Generic Paxil Suicide Lawsuit


Citizens Commission on Human Rights Award Recipient (Twice)
Humanist, humorist

Saturday, July 14, 2018

GSK Management in a Tizz Over Fiddaman Blog





Following on from Parts I & II (Links below)

It always amazes me how corporate entities spring into action when news of alleged violations go public. None more so than GlaxoSmithKline who, it appears, have been keeping tabs of the Indian whistleblower allegations published on my blog.

Here's an email they sent to Navneet Kumar after he raised issues about the working violations of senior officials at GSK India.

After reading the email (below) you'll see a link to a British newspaper article from the Evening Standard that also highlights Navneet's allegations.

Navneet approached me shortly after Truthman published a series of emails on his blog, GSK Licence To Kill. Shortly after publishing the emails, Truthman took a sabbatical and took down his blog.

 Here's an email GSK to Kumar shortly after I published Part II:

"I am GSK’s Vice President for Compliance for Emerging Markets.  I understand that you have recently been in touch with Bob Fiddaman, author of a weblog that has recently posted several allegations against GSK that he attributed to you.  Please note that GSK takes all allegations of misconduct seriously, including those raised in Mr. Fiddaman’s weblog.  Pursuant to GSK’s Code of Conduct and Speak Up culture and procedures, we encourage everyone to raise concerns about potential unethical or illicit conduct.  During your employment, including in connection with the disciplinary proceedings that preceded your dismissal from the company last year, GSK’s policies and culture require the company to have provided you with opportunities to raise concerns relating to GSK’s business practices, including concerns with the conduct of any employees.  If you have documents, electronic data, or other evidence that you believe would be relevant in order for the company to conduct a thorough review of the allegations made in Mr. Fiddaman’s weblog or any other concerns that you may have, GSK would appreciate you providing such evidence to us.

"If you would like to speak with someone in the company about this or any other concerns that you believe have not been addressed, we would be happy to make a member of the company’s Corporate Investigations or Compliance Team available to speak to you."


---

COMING SOON

Kumar met with a GSK official after the above email was sent to him. I'll be publishing the outcome of that meeting soon.

Bob Fiddaman

Back Stories

India: GSK Whistleblower Names and Shames - Part I

India: GSK Whistleblower Names and Shames - Part II

London Evening Standard - Glaxo faces lawsuit as salesman claims he was bullied for whistleblowing



Wednesday, July 11, 2018

Sex, Lies, & Duct Tape






I see the thought police are at it again.

Not content with associating playing computer games as a mental disorder we now see more widening of the net, this time coming from the World Health Organisation (WHO).

An article from CNN runs with the headline, WHO classifies compulsive sexual behavior as mental health condition. Reading through it you'll find that the conclusion, from WHO, is based on...um, nothing. No science, no studies, just nothing.

Sexual Behaviour Disorder, WHO claim, is defined as "persistent pattern of failure to control intense, repetitive sexual impulses or urges resulting in repetitive sexual behavior." The article adds:

"The disorder may interfere with someone's ability to go to work or finish school. It can hurt relationships. And although someone with this disorder may want to resist their constant need for sex, they've been unsuccessful. They may not even get pleasure from the repeated sexual activity."

Finish school?

Are they talking about teachers here or kids?

Wait, there's more:

"A person with this disorder has had to be dealing with it over an extended period of time, according to the definition, which gives an example of six months or more."

Puberty

In boys, puberty usually begins between the ages of 10 and 16. Once it begins, it lasts about 2 to 5 years. But every child is different. And there is a wide range of what is “normal.” During puberty, you'll probably start having more sexual thoughts and urges. You may feel attracted to males, females, or both.

Dang it! Look at all those 10 to 16 year-olds with "Sexual Behaviour Disorder." Quick, take their minds off such lurid thoughts, distract them with, um, I dunno, a computer game or something. Oh no, we can't, that's a mental disorder too!

Thinking, whatever it may be about, is, it seems, tantamount to having a disease of the brain.

Average

According to shape.com, researchers learned that, on average, men think about sex 19 times a day. The average women thinks about sex 10 times a day. Gadzooks! we're all perverts!

Lack of Sex Drive

Okay, so what if none of the above applies to us, what if we aren't perverted because we have lustful thoughts and desires? Well, according to the psychiatry bible, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), we have yet another mental disorder, this time, Hypoactive sexual desire disorder, a "brain disease" defined as "a sexual dysfunction and is characterized as a lack or absence of sexual fantasies and desire for sexual activity." This doesn't, however. just apply to males, in fact, the DSM splits it into two categories, namely: "male hypoactive sexual desire disorder" and "female sexual interest/arousal disorder."

So, we either think about sex too much or we don't think about it enough.

The Middleman/Woman

Psychiatry here have a scale, it's a scale that they have created entirely themselves, on one end are the perverts, on the other end are the frigid. In between, supposedly, is the "normal", but only by psychiatric standards.

As we grow older we think about sex less often, in fact, I haven't thought about it during the whole time I've been writing this... huge melons - Ah, I failed at the last hurdle...huge, wobbly, dangly ones - there I go again - I must fall into the first group of abnormal people!

WHO and the DSM authors will be taking their comedy show on the road soon - look out for Psychiatric seminars in your local press.

Meantime, whatever your sexual preference, beware that stopping in hotel rooms may cause rise for concern for your psychiatrist, as Alan Partridge (Steve Coogan) painfully shows here.



Bob Fiddaman

Friday, June 22, 2018

So what?





They shrug their shoulders while muttering, "So what?"

This seems to be the general consensus of not only drug regulators and the business of psychiatry but also of the largely apathetic general public.

Sure, we see the familiar faces on Twitter and Facebook banging the drum, but what about others? You know, the "so what" lot?

Twitter went into a frenzy earlier this week with news that immigrant children are being forcibly injected with drugs at the Shiloh Residential Treatment Center near Manvel, Texas.

