The mainstream media still seem disinterested in the on-going UK Seroxat litigation in London. Perhaps, they are waiting for some internal documents to surface, you know, something meaty they've never seen before?
Perhaps they are waiting to see if anything pertaining to GSK's Yugoslavia trials are aired?
GSK's Yugoslavia Seroxat Trials
Back in 1988, SmithKline Beecham (SKB) initiated a trial [called the relapse trial]
At this time, SKB was seeking approval of Seroxat and the Yugoslavia trial was to show the FDA (the US drug regulator) how effective Seroxat was in treating depression – they would also try to show the FDA how it was important to keep taking Seroxat and not to stop… because if you did stop then you would go into relapse, in other words, SKB was trying to prove that stopping Seroxat meant the patient’s original illness would return.
The following two posts may be a helpful resource for media outlets, should they ever take an interest in the current Seroxat litigation. Here and here.
Should the media wish to see the data from these trials, they could always contact the MHRA. They may be surprised by the MHRA's answer.
At the very least, it should prompt some serious questions regarding the Yugoslavia Seroxat trials and the way GSK, then SKB, seemingly spun withdrawal into relapse.
Back story - MHRA Missing Key Seroxat/Paxil Withdrawal Information
Because of my involvement with the current trial, I am restricted in writing about it. I can, however, write about GSK's history. That said, tomorrow I will be writing about a case involving Seroxat and birth defects. My previous blogs surrounding this particular case saw an insight into how GSK's attorneys operate, moreover, how they quickly settled out-of-court with a Pennsylvanian woman who had contacted me. An in-depth research of her case showed that GSK had clearly not handed over all items of disclosure to her attorneys, once I went public with this, they offered the woman in question a settlement, despite GSK previously persuading judges to strike her case.
More on that tomorrow.
Bob Fiddaman
No comments: