Drive further, work longer and earn less.
Source: Cafe Pharma Forums.
Some comments:
In all seriousness, GSK is a mess. I am GSK7 currently. For Qtr1 we had 2 products: Avodart (45% weighting) and Treximet (55% weighting). Avodart was a losing proposition from the start. But Treximet was blowing out the numbers in my territory... for Volume growth. Unfortunately, GSK7 was evaluated on Mkt Share growth. So despite the fact that Treximet grew almost 30% in volume, my Market share only grew 1.4% (which was 3 times more than the nation). But with no adjustment for crappy forecasting, I am receiving NO BONUS payout for the first time in 15 years. Talk about motivition! And further motiviation is the Qtr 2 projections which are SO outrageous (178% volume growth??? WTF???) that it has become DE-motivating.
"be happy you have a job" doesn't cut it. I liked working for GSK. I was one of the cheerleaders. But now... well, it's just one big cluster. I heard from someone who knows someone (yeah, really credible rumor) that only 5 GSK7 territories in the nation hit their Treximet numbers.
Something is wrong with this picture
----
Nothing is wrong with the "big picture"
GSK is hemmoraging with sales losses, nearly 400 million dollars behind the goals set.
Witty and his "analyst forecasting" looks like Bozo the Clown Show
We are a laughing stock to investors, we have always made money in spite of our incompetence, but now when things are "tight" it magnifies the issue.
We are nobodys in the grand scheme. They want to find ways to cut costs, and they will continue to kill off employees and downsize as an "answer" to the reporters. Empowerment is just a fancy way to let you think you control your own destiny but come year end, expect 50% of us to be gone.
Witty will be the "hacker" and bring it back to being lean and mean but there will be little use for pharma marketing in the offices as it will all be based on contracts that we can't impact or influence.
The shame is that GSK is poor at the skill of managmeent of formularies and the whole logistics of samples and discount checks/vouchers is beyond foundational.
Witty needs to start eliminating senior management because the good old club doesn't work in todays environment. You need people who get the business and can react quickly to market opportunites. Hold those accountable that can't seem to get the big picture and move them out of the company. When I hear about production capacity issues, this is internal sabotage. The old saying goes, if you don't have it on the shelf, you can't sell it. Same holds true with samples..... if you hold us up on what we get to sample, guess what. Kiss your quotas in the toilet. It's not happening. Send these people to a business school, I suspect that most in upper management probably have an arts degree in communication which serves this company no justice.
Bonus is a term no longer recognized in this company. Good luck with motivation by fear, most manager seem to get this form of management. Be glad you have a job.... .works short term but this company is setting a foundation that will be very long and painful to repair.
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Zantac Lawsuit
Researching drug company and regulatory malfeasance for over 16 years
Humanist, humorist
Saturday, June 06, 2009
Friday, June 05, 2009
Nasty effects as patients quit drug
Source: New Zealand Herald
4:00AM Saturday Jun 06, 2009
By Martin Johnston
Patients taking a common anti-depressant have told of considering taking their own lives and experiencing other nasty side-effects when trying to quit the drug.
Nine people contacted the Weekend Herald to relate bad experiences of anti-depressants, after an article last week about Jude Pinkerton and the reactions she suffered.
The 22-year-old spoke out about paroxetine hydrochloride after she descended into a mental "fog" and twice tried to commit suicide before being taken off the drug in April.
She said she was recovering, but still believed she was suffering its ill-effects.
Three who emailed the Weekend Herald complained of serious problems when quitting paroxetine.
One, who asked not to be named, said she had been unable to stop taking the drug - she started in 2004 - because when she tried to quit, the side-effects were so bad.
"Even by reducing dosage very slowly over many months I eventually reached a point of having extremely severe withdrawal symptoms including suicidal feelings, akathisia [restlessness], shaking, vomiting and inability to sleep or eat. I have basically become a drug addict.
"The medical and pharmaceutical community cover up this withdrawal syndrome by labelling it 'return of original symptoms'."
"I now wish I had never started taking this dangerous chemical."
The "withdrawal syndrome" of paroxetine is well known to psychiatrists, but they disagree on how big a problem it is.
"Paroxetine withdrawal is a major problem," said psychiatrist Associate Professor David Menkes, of Auckland University and Waikato Hospital.
But his university colleague Dr Simon Hatcher said it was an issue, but not a big one.
Data for the Aropax brand of paroxetine says trials found withdrawal problems occurred in 30 per cent of adults on the drug, compared with 20 per cent on placebo pills.
Symptoms included dizziness and confusion - and, in young people, who are allowed the drug only under strict conditions, suicide attempts. Some studies have linked anti-depressants to an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and attempts, but state drugs regulator Medsafe says "suicidality ... has not been proven to correlate with or lead to completed suicide".
Professor Menkes said the paroxetine/fluoxetine group were less effective and more prone to bad reactions than most prescribers realised. But they also worked well for some and had saved lives.
Dr Hatcher said it was important doctors explained the possibility of withdrawal problems.
Related links:
Depression pill linked to suicide bids
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
4:00AM Saturday Jun 06, 2009
By Martin Johnston
Patients taking a common anti-depressant have told of considering taking their own lives and experiencing other nasty side-effects when trying to quit the drug.
Nine people contacted the Weekend Herald to relate bad experiences of anti-depressants, after an article last week about Jude Pinkerton and the reactions she suffered.
The 22-year-old spoke out about paroxetine hydrochloride after she descended into a mental "fog" and twice tried to commit suicide before being taken off the drug in April.
She said she was recovering, but still believed she was suffering its ill-effects.
Three who emailed the Weekend Herald complained of serious problems when quitting paroxetine.
One, who asked not to be named, said she had been unable to stop taking the drug - she started in 2004 - because when she tried to quit, the side-effects were so bad.
"Even by reducing dosage very slowly over many months I eventually reached a point of having extremely severe withdrawal symptoms including suicidal feelings, akathisia [restlessness], shaking, vomiting and inability to sleep or eat. I have basically become a drug addict.
"The medical and pharmaceutical community cover up this withdrawal syndrome by labelling it 'return of original symptoms'."
"I now wish I had never started taking this dangerous chemical."
The "withdrawal syndrome" of paroxetine is well known to psychiatrists, but they disagree on how big a problem it is.
"Paroxetine withdrawal is a major problem," said psychiatrist Associate Professor David Menkes, of Auckland University and Waikato Hospital.
But his university colleague Dr Simon Hatcher said it was an issue, but not a big one.
Data for the Aropax brand of paroxetine says trials found withdrawal problems occurred in 30 per cent of adults on the drug, compared with 20 per cent on placebo pills.
Symptoms included dizziness and confusion - and, in young people, who are allowed the drug only under strict conditions, suicide attempts. Some studies have linked anti-depressants to an increased risk of suicidal thoughts and attempts, but state drugs regulator Medsafe says "suicidality ... has not been proven to correlate with or lead to completed suicide".