Those who don't normally tweet or retweet drug abuse stories were doing so in droves. I couldn't quite understand why people who don't normally discuss the dangers of drugs felt compelled to tweet this news? Do they lean to the left and feel that sharing America's ills will somehow score them brownie points? Or perhaps tweeting or Facebooking about the Shiloh Residential Treatment Center abuses of minority children will make them appear that there isn't a racist bone in their body? Maybe some sort  of  "Look, I'm spreading the news about abusing immigrants and, therefore, I care about others different from me." 

Here's some news: forcibly drugging children in "care" has been going on for years. Why is it only now highlighted when it involves immigrant children?

I suppose I should see the silver lining as I watch people take a break from their hectic schedules, vacations, etc., to post news they typically don't bother posting. Perhaps their tweets will reach an audience that might now be prompted to reevaluate the drug industry, psychiatric industry, and their own government regulators. If so, great.

In a recent blog post, The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs, I shared a video which noted more than 6,000 children in the UK are prescribed drugs that were never approved for children's consumption. There's a warning on the boxes of these products that states suicide is an increased possibility (a "side effect") whilst taking the products. Although the blog post was popular with fellow advocates, it drew little attention on Facebook and Twitter, certainly nowhere near as much attention as the Shiloh Residential Treatment Center story generated.

It was met with a 'so what?' attitude from the largely apathetic general public. I can't quite get to the bottom of why people seem compelled to respond when a story of immigrant children on bad drugs hits the news, yet stories of far more children on many more bad drugs goes astray in their wine and dine world. Perhaps their one tweet met their monthly one good deed quota?

Apathy, as Polystyrene (X-Ray Specs) once said, is a drag.

If news of immigrant children caught your attention and you felt the need to retweet or Facebook it then stop and think before you pat yourself on the back for your good deed of the day.

I'm guessing those same wine and diners didn't feel the need to post or, indeed discuss, the latest news from the dodgy world of drug companies. Purdue Pharma, reports CNN, used deceptive sales tactics for OxyContin. In 2007 they pleaded guilty and were fined $630 million. However, last week a whistleblower who used to work for the Connecticut-based company, stated the company continued to illegally market their product by inventing disorders even after the fine.

Just so the wine and diners know, the opioid crisis has killed more than 200,000 people, and I'm fairly certain some of them were also immigrants.

Carol Panara is a former sales rep for Purdue Pharma and this week she revealed how the drug company made up names of disorders in order to sell more of their product. This from CNN...
But amid skyrocketing addiction rates and overdoses related to OxyContin, Panara claimed the company taught a sales tactic she now considers questionable, saying some patients might only appear to be addicted when in fact they're just in pain. In training, she was taught a term for this: "pseudoaddiction." 
She went on to tell CNN that company bosses told her the cure for "pseudoaddiction" was higher doses of opioids. CNN asked her if this concept of pseudoaddiction came with studies backing it up? Panara replied:
"We had no studies. We actually -- we did not have any studies. That's the thing that was kind of disturbing, was that we didn't have studies to present to the doctors."
A 2015 study published in Current Addiction Reports found "no empirical evidence" to support "pseudoaddiction" as a diagnosis.

If these two stories above aren't enough then check out an old video recently uploaded to YouTube. The video, just over three minutes in length, is a pastiche of people giving evidence to the FDA about their experiences with SSRI drugs. It's from the 90's and it really highlights how the SSRI suicidal/homicidal problem has been shelved all these years. I imagine after seeing it there will be little outrage and no tweeting from those who tweeted this week about the forced drugging of children in Texas.

Here's the video that is, seemingly, less important than a handful of immigrant children in Texas.



People die horrific deaths on psychiatric drugs ~ so what?

Bob Fiddaman


Sunday, June 17, 2018

Dutch Court Rules for Plaintiff - Seroxat (Paxil) Psychological Damage




Gerard Eggebeen (32)



**UK Exclusive**

GlaxoSmithKline, whose headquarters are in London, England, has been found guilty in the Rechtbank Midden-Nederland, in Utrecht for the damage suffered by a claimant caused by the use of Seroxat, known as Paxil in the US and Canada.

The Decision
"he attempted suicide six times."

In 2001, Gerard Eggebeen (32) was first prescribed Seroxat at the age of 14. His GP, according to court documents, prescribed it to him due to family trauma. Eggebeen had, at the age of 12, witnessed his father suffer a fatal heart attack, a result of which saw him suffer trauma and depressive episodes for the next two years. Because of this, his mother sent him to see a doctor who prescribed Eggebeen, who was 14 at the time, a whopping 50mg of Seroxat.

At school he started to behave more and more hostile to fellow pupils and teachers, he sometimes waved a knife, was suspended several times and was finally expelled from school.

During the course of his life, Eggebeen has attempted suicide six times. He now resides at Emergis, a clinic for mental health care, where still suffers from the prolonged side effects of Seroxat, even though he hasn't taken it since the age of 18.

In 2015, Eggebeen, like most people, stumbled on articles relating to Seroxat use in children. He was aghast and filed suit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK). GSK argued, unsuccessfully, that Eggebeen was 'out of time', a more common phrase meaning he did not meet the Statute of Limitations.

In the Nederlands, a limitation period of five years applies after the injured party has become aware of both the damage and the person liable for it, and in any case by the lapse of twenty years after the event causing the damage.

Looking at the online Court document, it appears that the Judge ruled for plaintiff because "GSK knew from about the year 2000 that paroxetine for children and adolescents (under 18) was not effective", also, GSK knew that Seroxat "had serious side effects, including (in short) suicidal behavior." Furthermore, GSK "had to make that knowledge public at the time, and they did not. If they had done so, Eggebeen would not have been prescribed it in 2001."

The conclusion of the trial found, "GlaxoSmithKline has acted in violation of the due care that, according to an unwritten law, is common in society, and therefore unlawful. This is unlawful towards the users of Seroxat, who (without warning) were exposed to the risks, so also against [the plaintiff]. The statement of entitlement can therefore be assigned."

