves and Dr Benbow reading the statement.
The statement can be read here:http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2008/03/gsk-lawyers-target-seroxat-campaigner.html
I will understand Dr Benbow's failure to respond to an apology given in good faith as churlish and provocative, and will prepare myself accordingly.
Yours sincerely
Mr Robert Fiddaman
----
Well readers, it seems I've been singled out for creating a video regarding Seroxat
GlaxoSmithKline's Lawyers, Addleshaw & Goddard, have wrote to the solicitors handling the Seroxat litigation because their client (GSK) were not happy with the content of a video posted on youtube entitled 'GSK - Not So Corporate Video'. Their client were also unhappy with a comment left regarding Alistair Benbow.
Quite why they have contacted solicitors handling the UK Seroxat litigation rather than contact me direct is baffling.
The video in question has been removed from youtube, it was a choice I made not because of the content, which in the main, was quotes from Alistair Benbow balanced out with quotes from the media that are easily accessible on the world-wide-web. The decison to remove it was made basically because it seemed I had used their logo and photo without their permission.
According to the letter sent to my solicitors Alistair Benbow is said have been caused 'serious distress by such unwarranted harassment'.
It is my belief that the video showed two sides to the Seroxat argument, however Addleshaw & Goddard think differently, they believe it was made to appear as if Benbow was lying. Could it not be argued that it was made to show that the media reports were lying? I'm just throwing the debate open here you see.
The video itself started off with the GSK logo then the GSK statement:
"We have a challenging and inspiring mission: to improve the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better and live longer"
The next slide in the video read thus:
"GlaxoSmithKline knew even before Seroxat was approved that its drug could induce suicidality, dependency and withdrawal"
I don't think there is anything defamatory within that statement as the MHRA have just proved that with their findings into their 4 year investigation into GSK haven't they?
Or am I wrong?
The video continued with photos of Alistair Benbow followed by quotes he has made, the first being this one:
"The side effects (of Seroxat discontinuance) are things like dizziness, nausea, headache..."
This quote was followed by a paragraph taken from The Guardian:
"Britain's best selling antidepressant, Seroxat, can cause adults as well as children to become suicidal"
The next slide in the video showed a photo of Benbow followed by another of his quotes:
"We take the safety of our medicines extremely seriously"
Once again Alistair Benbow's quote is balanced out with another segment from The Guardian, this time:
"Glaxo played down Seroxat side effects"
Basically the video was showing the two arguments.
Yet again the Guardian quote is followed by one of Benbow:
"These medicines are not linked with suicide, these medicines are not linked with an increased rate of self harm"
To balance things out the next slide in the video was a segment from the BBC news:
"Drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline knew that the anti-depressant Seroxat could not be proved to work on children in 1998, according to a leaked internal document."
Once again I chose to counteract this statement with one from Benbow, as was seen in the next slide from the video:
"The information in the patient information leaflet and in the information we supply to doctors, is based on fact"
The following segment of the video was taken from the newspaper, The Argus, it reads:
"Happy pill girl's suicide tragedy... A brilliant young artist killed herself after taking the controversial anti-depressant Seroxat"
A photo of Sharise Gatchell followed, I'd previously asked the mother of Sharise if I could use the photo.
The video continued with:
"Sharise had hanged herself. A packet of Seroxat, with 30 empty blisters, was lying on her bed"
The video then threw up another Benbow quote (purely as a way of balance)
"I utterly refute any allegations we are sitting on data, that (we) have withheld data or anything like that"
(Has the MHRA investigation just proved that statement to be incorrect?)
Or am I wrong?
The video then went into scroll mode and highlighted Paxil Study 329, more of which can be read here.
Again I allowed for balance by providing in the next segment another Benbow quote:
"I think patients have nothing to fear from taking Seroxat"
To counteract the above statement by Benbow I quoted a segment of a story taken from USA Today. It referred to a federal judge who had ordered GlaxoSmithkline to stop all television commercials nationwide that say the drug is NOT habit forming.