Professor Menkes said the paroxetine/fluoxetine group were less effective and more prone to bad reactions than most prescribers realised. But they also worked well for some and had saved lives.
Dr Hatcher said it was important doctors explained the possibility of withdrawal problems.
Related links:
Depression pill linked to suicide bids
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
GlaxoSmithKline Exposed Part II
Following on from 'GlaxoSmithKline Exposed Part I', here comes the second installment from former Paxil activist, Rob Robinson's brilliant, groundbreaking website, Paxil Protest [now removed]
Everyone has a right to see what Rob wrote – hence the re-publishing of it on Seroxat Sufferers.
Garnier Comes Out Fighting
In this June 6th, 2004 interview with Sylvia Pfeifer and Robert Peston of the Telegraph, GSK's chief executive tells why the lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general has "made him very angry."
Jean-Pierre Garnier knows all about having to defend his reputation. The 57-yearold chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, Europe's largest pharmaceutical group, has spent much time over the past year fending off accusations of being an excessively remunerated "fat cat."
But today Garnier and GSK face a more serious charge, having been accused of indulging in "repeated and persistent fraud" by concealing information about the company's best-selling product, the antidepressant Paxil.
In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday, Eliot Spitzer, the attorney-general of New York state, claims that GSK withheld information from doctors about the negative results of clinical trials it conducted into the use by children of Paxil.
Spitzer wants GSK to be fined the profits it made from under-18s using Paxil, a group he estimates accounted for sales of $55m (£30m) in the US in 2002. Were GSK to lose the case, analysts estimate the fine could amount to $150m – not much compared with GSK's earnings last year of £4.5bn.
Reputationally, however, the lawsuit carries much greater risk, something that Spitzer's previous targets, including some of Wall Street's finest investment banks, are acutely aware of.
And with big pharma already in the firing line for its supposedly expensive medicines ahead of this autumn's election in the US, the stage is set for battle.
Characteristically, Garnier has come out fighting. He vigorously defends GSK's record and reveals that the company had no advance warning the lawsuit was coming.
"I think this is very unfortunate because our reputation is attacked and we are not getting a fair chance to rebut because this is the almighty District Attorney office from mid-Manhattan. This is a heavyweight and I hope our voice will be heard and I hope people will not judge us on this press release from Mr Spitzer's office. It's unfair," he says.
The lawsuit alleges that GSK published and disseminated only one of five studies it conducted on the impact of the drug on children, and suppressed the negative results of the other studies "which failed to demonstrate that Paxil is effective and which suggested a possible increased risk of suicidal thinking and acts", according to Spitzer. GSK is also alleged to have failed to disclose this information in "Medical Information Letters" sent to physicians.
Is there anything GSK could have done differently? No, says Garnier, noting that people may have become confused about testing procedures. He says that results of trials to test the safety of potential new medicines are notified immediately to the Food and Drug Administration, the US regulator, if new "indications" are found. To test efficacy, companies have a series of studies done and only when all the conclusions are in are they presented to the regulator. "Our bad luck, in a way, is that the first study came in positive and we informed medical congresses because there was a lot of interest in it. The subsequent studies were negative, so once we had all the studies we told the FDA," says Garnier.
Did GSK do everything perfectly? "I'm not sure," Garnier concedes, "but you know, overall the pattern is very clear, that we did what we were supposed to do . . . Mr Spitzer makes the case that we advertised the positive studies more. That is absolutely incorrect. What happens is that if there is a positive effect, that's news. When there is a negative effect, there is no news."
But how does he explain an internal memo from 1998, first published in Britain last year, which says that GSK intended "to manage the dissemination of [the] data in order to minimise any potential negative commercial impact"?
"Here's an interesting case in point," Garnier says. "Can a company control the millions, and I mean millions, of memoranda written by, in our case, 110,000 people? What are the odds that stupid memos were written? What are the odds that memos asking the company to do things against company policy will be written? The odds are 100 percent!
"Of course we didn't follow this advice. Of course we didn't selectively publicise the data. This is not a smoking gun. It's a stupid memo and there are lots of stupid memos in every company's file and it is really unfair to look at the company's action through the small hole of one memo written among thousands and thousands in 1998. I do regret that those memos exist but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact."
Garnier is adamant too that commercially it would simply have made no sense to break the rules. "Some people say this is a commercial pressure. This is 3 per cent of the depression market. Do you think you are going to put your reputation at stake to gain something there?" he thunders.
So what happens next? Analysts are not ruling out other states jumping on the bandwagon, nor the possibility of class action lawsuits being filed in the US. So far, says Garnier, there are no signs of that but the industry as a whole is becoming too easy a target.
"It's becoming too easy for many people to attack the pharma industry and hold the pharma industry to standards that are higher than anywhere else. I don't have a problem with the standards but I do have a problem with extortion."
In the latter part of August, 2005 GlaxoSmithKline paid a $2.5 million dollar fine to the state of New York and further agreed to set up a Internet-based clinical trials registry — thus avoiding trial. However, according to Mr. Spitzer, GSK and J.P. Garnier, its chief executive, appeared unrepentant with regard to changing behaviour over disclosure of adverse clinical data. He warned that GSK was still being watched, as were all other pharmaceuticals companies. “The arrogance of the (GSK) commentary is offensive and problematic,” Spitzer said. “We are going to be watching them with a hawk’s eye to see that they have abided by the terms of the settlement.” Spitzer went on to say GSK’s comments following the settlement characterized the settlement as another legal annoyance, and showed too little contrition for the substantive evidence he had against it.
In the end, however, Mr. Spitzer's lawsuit turned out to be the least of GlaxoSmithKline's legal concerns. On April 12, 2005, a shareholders' class actionsuit was filed against GSK on behalf of company stockholders. In an interesting twist, Mr. Garnier was named as a defendant. Here follows a large excerpt from that lawsuit.
More Than Just 'One Stupid Memo'
Garnier acted as a controlling person of GlaxoSmithKline (within the meaning of §20(a) of the 1934 Act). By virtue of his high-level position, participation in and/or awareness of GSK’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of its internal financial condition and business practices, Garnier had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making of GlaxoSmithKline, including the content and dissemination of the various statements which GlaxoSmithKline contends are false and misleading.
GlaxoSmithKline controlled Garnier and all of its employees. Garnier was provided with or had unlimited access to copies of GlaxoSmithKline’s internal studies, reports, press releases, public filings and other statements alleged by GlaxoSmithKline to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements to be corrected.
In particular, Garnier had direct involvement in or intimate knowledge of the day-today operations of GlaxoSmithKline and therefore is presumed to have had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the securities violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same.
We missed something big —
we missed the fact that the public wasn't going to necessarily trust us.
