Monsanto Roundup Lawsuit

Monday, June 01, 2009


Here Rob wrote an open letter to GlaxoSmithKline employees.

The letter is taken from the website Rob created called Paxil Protest [now removed]

One has to admire Rob Robinson. If it wasn't for he, GlaxoSmithKline would still be raking in billions on the back of Paxil.

Rob stood up for what he believed in. He was counted.



Author of Seroxat Sufferers Blog

Dear GlaxoSmithKline employee,

Few things in life are all good or all bad, and companies are no exception. GSK does do many things which have a positive impact on the world; however, that does not excuse the company for the unconscionable things it does.

This protest is not about the tens of thousands of GSK employees who are simply trying to:

do an honest day's work,
pay their bills on time,
raise a decent family,
and make a positive contribution to the world.

What this worldwide protest is about are dangerous and defective GlaxoSmithKline drugs — and a couple of white collar criminals, most notably:

J.P. Garnier, David Wheadon and Tadataka Yamada. These gentlemen are, at minimum, public relations liabilities for GSK. As such, company shareholders would be doing themselves, not to mention the public, a favor to get rid of them.

The Paxil debacle is not going away anytime soon, and company sacrifices to the altar of public opinion will be demanded as proof of penance.


David Wheadon and Takeda Yamada left GlaxoSmithKline soon after our first protest in Philadelphia in September, 2005. Wheadon's current whereabouts are unknown, while Yamada has sought public relations refuge under cover of the philantropic umbrella of Bill Gates and his charitable foundation.

Glaxo's top brass will likely send out a series of internal memos in response to the GSK Worldwide Protest. We ask that you read carefully what the company "spin meisters" have say about all of this — and then to come back round to further consideration of the shocking truths exposed by this web site.

And while we would certainly appreciate your support ... we are not asking for it.

After all, when a company is under siege it is only natural for its employees to "close ranks." That said, we know the vast majority of Glaxo's employees are good people with a clear conscience and a sense of compassion. As such, we appeal to your basic human decency and knowing right from wrong when you see it.

Besides, the devastation and death spawned by Paxil (and many other defective GlaxoSmithKline drugs) could have and, indeed, might well have, happened to a member of your family — or that of your friends. The sinister reach of Paxil, in particular, extends into millions of medicine cabinets the world over; it is an "equal opportunity destroyer."

We are completely confident the evidence showcased at this site is an accurate reflection of the unvarnished truth. We are equally confident that GSK's version of, in particular, "the Paxilian reality" is one in which the company sent the truth on a fool's errand into a hall of mirrors — never to be seen again.

Are we wrong in our assessments? While you consider the evidence tendered, ask yourself a simple yet powerful question:

Why is GlaxoSmithKline not suing over what's said at this web site?

After all, if anything could potentially "damage the commercial profile" of Paxil and other GSK drugs — it's staring back out at you from your computer screen right now.

The reason the company doesn't sue is simple: Because it's all true. And because it's true: A lawsuit would turn what is, already, an exploding public relations disaster into a full blown catastrophe. It would result in the company's, most notably, confidential Paxil-related documents and intra-company communications being made public — thereupon exposing the spectacular fraud that is Paxil's legacy. GSK could, quite literally, put at risk all U.S. profits made from Paxil from the time the drug first began selling in 1992 if this fraud was exposed. (It is for this very reason that the company fought so hard to head off going to trial on May 2nd, 2005 in what would have been the world's first "Paxil withdrawal trial.")

If you are wondering "how could this have happened?" we encourage you to begin by reading Medicines out of Control? by Charles Medawar and Anita Hardon.

A public watchdog group out of the UK, Social Audit, introduces its web site with the following statement:

This website (Social Audit) began as an investigation of problems with antidepressant drugs — not only their adverse effects on many users, but also what the problem signaled about the conduct of the competent authorities, and the adequacy of their institutions and process. As the problem unfolded, notably between 1997 and 2003, it revealed a glimpse of pharmageddon — a world of sickness created and sustained by exploitation of the fear of disease, indifference to real health needs, dependence on authority, and misplaced trust in the triumph of drug benefits over harm.

These are the main themes in Medicines out of Control?

Kind Regards,
Rob Robinson, organizer
The GlaxoSmithKline Protest