As was the pattern of the video I then opted to add another Benbow statement:
"Anybody who suffers side effects of any sort I feel every sympathy for"
The Daily Mail was my next source to use a quote from:
"Man slashed wrists on Seroxat. A coroner has called for Britain's biggest selling antidepressant to be withdrawn after a retired headmaster who was prescribed the drug was found dead with slashed wrists"
The video then highlighted the story of 3 year old Manie from the USA, once again I asked permission to use the photos prior to the video being made.
Manie's story can be read in detail here.
The video ended with the GSK logo.
In hindsight I would not have used the logo and to be fair I think the video was in the main a cross examination of both parties. The sufferers being represented by media reports and GSK being defended by Alistair Benbow.
The comment left on youtube I guess could have been deemed defamatory, it was a personal comment basically labelling Alistair Benbow a liar. For that I apologise, it was however, a personal opinion of which there are literally thousands across the world-wide web regarding Dr Alistair Benbow
Addleshaw & Goddard Solicitors suggest that.. "the natural and ordainary meaning of the video and the posting (comment) is that Dr Benbow has lied,acted hypocritically and/or been guilty of a cover up in making statements about Seroxat which he knew to be untrue"
I utterly refute that allegation and as you can see from this post - the idea was to leave the viewer with the question... Is Dr Benbow a liar or not?
My personal opinion (because we're still permitted to have opinions, in western "civilized" democracies, even though GSK and its lawyers would appear to prefer that this were not the case), is that Benbow is either lying or is an ignorant person (for not knowing what was being discussed within his own company, on a subject upon which he was supposed to be expert). The latter possibility would be one for his superiors to address, assuming that they deliberately left him in the dark. This is fair comment on a matter of public interest, and I will not be silenced by some lapdog or lickspittle that has forgotten what the Law means.
I am entitled to my fair and balanced opinion on a matter of public interest by dint of the protection of the public interest privilege extended to the general public under the decision in Steel and Morris v UK, in the European Court of Justice. For the avoidance of any and all possible doubt, I reject utterly that my approach is malicious: I have nothing against Dr Benbow, though I find some of his utterances utterly incredible. Equally incredible is that a law originally designed to protect people from stalkers (The Harassment Act 1997) has been co-opted by these 'professionals' to protect Benbow from scrutiny.
Scrutiny now equates to harassment - I can't see that that meets the definition in the Act, in any event. One piddling video ought not to be claimed to amount to harassment, and I can't see that it does. I regret that he is reported to have claimed to have experienced distress - that was not the intention and I would apologize to Dr Benbow if the claim is true. However, until such time as he feels inclined to clarify whether or not he knew of the October, 1998 memo, I shall continue to speculate on the subject, lickspittles notwithstanding, because I see that question as key.
I suggest that this not-at-all veiled threat of legal action is viewed by myself as an attempt at intimidation on the part of GSK, which has prior form in this area (John Buse, etc). Naturally, I view this as utterly reprehensible if it wasn't so transparent and unfounded, an abuse of its superior bargaining position, in terms of wealth, and so on.
I have insisted that Addleshaw & Goddard confirm, in writing, within seven days of receipt of this statement and apology to Benbow, that Benbow has accepted same.
I will understand Dr Benbow's failure to respond to an apology given in good faith as churlish and provocative, and will prepare myself accordingly.
I will leave it up to my readers to decide whether or not they think Alistair Benbow is a liar and maybe revamp the video at a later date by removing the logo of GSK and the photograph of Alistair Benbow which apparently is the ownership of GSK. The rest of the video was basically two arguments.
There have been no physical threats made by me in this particular video and the reason Benbow's quotes were used in the making of this video is that he has been the spokesperson of GlaxoSmithKline throughout thus making it impossible not to focus the subject matter on him.
I think it fair to say that I am not a great lover of GlaxoSmithKline because the drug they manufacture, Seroxat, has caused not only myself but thousands of others unwanted side effects. Is that statement defamatory? If so, then Addleshaw & Goddard may have their work cut out to prosecute the thousands of people that have signed and commented on petitions, blogs and websites here in the UK.