— Jean-Pierre Garnier
CEO of GlaxoSmithKline
(8/13/2005)
The fact is GlaxoSmithKline selectively released only data from favorable studies regarding Paxil and concealed data from unfavorable studies, using its employees, paid consultants, and unwitting researchers as conduits to disseminate the misleading information from these studies to the public and investors, as follows:
On 5/30/98-6/4/98, Drs. M.B. Keller, N.D. Ryan and B. Birmaher, et al., presented a poster at the American Psychiatric Association (“APA”) Annual Meeting in Toronto, Canada, entitled “Efficacy of {Paxil} in adolescent depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 98, Drs. K.D. Wagner, B. Birmaher and G. Carlson, et al., presented a poster at the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit (“NCDEU”) Annual Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Safety of [Paxil] and imipramine in the treatment of adolescent depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 10/98, Drs. R. Berard and N. Ryan presented a poster at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Annual Meeting in Paris, France, entitled “Adolescent depression: Efficacy of [Paxil].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 8/99, Dr. C. Gagiano presented a poster at the World Congress of Psychiatry Meeting in Hamburg, Germany, entitled “[Paxil] in adolescent depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/99, Drs. G.J. Emslie, K.D. Wagner and M.A. Riddle, et al., presented a poster at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (“ACNP”) Annual Meeting in Acapulco, Mexico, entitled “Efficacy and safety of [Paxil] in the treatment of children and adolescents with OCD [obsessive compulsive disorder].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/99, Dr. Karen Wagner, one of the authors listed on the published article concerning GSK’s study to assess the safety and efficacy of Paxil in treating children and adolescents, Study 329, spoke at a meeting of GSK Neuroscience consultants, at which she discussed Study 329. She was quoted by an internal GSK newsletter as having said: “We can say that [Paxil] has both efficacy and safety data for treating depression in adolescents.”
On 5/13/00-18/00, Drs. B. Birmaher, J.P. McCafferty and K.M. Bellew, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, entitled “Comorbid ADHD and disruptive behavior disorders as predictors of response in adolescents treated for major depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/30/00-6/2/00, Drs. K.D. Wagner, G.J. Emslie and B. Birmaher, et al., presented a poster at the NCDEU in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Safety of [Paxil] in the treatment of children and adolescents with OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/5/01-5/10/01, Drs. D.A. Geller, J. Biederman and D.J. Carpenter, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, entitled “Comorbid psychiatric illness and response to treatment in pediatric OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/28/01-31/01, Drs. D.A. Geller, J. Biederman and K.D. Wagner, et al. presented a poster at the NCDEU Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, entitled “Comorbid psychiatric illness and response to treatment, relapse rates, and behavioral adverse event incidence in pediatric OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
GlaxoSmithKline commissioned Drs. M.B. Keller, N.D. Ryan and M. Strober, et al., to write an article about one of GSK’s successful Paxil studies. It was published in an article in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in the treatment of adolescent major depression: A randomized, controlled trial.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 11/01, GlaxoSmithKline issued a Medical Information Letter regarding the use of Paxil to treat major depressive disorder (“MDD”) in children and adolescents, which reported studies with positive efficacy results. GlaxoSmithKline also enclosed a published article regarding its favorable study with the Medical Information Letter.
On 5/19-23/02, Drs. D. Gallagher, C. Gardiner and D.J. Carpenter presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, entitled “Interim Results: Long-term safety of [Paxil] in pediatric patients.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 6/02, Drs. D.A. Geller, K.D. Wagner and G.J. Emslie, et al., presented a poster at the NCDEU Annual Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in pediatric OCD: Results of a multicenter study.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 6/02, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and D.J. Carpenter, et al., presented a poster at the NCDEU Annual Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Safety and tolerability of [Paxil] in children and adolescents: Pooled results from four multicenter, placebo-controlled trials.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 10/11-27/02, Drs. D.A. Geller, K.D. Wagner and G.J. Emslie, et al., presented a poster at the American Academy of Children in Adolescent Psychiatry Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in pediatric OCD: Results of a multicenter study.” At that same meeting, Drs. K.D. Wagner, M.B. Stein and R. Berard, et al., presented a poster entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in childhood and adolescent social anxiety disorder.” Also at that meeting, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and D.J. Carpenter, et al., submitted an abstract entitled “Safety and tolerability of [Paxil] in children and adolescents: Pooled results from five multicenter, placebo-controlled trials.” These posters and abstract found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/02, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and D.J. Carpenter, et al., published an article in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, entitled “Safety and tolerability of [Paxil] in children and adolescents: Pooled results from four multicenter, placebo-controlled trials.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/02, Drs. D.A. Geller, K.D. Wagner, and G.J. Emslie published an article in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, entitled “Efficacy and safety of [Paxil] in pediatric OCD: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 12/8/02-12/12/02, Drs. K.D. Wagner, M.B. Stein and R. Berard, et al., presented a poster at the ACNP Annual Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in childhood and adolescent social anxiety disorder.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 1/03, Drs. A. Braconnier, R. Le Coent and D. Cohen published an article in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, entitled “[Paxil] versus clomipramine in adolescents with severe major depression: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/17-22/03, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and M. Gee, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, entitled “Remission of pediatric social anxiety disorder with [Paxil].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/17-22/03, Drs. R. Berard, K.D. Wagner, and D.J. Carpenter, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, entitled “SSRI therapy of pediatric patients with social anxiety disorder or OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 5/03, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and M. Gee, et al. presented a poster at the NCDEU in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Remission of pediatric social anxiety disorder with [Paxil].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 6/10/03, a British agency stated that the risk of self-harm and potentially suicidal behavior of youngsters with depression was between 1.5 and 3.2 times greater when treated with Paxil than with a placebo. A British Committee on Safety of Medicines advised that Paxil “should not be used in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years to treat depressive illness.”
On 6/11/03, GlaxoSmithKline issued a statement that “not a single person committed suicide” in the study of children taking Paxil. “We don’t believe there’s any compelling evidence that Paxil causes suicide. If anything, it reduces suicidal tendencies” in patients suffering from depression. This was false because it failed to disclose a number of suicide attempts in children taking Paxil.
On 6/19/03, the FDA issued a Talk Paper in which it stated that it was reviewing data from studies of Paxil use in children and adolescents and, although the review of the safety data was not complete, “FDA is recommending that Paxil not be used in children and adolescents for the treatment of MDD.”
On 6/19/03, GlaxoSmithKline issued a press release which stated that “[i]n the company’s pediatric trials, which included more than 1000 patients treated with Paxil, not a single person committed suicide.” This was misleading because it failed to disclose suicide attempts.
On 6/2/04, the Attorney General for the State of New York sued GlaxoSmithKline based upon GSK’s suppression of adverse studies relevant to Paxil use to treat children and adolescents.
On 8/5/04, The Wall Street Journal published an article which reported that a new analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs and suicidal tendencies in young people.
Copyright Paxil Protest
Paxil Protest Disclaimer of Liability
The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this website and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this website, or shall the website owners or any of their directors, officers, employees or agents be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the website and/or any other websites which are linked to this site.
Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a member or visitor on any information obtained via the website; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.