Amsterdam psychiatrist, Dr. Bram Bakker, who was consulted as an expert during the trial, told the Dutch media, "there are still doctors who prescribe the drug to young people. If they think it is necessary, they will write it, that's how it goes." He added, "I'm afraid that under the influence of paroxetine an unknown number of murders have been committed."  Bakker refers, among other cases, to the 'axe killings', in which a former KLM stewardess, known only as Elzelien K (64), axed her husband and daughter to death at their home in Badhoevedorp. She then tried to kill herself by driving her car into a tree. She was, as expected, found guilty but in sentencing her to 7 years in prison the court considered her acts to have been brought on by the drug she was taking at the time, namely Seroxat. (1)

Further, in 2014,  asylum seeker, only known as 'Alasam S' (29), was sentenced to six years in prison after being found guilty of killing his girlfriend and a policeman in 2011. (2) What's interesting about this case is that a year previously he was sentenced to 28 years in prison, upon appeal, however, the court heard how Alasam had developed psychosis the day before the killings as a result of the use of the antidepressant Seroxat.

One other related case pertaining to the Nederlands is that of the Sierre bus disaster, a case that I have covered previously on this blog. There were 52 on board, 28 people perished, 22 of them were children. The other 24 pupils, all aged between 10 and 12, were injured, including three who were hospitalized with severe brain and chest injuries.

A full investigation into the crash was carried out by Swiss Chief Prosecutor Olivier Elsig, the results of which were inconclusive. He ruled out the involvement of a third party, shortcomings in the road surface or the tunnel infrastructure. Excessive speed, alcohol or technical problems with the vehicle were also ruled out. He, at no point, could determine whether or not Geert Michiels carried out an act of homicide/suicide with the vehicle. In fact, the final report leaves more questions than it does answers.

The autopsy of the bus driver, Geert Michiels, revealed traces of Seroxat in his system. Michiels had been taking Seroxat for several years, he had been prescribed it as, at the time, he was going through a divorce. However, he was, at the time of the bus crash, in the process of tapering off. (3,4,5)

David Slew Goliath

The verdict, in favor of Eggebeen, can be seen as a victory for David over Goliath - the ruling condemned GSK to compensate Eggebeen because of the psychological damage caused by Seroxat. The judgment was passed down by Mr. AE The-Kouwenhoven, Mr. P. Krepel and Mr. MWV van Duursen.

Because of the verdict, Eggebeen has now formed the Seroxat Claim Foundation. The lawyer of the foundation is Ron Lensen and because of the 'time limitations' ruling against GSK he is now looking for other victims of Seroxat (Link)

Of the verdict, Lensen said, "The verdict of the court opens the door to more damages in this affair. This goes further than just Mr. Eggebeen. This statement against GlaxoSmithKline is, in fact, usable for everyone in a similar position. The foundation can act as a representative for a group of injured parties. GSK is bound by this court judgment to all interested parties. "

In a statement, GlaxoSmithKline said, "GSK does not agree with the decision of the court in Utrecht and will carefully consider the next steps. For that reason, we can not now respond substantively to the verdict."

Bob Fiddaman

Hat-tip - Olga Leclercq


--

(1) Criminal-law side effects: Increased chance of committing a murder?

(2) Alasam S. gets six years in prison and TBS for manslaughter girlfriend and agent in Baflo

(3) Did Seroxat Trigger the Fatal Sierre 2012 Bus Crash?

(4) Sierre Bus Crash Revisited

(5) The Bus Disaster in Sierre

Thursday, June 14, 2018

The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs



The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs ~ Dr. Chris Van Tulleken

Many people outside of the UK will not have seen the following show broadcast on the BBC on the 30th May 2018.

I've often wondered why a show broadcast in one country is unavailable in other countries, particularly when the content is of vital importance, wherever you happen to live.

After watching the half-hour episode of 'The Doctor Who Gave Up Drugs', please read the link at the foot of the video. The two are connected.

Pay attention to the quote, in the show, from Andrea Cipriani, who claims that antidepressants work by "increasing the level of neurotransmitters, called serotonin, in the brain."

So, they help rectify a 'chemical imbalance' then?

Honestly, I thought we were past this nonsense. Even the Royal College of Psychiatrists don't support this view anymore.


For those who don't know, Andrea Cipriani is the lead author of a paper which earlier this year was heralded as the 'final say' on the efficacy of antidepressants. Hard to believe that Cipriani believes antidepressants rectify a chemical imbalance, then again, it's hard to believe anyone does these days.

Here's the video. Please, after watching, click on the link below the video.




Now read this.



Bob Fiddaman





Wednesday, May 30, 2018

Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals



Wendy Dolin
Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals
Chicago


Earlier today the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals heard a plea from GSK with regard to reasons why they don't feel they should pay a $3million fine handed down to them last year. (Verdict)

It's quite a beautiful piece of audio I'm about to offer you. Yes, there's a lot of legal talk about preemptions and such forth, but the main feast is pretty much delivered without the starters.

GlaxoSmithKline was, today, represented by their counsel,  Lisa Blatt. Wendy Dolin was represented by Brent Wisner of Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, PC

The three Justices were David Hamilton, Diane Wood (Chief Judge) and Diane Sykes.

You'll note from the get-go how Diane Wood flusters GSK's counsel. It's a gripping 54 minutes, folks!




If you're having difficulty with the player then you can download the mp3 direct here.

Bob Fiddaman




Monday, May 28, 2018

Gagging the Activist




While I typically cover psych and pharma industry crimes and the real adverse drug reaction tragedies of their countless victims, today's post relates to a strange dream I had last night. I imagine all of us have likely had similar dreams--dreams that seemed so real it's as if they weren't really dreams at all.

My dream was about a war of sorts, an attack on free speech, free press and due process. While all these freedoms are important to every citizen, they have special importance to journalists and advocates for public health and safety. Regardless of whether we agree with each other's views, we all can recognize the importance of protecting such basic freedoms.

In my dream, an independent journalist from the UK stood outside a court where a large gang was being tried for grave offenses such as rape, sex trafficking, sexual activity with children, child abduction and child drugging. The journalist was live-streaming a broadcast and seemed to be civil in his manner.