*On a footnote, this letter has made me feel intimidated and I feel the above statement from me is merely allowing myself freedom of expression and the right of reply.
Robert Fiddaman
22 comments:
SEROXAT.....
I Believe anybody that has anything to do with the creation of seroxat (GSK) will never realise what a sick creation they have introduced to the human race. Adults, children ever BABIES have dies from a drug by the name of SEROXAT. Now i dont know too much details on whats in the drug etc... But from what i do know, I would rather see myself die of depression that fill my body with the SHIT known as seroxat. Strong hate towards the man who ever let this pass the certified drugs test or however else it got into the hands of doctors. SHAME ON YOU GSK. SHAME ON YOU !!!!!
I've just sent this to A&G:
Dear Sirs,
I was interested to read that A&G, on GSK's behalf, has chosen to characterize Bob Fiddaman's video as defamatory and harassment.
I would leave aside for the time being that Dr Benbow continued to protest the safety of Seroxat, for years after the infamous October, 1998 memo had been in circulation. Right up until the point that GSK submitted data to the MHRA, whereupon the MHRA instigated an investigation, recently concluded that GSK had withheld data indicating a risk. I believe that Professor Woods was correct to publicly question the morality of this withholding of data, and, by extension, the morality of your client, and its management.
Howsoever it may be, in the light of the recent Senate Finance Committee investigation into the intimdiation of Dr John Buse, I wished to ask whether or not it was standard policy at GSK to attempt to intimidate those who have things to say about the Company, its personnel and products that the Company doesn't like? It's looking that way, increasingly. It's not very scientific, is it?
Let me make sure I have this right. GSK can withhold information about Paxil and birth defects and my son will have to suffer for the rest of his life because of it. This is O.K.?
Someone uses a logo or says something bad (which happens to be true) about them and they want to cry about it.
GSK I did not give you permission to use my son and cause him to have a heart defect. Where is Manie's apology? Where is my damn apology?
If anyone at GSK thinks they are suffering distress over a video well isn't that just too bad. At least it is not distress from finding your child dead. Or the distress of struggling to live because you were born with a heart that does not work.
GSK you get no sympathy from me. The real problem for you is that you do not want the world to see the pain and destruction you have caused.
From the heart,
Julie (Manie's Mom)
BOO WOO GSK! Its time for you to deal with what you have created.Where is freedom of speech? GSK has put poison in the mouths of people and when people decide to stand up and do something about it GSK wants to cry like babies.This sickens me!
The question is, "when are they going to take some accountability for what it is doing to people". I called their line about them at least providing a hotline regarding a proper taper off paxil for docs. Being a RN, and PAXIL ADDICT, this is going to turn into a major health crisis as teens addicted to Paxil come off their parents health plans and can't afford the meds on their own...how many suicides will happen because these kids come off cold turkey. What about mothers that find out they are pregnant? We know you have to come Paxil at a snails pace. How will they do it? This is a big Public Health Issue! My husband is director of Arizona office of Public Health, Rural Health. Together we are working hard to somehow look into what is going to happen this next decade and write a book to do something to prevent it through the education of physicians. Most aren't even aware of the "discontinuation" problem. Doesn't GSK at least owe them that info?
I'm sorry but lies are lies. We do have to worry. I've wiped up the blood in my son's room after he self-mutilated on Paxil, I've tried to commit suicide twice on Paxill, and I've had blue baby in NICU from me being on Paxil.
Maybe the Logo is the only way they have to "attack" you but the truth still stands.
Quite simply ..
Astounding..
If GSK were to attempt to threaten and silence all of their critics they would run out of legal paper ..
I wonder what Dr Buse thinks about all of this? Or the good doctor David Healy?
Both were the subject of intimidation and vilification by GSK because they SPOKE OUT and tried to SAVE LIVES...
It seems corporate monsters have no conscience..
Unreal..
What kind of a sick, disgusting world is this where it is possible to endanger God knows how many lives all in the interest of making a profit because of people´s depression. Withholding information knowingly in the interest of sales is criminal. What is even more obscene is to then feel the need to silence those people, sufferers themselves, who dared speak out against GSK inhumane and depraved business practises. Since when is it all right for say a murderer to be complaining about being vilified by his victim.
Instead Mr. Fiddaman should be complimented on his courage to speak out what thousands seem to also feel. He is performing a service that especially GSK should be happy about, as it is in everybody´s interest that prescription medication is safe and has a minimum amount of side effects. Not the reverse!
Robert Laversuch
Well done Bob Fiddaman, you appear to be one of the few people to have rattled the cages of GSK, the maker of the so-called antidepressant SSRI drug Seroxat, and their oft quoted spokesman Dr Alistair Benbow.
As far as we're aware the BBC's excellent Panorama team didn't perturb them unduly:
Even a four year criminal investigation by the MHRA didn't appear to ruffle their
corporate feathers--Hmm, it's almost as though Glaxo knew the matter of the retracted data would never lead to a criminal prosecution by the UK's judicial system.
Further on feathers -- we must admit every time we watched, or read Dr Benbow's spirited, but in our opinion, misguided defences of seroxat--a vision of a scrawny,
sickly parrot sprang to our minds.
Disclaimer: Just in case we have inadvertently used any company logo,or other (tm) and thereby led any person to take a drug which probably doesn't work and does have many severe side-effects, including a warning of suicidality, we apologise. We are
also sorry if the above content implies Dr Benbow lied, or is totally incompetent of discovering the truth. We are also sorry the UK did not have any lawful instrument to bring GSK before a criminal court, and therefor GSK have not been found guilty of
criminality.
On a more hopeful note, we understand the government intends to remedy the unhealthy to science, and dangerous to patient safety practice, of non-drug trial
disclosure in the near future.
Stuart and Claudette.
For the unitiated see the below extracts from the BBC's Panorama, and a Guardian Leader article, or access the URL's for further knowledge.
___________________________________
_http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/6291773.stm_
Secrets of the drug trials
Secret emails reveal that the UK's biggest drug company distorted trial results of an anti-depressant, covering up a link with suicide in teenagers.
Panorama reveals that
GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) attempted to show that Seroxat worked for depressed children despite failed clinical trials.
And that GSK-employed ghostwriters influenced 'independent' academics.(cut)
----------------------------------
_http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2008/mar/07/medicalresearch.glaxosmithklinebusiness/print_
Prescription for change
Leader
The Guardian,
Friday March 7 2008
The regulators of the multibillion-dollar global drugs industry must sometimes feel like a barnacle on a whale: not easily able to influence the direction of travel. Yesterday's report from the Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency (MHRA), on
GlaxoSmithKline's failure to disclose adverse evidence about its antidepressant drug Seroxat, reveals again how powerless the watchdog is. It has taken four years to extract (it had to use its special powers on no less than 103 occasions) and then to
analyse a million pages of evidence that confirm the drugs company failed to report
the findings of Seroxat's potentially suicidal effect on young people in a "timely" manner. There was no warning of the potential problems that led to the MHRA's ban on prescribing the drug to under-18s until 2003, possibly several years after GSK first
had evidence. Even so, the MHRA has reluctantly concluded that there is no case for the company to answer in law. (cut)
______________________________
To further echo the many others who have commented here..
Bob Fiddaman should be applauded for his work in bringing awareness to the dangers of Seroxat..
He has the support of many whom value human life before profit..
Can GSK say the same of their practices?..
How pitiful that GSK flex their muscles in this way. It's a shame they weren't so diligent when it came to the clinical trials and their moral obligation to inform people about the risks of Seroxat.
Mr Fiddaman should be applauded for raising the profile of this drug and the problems associated with it.