All content on this website is provided to you on an “as is” and “as available” basis without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Paxil Protest makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, currency, or reliability of any content available through this website.
In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.
Any information on this website may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, information posted at this website may change from time to time without notice.
Fair Use Notice
This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
----
SEROXAT SUFFERERS STAND UP AND BE COUNTED
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Everyone has a right to see what Rob wrote – hence the re-publishing of it on Seroxat Sufferers.
Garnier Comes Out Fighting
In this June 6th, 2004 interview with Sylvia Pfeifer and Robert Peston of the Telegraph, GSK's chief executive tells why the lawsuit filed by the New York attorney general has "made him very angry."
Jean-Pierre Garnier knows all about having to defend his reputation. The 57-yearold chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, Europe's largest pharmaceutical group, has spent much time over the past year fending off accusations of being an excessively remunerated "fat cat."
But today Garnier and GSK face a more serious charge, having been accused of indulging in "repeated and persistent fraud" by concealing information about the company's best-selling product, the antidepressant Paxil.
In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday, Eliot Spitzer, the attorney-general of New York state, claims that GSK withheld information from doctors about the negative results of clinical trials it conducted into the use by children of Paxil.
Spitzer wants GSK to be fined the profits it made from under-18s using Paxil, a group he estimates accounted for sales of $55m (£30m) in the US in 2002. Were GSK to lose the case, analysts estimate the fine could amount to $150m – not much compared with GSK's earnings last year of £4.5bn.
Reputationally, however, the lawsuit carries much greater risk, something that Spitzer's previous targets, including some of Wall Street's finest investment banks, are acutely aware of.
And with big pharma already in the firing line for its supposedly expensive medicines ahead of this autumn's election in the US, the stage is set for battle.
Characteristically, Garnier has come out fighting. He vigorously defends GSK's record and reveals that the company had no advance warning the lawsuit was coming.
"I think this is very unfortunate because our reputation is attacked and we are not getting a fair chance to rebut because this is the almighty District Attorney office from mid-Manhattan. This is a heavyweight and I hope our voice will be heard and I hope people will not judge us on this press release from Mr Spitzer's office. It's unfair," he says.
The lawsuit alleges that GSK published and disseminated only one of five studies it conducted on the impact of the drug on children, and suppressed the negative results of the other studies "which failed to demonstrate that Paxil is effective and which suggested a possible increased risk of suicidal thinking and acts", according to Spitzer. GSK is also alleged to have failed to disclose this information in "Medical Information Letters" sent to physicians.
Is there anything GSK could have done differently? No, says Garnier, noting that people may have become confused about testing procedures. He says that results of trials to test the safety of potential new medicines are notified immediately to the Food and Drug Administration, the US regulator, if new "indications" are found. To test efficacy, companies have a series of studies done and only when all the conclusions are in are they presented to the regulator. "Our bad luck, in a way, is that the first study came in positive and we informed medical congresses because there was a lot of interest in it. The subsequent studies were negative, so once we had all the studies we told the FDA," says Garnier.
Did GSK do everything perfectly? "I'm not sure," Garnier concedes, "but you know, overall the pattern is very clear, that we did what we were supposed to do . . . Mr Spitzer makes the case that we advertised the positive studies more. That is absolutely incorrect. What happens is that if there is a positive effect, that's news. When there is a negative effect, there is no news."
But how does he explain an internal memo from 1998, first published in Britain last year, which says that GSK intended "to manage the dissemination of [the] data in order to minimise any potential negative commercial impact"?
"Here's an interesting case in point," Garnier says. "Can a company control the millions, and I mean millions, of memoranda written by, in our case, 110,000 people? What are the odds that stupid memos were written? What are the odds that memos asking the company to do things against company policy will be written? The odds are 100 percent!
"Of course we didn't follow this advice. Of course we didn't selectively publicise the data. This is not a smoking gun. It's a stupid memo and there are lots of stupid memos in every company's file and it is really unfair to look at the company's action through the small hole of one memo written among thousands and thousands in 1998. I do regret that those memos exist but I'm not going to lose sleep over the fact."
Garnier is adamant too that commercially it would simply have made no sense to break the rules. "Some people say this is a commercial pressure. This is 3 per cent of the depression market. Do you think you are going to put your reputation at stake to gain something there?" he thunders.
So what happens next? Analysts are not ruling out other states jumping on the bandwagon, nor the possibility of class action lawsuits being filed in the US. So far, says Garnier, there are no signs of that but the industry as a whole is becoming too easy a target.
"It's becoming too easy for many people to attack the pharma industry and hold the pharma industry to standards that are higher than anywhere else. I don't have a problem with the standards but I do have a problem with extortion."
In the latter part of August, 2005 GlaxoSmithKline paid a $2.5 million dollar fine to the state of New York and further agreed to set up a Internet-based clinical trials registry — thus avoiding trial. However, according to Mr. Spitzer, GSK and J.P. Garnier, its chief executive, appeared unrepentant with regard to changing behaviour over disclosure of adverse clinical data. He warned that GSK was still being watched, as were all other pharmaceuticals companies. “The arrogance of the (GSK) commentary is offensive and problematic,” Spitzer said. “We are going to be watching them with a hawk’s eye to see that they have abided by the terms of the settlement.” Spitzer went on to say GSK’s comments following the settlement characterized the settlement as another legal annoyance, and showed too little contrition for the substantive evidence he had against it.
In the end, however, Mr. Spitzer's lawsuit turned out to be the least of GlaxoSmithKline's legal concerns. On April 12, 2005, a shareholders' class actionsuit was filed against GSK on behalf of company stockholders. In an interesting twist, Mr. Garnier was named as a defendant. Here follows a large excerpt from that lawsuit.
More Than Just 'One Stupid Memo'
Garnier acted as a controlling person of GlaxoSmithKline (within the meaning of §20(a) of the 1934 Act). By virtue of his high-level position, participation in and/or awareness of GSK’s operations and/or intimate knowledge of its internal financial condition and business practices, Garnier had the power to influence and control and did influence and control, directly or indirectly, the decision-making of GlaxoSmithKline, including the content and dissemination of the various statements which GlaxoSmithKline contends are false and misleading.
GlaxoSmithKline controlled Garnier and all of its employees. Garnier was provided with or had unlimited access to copies of GlaxoSmithKline’s internal studies, reports, press releases, public filings and other statements alleged by GlaxoSmithKline to be misleading prior to and/or shortly after these statements were issued and had the ability to prevent the issuance of the statements or cause the statements to be corrected.
In particular, Garnier had direct involvement in or intimate knowledge of the day-today operations of GlaxoSmithKline and therefore is presumed to have had the power to control or influence the particular transactions giving rise to the securities violations as alleged herein, and exercised the same.
We missed something big —
we missed the fact that the public wasn't going to necessarily trust us.