As I recall, my dream, like many dreams, was bizarre and made no sense at all. It appeared the journalist was working alone and reporting on something the mainstream media did not cover because a judge warned them not to share the news with the public. I knew at this point this was a dream because I couldn't imagine anything like this happens in real life during the year 2018, right?

The judge in my dream claimed the media blackout was to ensure a fair trial, even though the media had already reported on the trial years earlier. Further, the media had publicly identified those standing trial.

My dream took a rather bizarre twist when the independent journalist was arrested for his reporting. The police arrested him citing "breach of the peace." He was taken away in a police van to an undisclosed prison. This is where my dream ended. It was such a powerful dream that it stuck with me all day and played havoc in my mind. Unfortunately, I woke from this bad dream without ever knowing the outcome. I kept wondering what happened to the independent reporter? Was he released? Were charges dropped? Was he being held in a cell awaiting a trial of his own?

Gag Orders Can Create Nightmares

As a drug safety advocate and independent journalist, I couldn't help but think the same type of gag-orders could easily be placed on me. Moreover, on anyone whose friends or loved ones have died from unsafe products, government regulator failures, and corporate/political collusion. I couldn't help but think that the next family of a child who dies from unsafe pharma products might be shackled with a political gag order secured by the coroner who conducts their dead child's inquest. Not only would this rob the family of their basic right to free speech and a fair inquest, such gag orders would effectively conceal from the public important product safety information that could save the lives of children living next door.

If my dream were real, it could mean if I was warned and/or threatened by pharma attorneys, or indeed a judge, that I couldn't write about the suicides in drug clinical trials, the unsuspecting public would never know about the grave dangers of drugs such as Seroxat.

If my dream were a reality, these modern-day gag orders and arrests could conceal from the public crucial evidence regarding drug induced-deaths and/or the deaths of others caused by drug-induced psychosis and violence. It could cause the future death of children who have yet to even be conceived--children who will die from dangerous products already on the market today.

For 12 years I've been seeking ways to find out the truth and for patients to be fully informed of the truth. Maybe my dream stems from frustrations many activists face. These include wanting accurate information, only to find that the powers that be just don't want to give me, or others, accurate information. I don't know everything about the man in my dream, but it seemed like me he, too, wanted to warn unsuspecting parents about real and serious dangers.

Still disturbed by my bad dream, I took to YouTube in search of soothing music. Yet, for inexplicable reasons, I stumbled upon the following links. Thank goodness dreams are just dreams. Right?

This post is not about Tommy Robinson. It's about our right to seek the truth and discuss relevant topics regarding public safety.




Bob Fiddaman


Thursday, May 10, 2018

We Speak For The Dead To Protect The Industry




In 2015 an amendment to the Coroners' Bill was put forward in Ireland on behalf of John and Stephanie McGill Lynch. Their 14-year-old son, Jake (pictured), died after experiencing critical ADR's caused by the SSRI drug Prozac.

Currently, coroners can return an "open verdict" in such deaths. The open verdict means the jury confirms the death is suspicious but sidesteps a definitive verdict. Mr. and Mrs. Lynch wanted this amended to include a new verdict. They proposed the term “iatrogenic suicide” which, in a nutshell, means “the ending of one’s own life where the effect of medical treatment undertaken by the deceased, including any prescribed medication, is the primary cause of such an action."

Yesterday the Irish Times reported on the outcome of Jake’s Amendment.

Minster for Justice Charlie Flanagan ruled out the introduction citing that:
“The proposal from the McGill Lynch family is well-intentioned but cannot be supported. This is mainly because the verdict would apportion some liability on the medical practitioner who may have prescribed the treatment or medication for the deceased person”
I find Flanagan's ruling bizarre and I'm not alone in this assessment. Sinn Féin Senator, Pádraig MacLochlainn, who presented Jake’s Amendment on behalf of the McGill-Lynch family, said it was originally “uncontentious” among all parties in the Seanad but was blocked at the “11th hour.” “My suspicion is that senior medical professionals spooked the minister.”

MacLochlainn makes a valid point. Adding more insult to injury, the Office of the Attorney General advised the proposed verdict would be legally unsound because a new verdict would be capable of ascribing criminal liability to person or persons who are readily identifiable. Unsurprisingly, the Coroners Society of Ireland was opposed to the proposal. It seems the only people the government wants to hold accountable for these avoidable deaths is the victim who died.

The current choice of verdicts open to a coroner or, in legal cases, to a jury, include accidental death; misadventure; suicide; open verdict; natural causes, and; unlawful killing. When a person dies from self-sustained injury, mainstream terminology still labels such deaths as "suicides" despite that many pharma products can and do cause unwanted, ego-dystonic death. Ego-dystonic deaths are "against one's will." That is, if the consumer was not experiencing ADRs caused by pharma products, they would not in their normal undrugged mind, have wanted to die nor died.

Like thousands of other ADR victims, Jake's young mind was chemically abducted by Prozac. Prozac and all SSRIs cause akathisia, psychosis and suicidal thoughts and actions among many unsuspecting consumers. In the US, all SSRIs carry the FDA's most serious Black Box warning stating they can cause life-threatening ADRs. The FDA was forced to include the Black Box warning on SSRIs after thousands of reported deaths and extensive testimony by courageous family members left behind. Unfortunately, the FDA essentially buries the dire warning in tiny print tucked inside a paper envelope most trusting consumers unintentionally discard.

Justice Charlie Flanagan's ruling seems absurd as does his reasoning. Ms. Lynch told the Irish Times she and her husband, from Clondalkin, west Dublin, were “absolutely disgusted, traumatized,” adding that the proposed amendment “would have said ‘without apportioning blame.'" We are not looking for anyone’s head on a plate. But we are looking for some kind of accountability.”

Coroners are first and foremost doctors who sit on the fence regarding prescription drug-induced deaths. Coroners know they can't definitively label any of these deaths "suicides" but they won't protect the public by acknowledging lethal drug effects. If coroners did so, they would then honestly speak for the dead to protect the living. As it stands, coroners continue to deceitfully "speak for the dead" to protect fellow doctors and the drug industry.