I've just sent this to A&G (http://www.addleshawgoddard.com/view.asp?content_id=1983&parent_id=664), too:
Dear Sirs,
Your client, Glaxo Smithkline, has been found responsible by the UK medicines regulator, the MHRA, for withholding crucial safety data that indicated the risk of serious adverse events. At its behest, you have chosen to target an activist, Robert Fiddaman, who has been highlighting these issues for some time.
GSK has received public censure from the regulator for its conduct. I am struck by the incongruence of your client continuing to protest its innocence, in as much as it seeks to accuse those who complain of its conduct of defamation and harassment.
Will A&G continue to represent GSK, in the circumstances?
Best regards
Matthew Holford
Couldn't resist it: one last one, from me to A&G:
One last point on the subject of GSK, veracity, and so on: could you let me know what GSK's official response is to the MHRA's findings, and also whether GSK will be agreeing to release into the public domain the documentation that the MHRA reviewed, during its investigation? Finally, could we have Dr Benbow's personal response to the MHRA's findings?
Best regards
Matthew Holford
If your video would have used GSK photo as touting seroxat and the same comment was left GSK would would look the other way.
If the good doctor is so distressed let him take Seroxat. If he hasn't been lieing all this time he should start to feel wonderful within four to six weeks.
Shame on you GSK. You will stop nowheres to keep your lies alive!
Fiddy keep up the good work!
U.S.A.Blog- soulful sepulcher supports Bob Fiddaman!
Keep up the great work Bob!
GSK, instead of wasting your time, efforts and money on harassing innocent people /involving legal bods to try and shut someone like Bob up because he has been making very valid points, based on his and others experiences of your drug/s, points you wish to repress/ignore - why not stop for a minute And LISTEN. You are all adults (one hopes). You've made a mistake. Admit to it. Try rectifying it in the best way possible, instead of hiding the truth.
GSK are unbelieveable!! Fid, put the video back up without their logo. They cannot stop you from sharing the truth that way. When your done, I'll host this story, and video, on my site.
The truth is hurting them if they are speaking up. Job well done!!
I'm going to disclose a full gag order on my site shortly, hope they enjoy that as well!! They not only want to disclose only what they choose, but want to control others as well... not going to happen! How disgusting!
This is a disgrace.
Having completed their intimidation of the medical profession, GSK is now progressing to threatening patients.
GSK have some serious answering to do. Either this named individual at GSK was lying or he was misled, or the information about GSK behaviour is incorrect.
Only one of those possibilities can be true.
Instead of bullying, some truth-telling and a sincere apology from GSK would be in order.
Shame and more shame on GSK.
Aubrey
I'm with Rita Fid, put it back up without the logo,.....it's just telling both sides. I actually need your help right now. I'll PM you through Paxil progress. Important.
Shelly
I have nothing more to say; everything that I'm thinking has already been written in the above comments.
And so, I'll add this: Hello, GSK Public Relations Team! I guarantee you that they're monitoring this post, including the comments, and preparing some sort of Action Plan in case our complaints hit the major media outlets.
We're one very, very active public.
I would also like to say a "harty" hello to the GSK relations team. Tomorrow I have the opportunity to sit in with a team of psychiatrists and residents and conference them on YOUR spotless history and encourage them to follow Britain's standards and stop writing scripts to children...luckily I have pics of my newborn in NICU from Paxil withdrawal, my son with self-mutilation scars, and my big fat chart from drug withdrawal....along with, of course the leaked memo's....of course, no logos....just the facts....
My book is going to be a hit! Sorry that GSK never responded to my calls about setting up a hotline or public health forum for docs wanting to know more about withdrawal.....I guess they were too busy targeting Fid here. However the facts will go forward this fall in Edinboro to the hundreds of docs at the International Medical Conference, as you will remember, my husband is a US delegate.
Even further Shame on You GSK
You will do anything to protect the golden cash cow as you continue to deny the truth and immorals of your actions on seroxat for a decade.
Have you no morals or conscience?????
Goddam Serial Killers. GSK the initials match the above.
Post a Comment