— Jean-Pierre Garnier
CEO of GlaxoSmithKline
(8/13/2005)
The fact is GlaxoSmithKline selectively released only data from favorable studies regarding Paxil and concealed data from unfavorable studies, using its employees, paid consultants, and unwitting researchers as conduits to disseminate the misleading information from these studies to the public and investors, as follows:
On 5/30/98-6/4/98, Drs. M.B. Keller, N.D. Ryan and B. Birmaher, et al., presented a poster at the American Psychiatric Association (“APA”) Annual Meeting in Toronto, Canada, entitled “Efficacy of {Paxil} in adolescent depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 98, Drs. K.D. Wagner, B. Birmaher and G. Carlson, et al., presented a poster at the New Clinical Drug Evaluation Unit (“NCDEU”) Annual Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Safety of [Paxil] and imipramine in the treatment of adolescent depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 10/98, Drs. R. Berard and N. Ryan presented a poster at the European College of Neuropsychopharmacology Annual Meeting in Paris, France, entitled “Adolescent depression: Efficacy of [Paxil].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 8/99, Dr. C. Gagiano presented a poster at the World Congress of Psychiatry Meeting in Hamburg, Germany, entitled “[Paxil] in adolescent depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/99, Drs. G.J. Emslie, K.D. Wagner and M.A. Riddle, et al., presented a poster at the American College of Neuropsychopharmacology (“ACNP”) Annual Meeting in Acapulco, Mexico, entitled “Efficacy and safety of [Paxil] in the treatment of children and adolescents with OCD [obsessive compulsive disorder].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/99, Dr. Karen Wagner, one of the authors listed on the published article concerning GSK’s study to assess the safety and efficacy of Paxil in treating children and adolescents, Study 329, spoke at a meeting of GSK Neuroscience consultants, at which she discussed Study 329. She was quoted by an internal GSK newsletter as having said: “We can say that [Paxil] has both efficacy and safety data for treating depression in adolescents.”
On 5/13/00-18/00, Drs. B. Birmaher, J.P. McCafferty and K.M. Bellew, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in Chicago, Illinois, entitled “Comorbid ADHD and disruptive behavior disorders as predictors of response in adolescents treated for major depression.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/30/00-6/2/00, Drs. K.D. Wagner, G.J. Emslie and B. Birmaher, et al., presented a poster at the NCDEU in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Safety of [Paxil] in the treatment of children and adolescents with OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/5/01-5/10/01, Drs. D.A. Geller, J. Biederman and D.J. Carpenter, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in New Orleans, Louisiana, entitled “Comorbid psychiatric illness and response to treatment in pediatric OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/28/01-31/01, Drs. D.A. Geller, J. Biederman and K.D. Wagner, et al. presented a poster at the NCDEU Annual Meeting in Phoenix, Arizona, entitled “Comorbid psychiatric illness and response to treatment, relapse rates, and behavioral adverse event incidence in pediatric OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
GlaxoSmithKline commissioned Drs. M.B. Keller, N.D. Ryan and M. Strober, et al., to write an article about one of GSK’s successful Paxil studies. It was published in an article in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in the treatment of adolescent major depression: A randomized, controlled trial.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 11/01, GlaxoSmithKline issued a Medical Information Letter regarding the use of Paxil to treat major depressive disorder (“MDD”) in children and adolescents, which reported studies with positive efficacy results. GlaxoSmithKline also enclosed a published article regarding its favorable study with the Medical Information Letter.
On 5/19-23/02, Drs. D. Gallagher, C. Gardiner and D.J. Carpenter presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, entitled “Interim Results: Long-term safety of [Paxil] in pediatric patients.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 6/02, Drs. D.A. Geller, K.D. Wagner and G.J. Emslie, et al., presented a poster at the NCDEU Annual Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in pediatric OCD: Results of a multicenter study.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 6/02, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and D.J. Carpenter, et al., presented a poster at the NCDEU Annual Meeting in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Safety and tolerability of [Paxil] in children and adolescents: Pooled results from four multicenter, placebo-controlled trials.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 10/11-27/02, Drs. D.A. Geller, K.D. Wagner and G.J. Emslie, et al., presented a poster at the American Academy of Children in Adolescent Psychiatry Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in pediatric OCD: Results of a multicenter study.” At that same meeting, Drs. K.D. Wagner, M.B. Stein and R. Berard, et al., presented a poster entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in childhood and adolescent social anxiety disorder.” Also at that meeting, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and D.J. Carpenter, et al., submitted an abstract entitled “Safety and tolerability of [Paxil] in children and adolescents: Pooled results from five multicenter, placebo-controlled trials.” These posters and abstract found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/02, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and D.J. Carpenter, et al., published an article in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, entitled “Safety and tolerability of [Paxil] in children and adolescents: Pooled results from four multicenter, placebo-controlled trials.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 12/02, Drs. D.A. Geller, K.D. Wagner, and G.J. Emslie published an article in the Journal of Child and Adolescent Psychopharmacology, entitled “Efficacy and safety of [Paxil] in pediatric OCD: Results of a double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 12/8/02-12/12/02, Drs. K.D. Wagner, M.B. Stein and R. Berard, et al., presented a poster at the ACNP Annual Meeting in San Juan, Puerto Rico, entitled “Efficacy of [Paxil] in childhood and adolescent social anxiety disorder.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 1/03, Drs. A. Braconnier, R. Le Coent and D. Cohen published an article in the Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, entitled “[Paxil] versus clomipramine in adolescents with severe major depression: A double-blind, randomized, multicenter trial.” This article found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/17-22/03, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and M. Gee, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, entitled “Remission of pediatric social anxiety disorder with [Paxil].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 5/17-22/03, Drs. R. Berard, K.D. Wagner, and D.J. Carpenter, et al., presented a poster at the APA Annual Meeting in San Francisco, California, entitled “SSRI therapy of pediatric patients with social anxiety disorder or OCD.” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
In 5/03, Drs. K.D. Wagner, E. Wetherhold and M. Gee, et al. presented a poster at the NCDEU in Boca Raton, Florida, entitled “Remission of pediatric social anxiety disorder with [Paxil].” This poster found Paxil efficacious in children and adolescents.
On 6/10/03, a British agency stated that the risk of self-harm and potentially suicidal behavior of youngsters with depression was between 1.5 and 3.2 times greater when treated with Paxil than with a placebo. A British Committee on Safety of Medicines advised that Paxil “should not be used in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years to treat depressive illness.”
On 6/11/03, GlaxoSmithKline issued a statement that “not a single person committed suicide” in the study of children taking Paxil. “We don’t believe there’s any compelling evidence that Paxil causes suicide. If anything, it reduces suicidal tendencies” in patients suffering from depression. This was false because it failed to disclose a number of suicide attempts in children taking Paxil.
On 6/19/03, the FDA issued a Talk Paper in which it stated that it was reviewing data from studies of Paxil use in children and adolescents and, although the review of the safety data was not complete, “FDA is recommending that Paxil not be used in children and adolescents for the treatment of MDD.”
