Back in 2009 a jury found by a majority of 10 -2 that Paxil was the causation of Lyam Kilker being born with serious heart defects.
During the trial much evidence was heard, what swung it for the jury was a deposition given by Jane Nieman who, in 2005, was employed by GlaxoSmithKline, the makers of Paxil.
Nieman, under oath, gave a video deposition.
For the first time, that video has now been made public and the edited version of the transcript is also available.
There are three reasons why I feel this should be made public.
1. It highlights how GlaxoSmithKline knew Paxil could cause serious heart defects...yet chose to do nothing about it
2. It clearly shows how GlaxoSmithKline's position of helping consumers affected by their product is one of a total lack of care, duty and responsibility.
3. GlaxoSmithKline, more often than not, settle out of court. On the two occasions where they have defended Paxil, they have lost. The Kilker case was such an occasion.
This lack of care continues today. GlaxoSmithKline refuse to help consumers struggling with their prescription drugs, they recommend that you "talk with your doctor".
The video and transcript from the Kilker trial shows how this wanton neglect is part of the money-making machine that is GlaxoSmithKline.
Briefly, the Kilker family had alleged that their son, Lyam, was born with a heart defect. During the pregnancy Lyam's mother had been taking Paxil.
Items of disclosure showed that another patient had discovered she was pregnant in December 2000 while being treated with Paxil. However, she reported that at six months gestation the pregnancy had to be terminated because the fetus was diagnosed as having Truncus arteriosis. Her physician told her that the child would not lead a normal childhood and would most likely not make it through the open heart surgery that he would need as soon as he was delivered, if he was able to make it to that time.
The video deposition sees lawyers probe Nieman for answers. What she revealed was damning for GlaxoSmithKline. It's also interesting to note that Nieman digs herself an even bigger hole when she suggests to lawyers that the initial report that concluded that the patient's termination was "almost certain" [related to Paxil] may have been a clerical error. Under oath she said;
"There's always the possibility someone made the mistake and checked the box wrong."
On hearing this, lawyers, rightly so, asked the following:
Q. Let's talk about the probability. Is the prob -- the probability is that somebody at GSK filled that in on the computer. Would you agree with that?I'm sharing this video because I believe the public have a right to see how GlaxoSmithKline knew a very long time ago about the dangers of pregnant women taking Paxil [known as Seroxat in UK]
A. Somebody at GSK filled that in on the computer, definitely.
Q. Nobody from Pro -- from Eli Lilly or Schering-Plough came in there and secretly filled this in, right?
A. No. Right. Definitely that did not happen.
Q. And the doctor didn't break into the database, or the patient, and fill that in or write down or check off "almost certain" twice; did they?
A. I don't understand -- no.
Q. Nobody broke into GSK's database
A. No, no.
Here, for the first time, is Nieman's video deposition. It's especially for GlaxoSmithKline's UK lawyers, Addleshaw Goddard and comes with the message, "You can't keep a good man down"
Here's the transcript:
The full court transcripts from the Kilker trial can be viewed on my sister blog, GlaxoSmithKline Internal Files.
ORDER THE PAPERBACK 'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman US and CANADA HERE OR UK FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
AUSTRALIAN ORDERS HERE