The Irish Times article can be read in its entirety here.


Bob Fiddaman

Backstory

Prozac Took My Child (Guest Post)

Related Website

AntiDepAware ~ Inquest Reports









Monday, May 07, 2018

Titan 1 Jack-In-The-Box 0 - A Tale of Two Attorneys





Last December, I reported on how the legal-based website, Law360, had interviewed King & Spalding's top asshat asset, Andrew Bayman. In the article, Bayman said the Dolin Vs GSK trial, which Bayman lost, was his biggest 'accomplishment.'

Backstories of the trial and Bayman's interview are at the foot of this post.

Yesterday, Law360 flipped the coin and wrote a marvelous piece about one of Dolin's legal counsel, Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund Aristei & Goldman. The headline reads, "Titan of the Plaintiffs Bar: Baum Hedlund's R. Brent Wisner". Link here (PDF Courtesy of  Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman)




Fitting that Law360 posted this on May 6 as it marked the 11 year anniversary of the death of 18-year-old Sara Carlin who, like Stewart Dolin, died by "suicide" after being prescribed Paxil (paroxetine)

I covered Sara's inquest on a daily basis and, just as I did for the Dolin trial, reported what mainstream media wouldn't. During Sara's inquest, I frequently spoke with her father, Neil. It was trying times for the Carlin's, more so because drug giant GSK decided to attend the inquest by sending its attorneys.

https://dlbjbjzgnk95t.cloudfront.net/1038000/1038729/7bb9df0242ca3431497cf7a317244a1b5b59c862-brent_wisner-300dpi-print.jpg

Fortunately, I was able to attend the Dolin trial and witnessed first-hand the brilliance of Dolin's counsel. Wisner (pictured above) and co-counsel, David Rapoport, carefully crafted and delivered evidence to the jury resulting in a victory for Wendy Dolin, the plaintiff and widow of Stewart Dolin. As Rapoport states in the Law360 article, "His witness examinations were consistently to the point, effective, interesting and often entertaining. He created a David v. Goliath atmosphere that I believe contributed to the plaintiff’s verdict."

I can't top Rapoport's words.

Being present at most of the trial, I witnessed two teams in action. Of course, I had a bias for the plaintiff but tried not to let that influence my reporting. It was interesting to see GlaxoSmithKline's attorneys in action as much as it was Wisner and Rapoport. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if Andy Bayman required knee surgery after the trial due to constantly springing up from his chair at every given moment shouting 'Objection, your Honor!"

Remarkably, during Bayman's summation, he addressed the jury and rhetorically asked: "Don't you think if these medicines caused suicide someone would have spoken up?"

Unfortunately, the dead cannot speak, but prosecuting attorneys such as Brent "Titan" Wisner can and do speak for the dead. Despite GSK's effort to suppress info via its legal team and paint a false and unfavorable description of Stewart, Wisner introduced the real and likeable Stewart to the jury and the jury didn't buy GSK's attempts to falsely label Stewart as "mentally ill." 

Stewart did speak during the trial and he continues to speak today through the advocacy work of his widow and the caring law firm whose record against GlaxoSmithKline is most admirable. (Law360 also touched on Wisner's work surrounding his involvement in another case, this time against Monsanto Co.)

Law360 also touched on Wisner's work surrounding his involvement in another case, this time against Monsanto Co.

Wisner, Law360 claim, "leaked internal emails from Monsanto to the New York Times which suggested the agrochemical giant may have tried to ghostwrite academic articles exploring, among other things, the health risks of its products. Wisner obtained the documents from the company in a San Francisco federal court case that alleges the company's top-selling weed killer Roundup causes non-Hodgkin's lymphoma."

I have to take my hat off to anyone who leaks drug company internal emails as for too long such emails have been kept hidden from the public.

The success of the Dolin verdict has opened the door for more Paxil lawsuits and this is a positive step for consumers. Brent's employer's, Baum Hedlund, is now investigating more Paxil suicide cases on behalf of families whose loved ones have taken their lives and/or been harmed while on Paxil.

On September 1, 2017, Baum Hedlund sent a letter to Apotex, the current manufacturer of Paxil and paroxetine, putting the company on notice that the Paxil label is inadequate. For a Free Case Evaluation visit here.

With yet another success against GlaxoSmithKline under their belt, Baum Hedlund are now taking on the might of Monsanto.

On December 26, 2015, Californian farmer, Jack McCall passed away after suffering a massive stroke due to complications from a rare version of non-Hodgkin lymphoma. His wife, Teri, has now has filed a wrongful death lawsuit against Monsanto, claiming exposure to Roundup caused her late husband to develop cancer.

More about Jack McCall and further information regarding RoundUp lawsuits can be found here.

This post is dedicated to the memories of Stewart and Sara, both of whom who should be here today, both of whom whose lives tragically ended after taking Paxil.

Nessun dorma.

Bob Fiddaman

Backstories

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin v GSK - Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK - Day Two - "Jack-In-The-Box"

Dolin vs GSK - Healy 'Rocks Da House'

Dolin Vs GSK - JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK - The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 4 - Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 6 - Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 7 - Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK - Day 8 - Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Dolin Vs GSK - Wendy's Cross and GSK's Petition

Dolin Vs GSK - Robert "Bling Bling" Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning "Futile", Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK : Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments




Sara Carlin




Tuesday, May 01, 2018

Royal College of Psychiatrists Dig Deep Abyss





Back in March, I reported on a letter that was sent to the Royal College of Psychiatrists (RCP) regarding a statement made in The Times newspaper by their two employees, Wendy Burn and David Baldwin.

The statement irked many, myself included, as it was deeply misleading and dangerous. Burn and Baldwin claimed that "We know that in the vast majority of patients, any unpleasant symptoms experienced on discontinuing antidepressants have resolved within two weeks of stopping treatment."

It was James "Scooby" Moore who rumbled the RCP when he confronted Wendy Burn on Twitter shortly after the statement was printed in The Times. You see, the RCP had previously carried out their own study into antidepressant withdrawal and even published the results. It was found that withdrawal symptoms generally lasted for up to 6 weeks. A small percentage of symptoms lasted longer than this. A quarter of the group surveyed by RCP reported anxiety lasting more than 12 weeks.