On 6/19/03, GlaxoSmithKline issued a press release which stated that “[i]n the company’s pediatric trials, which included more than 1000 patients treated with Paxil, not a single person committed suicide.” This was misleading because it failed to disclose suicide attempts.
On 6/2/04, the Attorney General for the State of New York sued GlaxoSmithKline based upon GSK’s suppression of adverse studies relevant to Paxil use to treat children and adolescents.
On 8/5/04, The Wall Street Journal published an article which reported that a new analysis by the FDA had confirmed the link between SSRIs and suicidal tendencies in young people.
Copyright Paxil Protest
Paxil Protest Disclaimer of Liability
The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this website and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this website, or shall the website owners or any of their directors, officers, employees or agents be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the website and/or any other websites which are linked to this site.
Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a member or visitor on any information obtained via the website; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.
All content on this website is provided to you on an “as is” and “as available” basis without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Paxil Protest makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, currency, or reliability of any content available through this website.
In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.
Any information on this website may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, information posted at this website may change from time to time without notice.
Fair Use Notice
This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
----
SEROXAT SUFFERERS STAND UP AND BE COUNTED
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Remember GSK's Larry Liebena?
Remember the Ribena scandal a couple of years ago?
Two New Zealand schoolgirls humbled one of the world's biggest food and drugs companies after their school science experiment found that their ready-to-drink Ribena contained almost no trace of vitamin C.
Students Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo tested the blackcurrant cordial against rival brands to test their hypothesis that cheaper brands were less healthy.
Instead, their tests found that the Ribena contained a tiny amount of vitamin C, while another brand's orange juice drink contained almost four times more.
I've just found an interesting transcript of a radio interview with the two students.
TONY EASTLEY: One of the world's most powerful food and drug companies, GlaxoSmithKline is being prosecuted across the Tasman for allegedly misleading consumers about the vitamin C content of the blackcurrant fruit drink Ribena.
New Zealand Correspondent Peter Lewis reports on the unintended consequence of two students' perseverance and their thirst for knowledge.
PETER LEWIS: For these high school kids, it was sweet vindication after three years of being fobbed off by a corporate giant.
STUDENT: We were in a juice phase, and we were like let's test juice for our science fair just because it's fun.
STUDENT 2: Yeah, we didn't even ... we never did it seriously.
STUDENT: No, we just kind of like drinking the juice, doing it...
STUDENT 2: Playing around and just stumbled upon it.
PETER LEWIS: Like a lot of consumers, Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo had grown up assuming Ribena was chock full of vitamin C. But when they carried out a simple test, it turned out the blackcurrant syrup drink wasn't what it was cracked up to be.
STUDENT: Well, Ribena was the second lowest out of eight juices we tested and we
were sure that we had done it wrong.
STUDENT 2: Yeah, we tested it so many times...
STUDENT: It was just like oh, this can't be right, we'll do it again. And then finally we came to the conclusion that it was actually low compared to everything.
PETER LEWIS: Larraine Barton is Head of Science at their school, Pakuranga College in Auckland.
LARRAINE BARTON: I just couldn't believe they'd never picked up before, that no one had ever tested it, no one had ever verified their claim, and I thought of all the false advertising claims and I thought, "Go get 'em girls, go get em".
STUDENT: We sent them a letter and an email and they never replied.
STUDENT 2: They kind of ... they didn't take us very seriously because we were 14 at the time.
LARRAINE BARTON: I thought they were just trying to fob the girls off. I thought they'll just brush it under the carpet and nothing more will come of it. But our girls were a bit more astute than that and they knew that they'd exposed something really significant.
(Sound of a TVNZ news headline)
REPORTER: Two South Auckland schoolgirls have taken on one of the world's most powerful food and drug companies and won. GlaxoSmithKline is being prosecuted for allegedly...
STUDENT: Suddenly, it was on the news...
STUDENT 2: We saw it on the news and...
STUDENT: ... and we're like, "whoah".
STUDENT 2: Yeah, the thing is nobody told us anything. We saw it on the news first and that's when we contacted the Commerce Commission again. Then they said, "Oh, all this stuff has come up. I was meaning to tell you. (laughs)
PETER LEWIS: No one is laughing at GlaxoSmithKline though. The company has admitted to Australia's corporate watchdog, the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) that its marketing was misleading and its given an undertaking to explain the true nutritional makeup of Ribena on its packaging, its website and in future advertising.
And tomorrow the company's New Zealand subsidiary will be in court facing 15 similar charges brought by the ACCC's counterpart, the Commerce Commission, which carry a penalty of up to $3 million in fines. [1]
STUDENT 2: Yeah, and a lot of people are saying, "How does it feel that you took down a major company" and...
STUDENT: Every time I see the new Ribena ad, the one where they don't mention any vitamin C, I'm just like, "Oh, yeah".
TONY EASTLEY: A couple of bright science students ending that report from New Zealand Correspondent Peter Lewis.
[1] GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), an international leading healthcare company second only to Pfizer, pleaded guilty to all 15 charges laid against them by New Zealand's Commerce Commission in Auckland's District Court. GSK did, however, fight the expected fine of up to $350,000 and corrective advertisements, proposing instead a $60,000 fine with no corrective advertisements. In the end, they were fined $217,000 for their breaches of New Zealand's fair trading act, and will have to publish correcting advertisements.
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Two New Zealand schoolgirls humbled one of the world's biggest food and drugs companies after their school science experiment found that their ready-to-drink Ribena contained almost no trace of vitamin C.
Students Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo tested the blackcurrant cordial against rival brands to test their hypothesis that cheaper brands were less healthy.
Instead, their tests found that the Ribena contained a tiny amount of vitamin C, while another brand's orange juice drink contained almost four times more.
I've just found an interesting transcript of a radio interview with the two students.
TONY EASTLEY: One of the world's most powerful food and drug companies, GlaxoSmithKline is being prosecuted across the Tasman for allegedly misleading consumers about the vitamin C content of the blackcurrant fruit drink Ribena.
New Zealand Correspondent Peter Lewis reports on the unintended consequence of two students' perseverance and their thirst for knowledge.
PETER LEWIS: For these high school kids, it was sweet vindication after three years of being fobbed off by a corporate giant.
STUDENT: We were in a juice phase, and we were like let's test juice for our science fair just because it's fun.
STUDENT 2: Yeah, we didn't even ... we never did it seriously.
STUDENT: No, we just kind of like drinking the juice, doing it...
STUDENT 2: Playing around and just stumbled upon it.
PETER LEWIS: Like a lot of consumers, Anna Devathasan and Jenny Suo had grown up assuming Ribena was chock full of vitamin C. But when they carried out a simple test, it turned out the blackcurrant syrup drink wasn't what it was cracked up to be.
STUDENT: Well, Ribena was the second lowest out of eight juices we tested and we
were sure that we had done it wrong.
STUDENT 2: Yeah, we tested it so many times...
STUDENT: It was just like oh, this can't be right, we'll do it again. And then finally we came to the conclusion that it was actually low compared to everything.
