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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