When Moore pointed this out, the study was removed from the RCP website and RCP claimed they removed it because it "was out of date." ~ Copies of the study were, however, copied by James Moore, you can see the pages here.

On March 9th, 2018, a formal complaint of misleading the public on a matter of public safety was lodged with the RCP against Burn and Baldwin. The complaint was signed by Professor John Read of the University of East London, on behalf of many psychiatrists and victims of antidepressant withdrawal.

Today, John Read and co have published the response from the RCP and it's priceless!

I don't want to spoil your fun by summarizing segments on my blog, you really need to read it in its entirety. (LINK)

If reading isn't your thing then you can listen to a special 9-minute podcast with Professor John Read here. In it, he describes how the RCP are conveniently cherry-picking selective quotes to justify what Burns and Baldwin initially said. It's jaw-dropping!

And I thought the MHRA were the best bricklayers in the UK!

Bob Fiddaman

How it all unfolded

Media Frenzy - Antidepressants Are Safe!

Royal College of Psychiatrists - 63%

Scooby and Those Pesky Tweeters Rumble Psychiatry




Monday, April 23, 2018

Prescribing Death



People who suffer from allergies, medical disorders, and disease usually know best what medications and/or food they can and cannot tolerate.  For example, I suffer from a type of inflammatory arthritis called gout. There are many foods and drinks that my body cannot tolerate. I realize, as do medical specialists, that foods high in purines, such as shellfish, will likely increase the risk that I will suffer a painful gout attack. Therefore, I avoid or reduce my consumption of specific foods and beverages in order to stay healthy.

I'm of sound mind, but if I wasn't, I'd have to rely on my loved ones to ensure foods high in purines are eliminated from my diet. Good health and medical care is often a family affair for all of us, whether we suffer from gout or medication allergies. Most doctors would agree that concerned family members play a vital role in patient care, particularly when the patient is a minor or might need assistance in decision making.


Thomas "Oliver" McGowan (18)

The Poisoning of Oliver McGowan

Eighteen-year-old Thomas Oliver McGowan, known as Oliver, died on November 11, 2016. He lived with cerebral palsy, epilepsy and autism, which began after contracting meningitis twice during childhood. On Saturday, October 22, Oliver was suffering from simple partial seizures and taken by ambulance to Southmead Hospital in Bristol, UK.

Upon arrival, Oliver was intubated, a process of inserting an endotracheal tube through the mouth and into the airway. This was apparently done to place Oliver on a ventilator to assist with his breathing. Oliver was sedated with Lorazepam, a drug indicated to treat seizure disorders. He was then taken for a CT scan which did not show any changes to his brain.

As doctors at Southmead Hospital eased the Lorazepam, Oliver's seizures returned. Instead of reinstating the Lorazepam, the doctors made a decision that ultimately killed Oliver. They prescribed him the antipsychotic, Olanzapine, a drug indicated to treat schizophrenia and bipolar disorder. It is better known in the US by its brand name Zyprexa. Oliver developed Neuroleptic Malignant Syndrome (NMS), an adverse effect of the drug, his temperature rose to 43C and his brain swelled to the point that it was coming out of the base of his skull.


Dr. Monica Mohan

Dr. Monica Mohan's Arrogant Destruction

The consultant neuropsychologist who made the decision to administer Olanzapine is Dr. Monica Mohan. It appears she made a calculation of risks and benefits but ignored more than 500 citations assessing the impact of antipsychotic drugs on challenging behavior. Of these 500 citations, only 3 were methodologically sound randomized controlled trials, and even these were unable to show whether antipsychotic drugs were beneficial in controlling challenging behavior. (1)

Neuropsychology and publications aside, doctors and staff at Southmead Hospital were repeatedly told by both Oliver and his parents, Paula and Tom,  not to give him antipsychotic medications because he was allergic to them.

Oliver's avoidable prescription-drug death and last week's inquest has been covered by the British media. The week-long inquiry showed how doctors, after learning of Oliver's adverse drug reaction to the drug that was administered, performed a CT scan on his brain which showed Oliver’s brain had swelled to the point doctors said there was no “meaningful recovery”.

During the inquiry, consultant neuropsychologist, Dr. Mohan, told the inquest she would do it again because she believed it was in “his (Oliver's ) best interest”.

I kept an eye on the proceedings and, like the majority of the public, I was gobsmacked at last Friday's verdict delivered by Assistant Coroner Dr. Peter Harrowing.

Harrowing, a former Director of Pharmacy Services to the University Hospitals Bristol NHS Foundation Trust, concluded Olanzapine had been properly prescribed and that NMS could not be predicted as it was a “very rare adverse effect”. Further, Harrowing said he agreed with Dr. Mohan. He said the doctors were right to prescribe the drug that precipitated Oliver’s death. Dr. Harrowing also ruled against a Prevention of Future Death.

I reached out to the McGowan family who told me, "The coroner argued that it wasn’t an allergy but a sensitivity or intolerance. Of note, Oliver had previously suffered oculogyric crisis (a dystonic reaction to certain drugs) in Bristol Children’s Hospital with his seizures increasing from one per fortnight to 30 a day.  Sean Collins, safeguarding lead at Southmead Hospital, had consulted with ICU staff about using a non-pharmaceutical approach for when sedation was refused but was not consulted by Mohan."

Smoke-and-mirrors

I'm never shocked anymore by Inquest verdicts. I've long been a fan of the website AntiDepAware, moreover its author Brian. AntiDepAware includes links to reports of inquests held in England and Wales since 2003. It's a great window into the world of coroners and how they don't really work for nor represent the dead. Coroners are often just doctors protecting doctors and the majority repeatedly fail to protect the living by being honest about what happened to the dead. Oliver's case is, tragically, no exception to the medical industry's business-as-usual model. Loved ones who question the medical industry in order to help protect others from suffering avoidable harms are often shocked to see the medical industry's chief concern is to protect their colleagues and business systems.