PETER LEWIS: Larraine Barton is Head of Science at their school, Pakuranga College in Auckland.
LARRAINE BARTON: I just couldn't believe they'd never picked up before, that no one had ever tested it, no one had ever verified their claim, and I thought of all the false advertising claims and I thought, "Go get 'em girls, go get em".
STUDENT: We sent them a letter and an email and they never replied.
STUDENT 2: They kind of ... they didn't take us very seriously because we were 14 at the time.
LARRAINE BARTON: I thought they were just trying to fob the girls off. I thought they'll just brush it under the carpet and nothing more will come of it. But our girls were a bit more astute than that and they knew that they'd exposed something really significant.
(Sound of a TVNZ news headline)
REPORTER: Two South Auckland schoolgirls have taken on one of the world's most powerful food and drug companies and won. GlaxoSmithKline is being prosecuted for allegedly...
STUDENT: Suddenly, it was on the news...
STUDENT 2: We saw it on the news and...
STUDENT: ... and we're like, "whoah".
STUDENT 2: Yeah, the thing is nobody told us anything. We saw it on the news first and that's when we contacted the Commerce Commission again. Then they said, "Oh, all this stuff has come up. I was meaning to tell you. (laughs)
PETER LEWIS: No one is laughing at GlaxoSmithKline though. The company has admitted to Australia's corporate watchdog, the ACCC (Australian Competition and Consumer Commission) that its marketing was misleading and its given an undertaking to explain the true nutritional makeup of Ribena on its packaging, its website and in future advertising.
And tomorrow the company's New Zealand subsidiary will be in court facing 15 similar charges brought by the ACCC's counterpart, the Commerce Commission, which carry a penalty of up to $3 million in fines. [1]
STUDENT 2: Yeah, and a lot of people are saying, "How does it feel that you took down a major company" and...
STUDENT: Every time I see the new Ribena ad, the one where they don't mention any vitamin C, I'm just like, "Oh, yeah".
TONY EASTLEY: A couple of bright science students ending that report from New Zealand Correspondent Peter Lewis.
[1] GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), an international leading healthcare company second only to Pfizer, pleaded guilty to all 15 charges laid against them by New Zealand's Commerce Commission in Auckland's District Court. GSK did, however, fight the expected fine of up to $350,000 and corrective advertisements, proposing instead a $60,000 fine with no corrective advertisements. In the end, they were fined $217,000 for their breaches of New Zealand's fair trading act, and will have to publish correcting advertisements.
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Pharma Pill Pushers Use Suicide Ruse - Again
Another peach of an article from Evie Pringle:
Pharma Pill Pushers Use Suicide Ruse - Again
Nearly every year, researchers on drug company payrolls publish some ridiculous study with claims that more people may be dying from suicide due to a black box warning about an increased risk of suicide in young people on the labels of SSRI and SNRI antidepressants as a ruse to increase sales of drugs.
Judging from a new study out this month, with a June 2, 2009 headline on WebMD stating: "Are Antidepressant Warnings Causing Harm?", apparently this year is no exception even though in the US there were 164.2 million prescriptions dispensed for antidepressants in 2008, compared to 143 million in 2004, according to IMS Health, a healthcare information company.
Full Article Here
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Pharma Pill Pushers Use Suicide Ruse - Again
Nearly every year, researchers on drug company payrolls publish some ridiculous study with claims that more people may be dying from suicide due to a black box warning about an increased risk of suicide in young people on the labels of SSRI and SNRI antidepressants as a ruse to increase sales of drugs.
Judging from a new study out this month, with a June 2, 2009 headline on WebMD stating: "Are Antidepressant Warnings Causing Harm?", apparently this year is no exception even though in the US there were 164.2 million prescriptions dispensed for antidepressants in 2008, compared to 143 million in 2004, according to IMS Health, a healthcare information company.
Full Article Here
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Thursday, June 04, 2009
European Election Farce
It's official [apparently] I don't exist!
Just returned from the polling station where I was to cast my vote.
No polling card was sent to my address and I never even had to produce an ID to tell the two sat at the table who I was.
Told them my address, they checked... then checked again.
I don't exist.
Funny, I said, as I voted last year in the local elections.
The guy sat at the table to my left said, it was quite rare for this to happen - he also told me that many people had turned up who hadn't received a polling card - One, he said, was sent to a three year old!
Now I don't exist, do you think I will be able to get away without paying my council tax?
Welcome to the 21st century.
Britain at it's bloody best!
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Just returned from the polling station where I was to cast my vote.
No polling card was sent to my address and I never even had to produce an ID to tell the two sat at the table who I was.
Told them my address, they checked... then checked again.
I don't exist.
Funny, I said, as I voted last year in the local elections.
The guy sat at the table to my left said, it was quite rare for this to happen - he also told me that many people had turned up who hadn't received a polling card - One, he said, was sent to a three year old!
Now I don't exist, do you think I will be able to get away without paying my council tax?
Welcome to the 21st century.
Britain at it's bloody best!
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
GlaxoSmithKline Exposed Part I
GlaxoSmithKline
Exposed
Taken from the excellent Paxil Protest website archives.
Look past GlaxoSmithKline's public relations facade and what you'll find an unethical corporation whose principal reason for existence is to rake in huge profits for its stockholders.
In fact, one could argue — based on an abundance of evidence accessible to anyone with an Internet connection — that GlaxoSmithKline views the public as little more than its own personal "ATM machine," and whose citizens are apparently suitable for use as experimental animals.
We are a high-integrity company.
We know what the rules are
and we follow them.
Jean-Pierre Garnier
CEO of GlaxoSmithKline
(6/6/2004)
Integrity? Standards? Surely Mr. Garnier was being facetious. After all, GlaxoSmithKline's way of doing business includes:
Defrauding the public on multiple occasions, and on a massive scale.
Operating in a manner one would commonly associate with an ongoing criminal enterprise.
Engaging in an ongoing pattern of false advertising; here's just one example.
Repeatedly refusing to comply with minimum drug manufacturing quality control standards mandated by the United States Food and Drug Administration that, in 2005, resulted in two GlaxoSmithKline production facilities being shut down and millions of PaxilCR tablets seized by U.S. Federal Marshals.
Trashing the environment in spite of what Dr. Anne Phillips, Vice President, Research & Development and Chief Medical Officer of GlaxoSmithKline has claimed: While GlaxoSmithKline strives to produce medications that safely and effectively treat medical conditions, we're also committed to protecting the environment.
Little wonder GlaxoSmithKline was named one of the ten worst corporations of 2004 by Multinational Monitor. (It's not GlaxoSmithKline's first time on the list either.)
Anatomy of a Paxil Fraud
On June 2nd, 2004 State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer announced a lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline for concealing important information about the safety and efficacy of Paxil.