It's difficult enough to lose a beautiful child who had his whole life ahead of him. But to then endure more smoke-and-mirrors deception from a pharmacist-cum-assistant coroner is beyond the pale. Further, Oliver's parents had to pay for the ordeal following Oliver's death whereas Southmead Hospital was supported throughout the inquest by public funding. (Yes, folks, this is where your hard-earned tax money goes.)

When I think about the avoidable death of the talented and handsome young man named Oliver McGowan, I can't help but also think about thousands of other "Olivers" and "Olivias" out there whose prescribed deaths aren't covered by the news. While they remain faceless to the public, they are not faceless to family and friends.

Nothing will bring Oliver back to life. The inquest that could have reduced future avoidable deaths by improving crisis communication and medical safety instead seem to have increased the likelihood that doctors will practice medicine however they choose, parents be damned.

Arrogance among doctors is a deadly flaw. A 2002 journal article by Allan S. Berger (2) states, "...the most critical variable in the development of arrogance is a physician's knowledge and thereby his or her power over the patient. This can delude some physicians into imagining that they are all-powerful." He continues, "...we should not exaggerate our own importance. We are but an instrument of healing and not its source."

I couldn't agree more.

Bob Fiddaman

(1) Are antipsychotic drugs the right treatment for challenging behaviour in learning disability?: The place of a randomised trial

(2) Arrogance among physicians ~ Berger AS




Thursday, April 19, 2018

Stop It!



Dr. Clare Gerada ~ "Stop it"

Louis Appleby, Government Advisor on the prevention of suicide, opened a can of worms on Twitter last month when he tweeted:


What followed were some jaw-dropping tweets from, Clare Gerada, the person Appleby was promoting.

Who is Clare Gerada?

Clare Gerada is one-half of a psych drug promotion pair. She's married to Simon Wessely, a psychiatrist and professor of psychological medicine at the Institute of Psychiatry, King's College London. Gerada was the chairperson of the Council of the Royal College of General Practitioners from 2010 to 2013. She is also a partner in the Hurley Group which runs a number of GP practices and walk-in centers across London. She was made a Member of the Order of the British Empire in the 2000 Birthday Honours "for service to medicine and to drug misusers"

Nice.

Now let's take a look at Clare's attempts to stifle conversation about the side effects surrounding 'antidepressants'.

First up to tweet opposition to her views was Australian Army Major Stuart McCarthy. He joined the Australian Army in 1988 and in 1999 deployed to Bougainville, Papua New Guinea where he served as commander of a multi-national patrol in the Peace Monitoring Group.

Towards the end of McCarthy’s Bougainville deployment, he became a subject in an unethical drug trial for the antimalarial drug tafenoquine. In 2001, he spent six months as the deputy force engineer in the United Nations Mission in Ethiopia and Eritrea. While there he was prescribed mefloquine and experienced a variety of adverse drug effects including depression.

Despite recurrent major depression and other debilitating neurological symptoms that he now realises are the result of the undiagnosed neurotoxic brain injury he sustained in 2001, McCarthy served in the Army for 16 additional years.

His full bio is at the foot of this blog post.

McCarthy's April 16th tweet to Gerada asked her three questions. The resulting twitter exchange was priceless despite that Gerada's "responses" were dreadfully predictable.

Click on Twitter images to enlarge.


Undeterred, Major McCarthy pressed Gerada for some answers. Once again, she tried to silence the respected veteran:


I then tweeted Gerada a question asking if she would concede that, for some, they (drugs labeled antidepressants) could be dangerous? Her reply, if you could call it such, was quite puzzling:

So, now she was using her same line on me, Gerada ordered me to "stop it."

Minutes later she made a claim that these drugs save lives and told me to read the 500 clinical trials that prove it. Ahem, I hated to break the following to her:





Gerada could not answer my question because the fact is there have been no clinical trials for drugs labeled antidepressants that supported the claim Gerada made. There are no clinical trials that have found any evidence that taking these drugs saves lives. If there were, pharmaceutical companies would have already printed this bold proclamation on their product packaging. Pharma would never let such a sales and promotional opportunity slip by.

After running face first into a brick wall, Gerada's next tweet was equally lame but more bizarre:

I've previously written about how critics of patient safety advocates throw out the PR stigma line. You can read all about it here.

I then pointed out Gerada's strawman arguments and her shady goal to suppress and shame those harmed by drugs labeled antidepressants. Fiona French, who has been seriously damaged by benzo prescribing, joined the twitter conversation. What is astounding here is the way Gerada diagnoses French.




The conversation seemed to end there, but the following morning Gerada tweeted something even more delusional.

My answer was short and sweet. "Stop it", I said.

Coming late to the twitter round was Kristina Gehrki. Her tweets appeared to have ended Gerada's nonsense. Perhaps Gerada was too busy the last days with her googling "Who is Florence Nightingale?"




**STOP PRESS**

Remarkably, just minutes ago, Gerada felt the need to chip in again. This time, responding to a parent whose son died in an 'antidepressant' induced death. Telling a parent whose child died as a result of a prescription that they are 'wrong' is an affront to public health. Her reply also shows an appalling lack of human compassion.

Here's the tweet.



Gerada has now blocked me on Twitter.

Bob Fiddaman












Monday, April 16, 2018

India: GSK Whistleblower Names and Shames - Part II






"This was not just a violation of the standard operating procedures and code of conduct at GSK but also violated several sections of the Constitution of India and Penal Code."

Following on from Part I

In summary, Navneet Kumar, a rep for GSK India, is blowing the whistle on the way the company operates its business out of India.

In Part I, we learned that Kumar was told by senior management to meet his targets by "hook or by crook". Further, Kumar was paying stockists out of his own pocket so senior management would reap the monetary benefits. This despite the GSK rule book stipulating that: "a drug rep should not be involved in any money-related matters with their stockists."

Kumar filed a complaint against his Regional Business Manager, Sanjeev Jolly, who apologized and, well, that was that. GSK officials took no disciplinary action against Jolly.



Part I also highlighted how Kumar's  Area Business Manager (ABM), Jitendra Singh Chauhan (pictured above), would phone him after midnight making demands - he'd even phone Kumar whilst he was on leave. Kumar didn't comply with the demands and was summoned to a meeting at GSK's New Delhi office by Sanjeev Jolly, who asked Kumar to resign. When he refused, Jolly told him, "I will finish your career" and that, "You and your family will be out on the street."

Part II

Because Kumar didn't resign he was issued a charge sheet. It's here that he alleges GSK management created trumped up charges against him because he had brought it to their attention about violations within the company, more specifically his senior management.

Whenever a charge sheet is issued against an employee, that employee has a right to be accompanied by a co-worker or a legal representative. Kumar told me:
"After the charge- sheet was issued, I requested to GSK management to allow me legal representation because of the allegations against me. My request of legal representation was denied by GSK management. So I fought  my case alone  in the enquiry proceedings. The charge sheet alleged they had witnesses but no such witnesses were ever provided by GSK. The enquiry officer was Vipin laroia and from the early stages of the enquiry it appeared he was siding with GSK management."
In fact, according to Kumar, The investigation was trying to hide the witness statements from him. He later learned that the only witnesses GSK had were the two senior managers who had harassed him from the get-go.

Kumar wrote to senior management and asked if they could change the investigating officer, they refused.

Kumar was once again summoned, once again, he was asked to resign, once again, he refused.

Of that meeting Kumar told me:

"Somewhere I noticed that they weren't recording whatever I was saying, which was most disturbed me. Actually, as per the domestic enquiry rules, the job of recorder is to type the ongoing conversation on his laptop, but under the shadow of the enquiry officer and general manager they were acting like that they were typing but at end of enquiry proceedings they only provided me with what management had stated, and not what I had stated. They had also omitted the threats and their calls for me to resign."

Aniruddha Kunte, GSK General Manager -Employee Relations

Kumar, once again, sought help from higher management, this time writing to Aniruddha Kunte, General Manager -Employee Relations.

Kunte told him that after investigating the claims (which surmounted to asking the Inquiry Officers whether or not they were true) he (Kunte) found no evidence that suggested Kumar was being harassed, further, Kumar was told that he should "actively participate in the ongoing Inquiry."

Kumar told me he signed papers under duress as he felt intimated. He wrote, once again to Kunte:

(Email has been altered by me, Bob Fiddaman, for clarity)

Re: The last inquiry session on 10/8/2016 at the Delhi office.

The proceedings of that day were signed by me under duress. Some issues are the same as I told you earlier. But no action was ever taken by you.

The behavior of Mr. Vipin(EO) was the same. He was trying his best to harass me, he is totally under the influence of management.

During the meeting, Mr. Jolly was trying his best to put unnecessary pressure on me. Even when I told him that I was disturbed by his actions he didn't change his behavior and continued to humiliate me.

Therefore, I am requesting you to please make arrangements of a video recording of the Inquiry session.

Regards 
Navneet Yadav (Kumar)


--

Kunte never followed up and, more importantly, never provided the video recording to Kumar.

The charges against Kumar stood and at this point, he was joined in 'the field' by his ABM Jitendra Singh Chauhan. Basically, Chauhan would follow Kumar around to see if he was meeting his company objectives, which included meeting doctors and dealers as per company guidelines.

Kumar claims that on day one, Chauhan wasted 2 hours of the day in efforts to make Kumar's daily targets impossible. Kumar also alleges that Chauhan would take company vehicles off other reps which resulted in those reps not being able to meet their targets, he even, at times, according to Kumar, used to demand Kumar's car and bike for personal use. Once again, Kumar brought this to the attention of GSK's employee relations manager, once again, nothing was done.

Chauhan continued to waste time, resulting in Kumar not being able to meet his company objectives. Because of this, and because of the restrictions placed on in, Kumar invited Chauhan to ride with him in the evening - he failed to respond to any of Kumar's text messages suggesting this.

Enter the Handwriting Expert

The charges against Kumar continued, in fact, according to Kumar, he had to endure 10 inquiry sessions. On one such occasion, they accused him of not visiting a doctor that he claimed he had. GSK management claimed that the doctor was out of India at the time so Kumar could not have visited him. Kumar, in his defense, told me:
"I requested that the Inquiry Officer and Management Representative provide evidence in support of their allegation that the doctor was not present in India. After a while they produced a letter purportedly from the doctor. In it, he had written that he was indeed out of the country."
Regarding the apparent letter, Kumar told me:
"I examined that letter very carefully and I realized that it wasn’t written by the doctor. The handwriting matched that of my Area Business Manager, Jitendra Singh Chauhan. I brought this to the attention of the Enquiry Officer who quickly dismissed it."
After this, Kumar acquired the services of a certified handwriting expert who came to the conclusion that the apparent letter from the doctor was, in fact, the same handwriting as Kumar's ABM, Jitendra Singh Chauhan. Armed with this evidence, Kumar showed the Investigating Officer at yet another Inquiry session. He told me:
"In a closed inquiry session room, they abused me and threatened me. I tried to submit my expert handwriting report but they wouldn't accept it from me. Had they accepted it,  they would have seen clearly that Jitendra Singh Chauhan, with the assistance of  Sanjeev Jolly, forged the letter. This was not just a violation of the standard operating procedures and code of conduct at GSK but also violated several sections of the Constitution of India and Penal Code."
Compare two letters and judge for yourself. Were they, as the handwriting expert suggested, both written by the same hand? (Click image to enlarge)

The top is an example of Kumar's Area Business Manager, Jitendra Singh Chauhan, whilst the bottom is, apparently, from the doctor who, it is alleged, was out of the country.


Click Image to Enlarge

Kumar was dismissed from his position at GSK.

Shortly before his dismissal, Kumar sent emails to GSK's Global Head of Investigations, Jason Lord, and GSK's then chief, Andrew Witty. Included in his emails was the handwriting expert report (below) 



Those emails and responses coming up in Part III

Bob Fiddaman
















Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.