The lawsuit alleged that GlaxoSmithKline engaged in repeated and persistent fraud by concealing and failing to disclose to physicians information about Paxil. The lawsuit alleged that, starting in 1998, GlaxoSmithKline engaged in a concerted effort to withhold negative information concerning Paxil and misrepresented data concerning Paxil's safety and efficacy when prescribed for depression in children and adolescents.
Specifically, GlaxoSmithKline conducted at least five studies on the use of Paxil in children and adolescents. However, GSK only published and disseminated one of these studies, which showed mixed results on efficacy. The lawsuit alleged that the company suppressed the negative results of the other studies, which failed to demonstrate that Paxil is effective and which suggested a possible increased risk of suicidal thinking and acts. GSK is also alleged to have failed to disclose this information in "Medical Information Letters" that it sent to physicians.
An internal GlaxoSmithKline document from 1998 shows that GlaxoSmithKline intended to "manage the dissemination of (the) data in order to minimize any potential negative commercial impact."
Spitzer's lawsuit also alleged that GlaxoSmithKline misrepresented the results of its research on Paxil as a treatment for children and adolescents to its sales representatives who promote Paxil to physicians. The company portrayed the drug as having "remarkable efficacy and safety in the treatment of adolescent depression."
In fact, GSK's studies did not demonstrate that Paxil is effective in treating children and adolescents with major depressive disorder and showed the possibility of increased risk of suicidal thoughts and acts in adolescents. In documents submitted to the FDA and similar agencies in the United Kingdom and Europe, GSK admitted that its studies "all failed to separate[Paxil] from placebo overall and so do not provide strong evidence of efficacy in this indication."
Through these and other acts, GSK deprived physicians of the information they needed to evaluate the risks and benefits of prescribing Paxil for children and adolescents and deprived these youngsters of the benefit of their physicians' professional judgment.
Arthur Levin, Executive Director, Center for Medical Consumers, said: "The fact is that published drug studies are hugely biased towards good news — the drug works and is safe — and that studies reaching the opposite conclusion are likely never to see the light of day. The ability of drug companies to pick and choose the research they provide doctors in support of their product is an outrageous conflict of interest and puts us all in harm's way."
More than two million prescriptions for Paxil were written for children and adolescents in the United States in 2002. Nearly 900,000 of these prescriptions were for youngsters whose primary diagnosis was a mood disorder, the most common of which is depression. Prescriptions for Paxil to treat mood disorders in children and adolescents translated into US sales for GSK of approximately $55 million in 2002 alone.
In the last year, the use of Paxil for children and adolescents for the treatment of major depressive disorder has come under scrutiny by the FDA and regulatory agencies in the UK, Ireland, Europe and Canada. The FDA has advised caution in prescribing Paxil in children and adolescents for the treatment of major depressive disorder and is currently conducting an analysis of the data related to the use of Paxil and the possibility of increased suicidal thoughts. Regulatory agencies in the UK, Europe, Ireland and Canada have recommended that Paxil not be prescribed for adolescents and children with depression.
PART TWO - GARNIER COMES OUT FIGHTING COMING SOON
Copyright Paxil Protest
Paxil Protest Disclaimer of Liability
The user assumes all responsibility and risk for the use of this website and the Internet generally. Under no circumstances, including negligence, shall anyone involved in creating or maintaining this website, or shall the website owners or any of their directors, officers, employees or agents be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special or consequential damages, or lost profits that result from the use or inability to use the website and/or any other websites which are linked to this site.
Nor shall they be liable for any such damages including, but not limited to, reliance by a member or visitor on any information obtained via the website; or that result from mistakes, omissions, interruptions, deletion of files, viruses, errors, defects, or any failure of performance, communications failure, theft, destruction or unauthorized access.
All content on this website is provided to you on an “as is” and “as available” basis without warranty of any kind, either express or implied, including but not limited to the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, and noninfringement.
Paxil Protest makes no warranty as to the accuracy, completeness, currency, or reliability of any content available through this website.
In states which do not allow some or all of the above limitations of liability, liability shall be limited to the greatest extent allowed by law.
Any information on this website may be removed without notice. Information may include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Furthermore, information posted at this website may change from time to time without notice.
Fair Use Notice
This may contain copyrighted (©) material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. Such material is made available for educational purposes, to advance understanding of human rights, democracy, scientific, moral, ethical, and social justice issues, etc. It is believed that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided for in Title 17 U.S.C. section 107 of the US Copyright Law. This material is distributed without profit.
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Wednesday, June 03, 2009
Rebekah Beddoe - Dying For A Cure
Late last year, Rebekah Beddoe kindly sent me a copy of her book, Dying for a cure. Her story is remarkable and horrific at the same time. I previously gave her book a brief review here
Her book, which was initially for sale in Australia only, has now been re-edited and is available to the British public.
Rebekah was recently interviewed about her ordeal and the item was largely missed as it only appeared in a Sunday Supplement that is not available online.
I've uploaded the interview for your perusal and urge you to buy a copy of her book
Here's Rebekah's interview.
Click on images to enlarge.
Her book, which was initially for sale in Australia only, has now been re-edited and is available to the British public.
Rebekah was recently interviewed about her ordeal and the item was largely missed as it only appeared in a Sunday Supplement that is not available online.
I've uploaded the interview for your perusal and urge you to buy a copy of her book
Here's Rebekah's interview.
Click on images to enlarge.
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Sex and Psych Drugs - Young Couples Beware
Gem of an article by Evie Pringle
"This is the sickest of all marketing schemes because it is aimed at young couples in child bearing years and reaches into the cradle where the brains and bodies of the most vulnerable victims will be forcibly drugged through pregnant and nursing mothers without any voice of their own in the matter."
Sex and Psych Drugs - Young Couples Beware
Although the adverse effects of women taking psychiatric drugs while pregnant related to birth defects and infant withdrawal syndrome are often discussed or reported, the serious adverse effects on the sex lives and reproductive systems of millions of young couples are rarely mentioned.
Whatever the reason, due to the ever widening marketing campaigns by the psycho-pharmaceutical industry, young people need to be warned before they get conned into taking psychiatric drugs.
After five years of tracking Big Pharma’s disease mongering and off-label marketing schemes, I can say without a doubt that the sickest plot ever devised is the legislation moving through the US Senate right now referred to as the “Mothers Act,” for short.
This is the sickest of all marketing schemes because it is aimed at young couples in child bearing years and reaches into the cradle where the brains and bodies of the most vulnerable victims will be forcibly drugged through pregnant and nursing mothers without any voice of their own in the matter.
FULL STORY
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
"This is the sickest of all marketing schemes because it is aimed at young couples in child bearing years and reaches into the cradle where the brains and bodies of the most vulnerable victims will be forcibly drugged through pregnant and nursing mothers without any voice of their own in the matter."
Sex and Psych Drugs - Young Couples Beware
Although the adverse effects of women taking psychiatric drugs while pregnant related to birth defects and infant withdrawal syndrome are often discussed or reported, the serious adverse effects on the sex lives and reproductive systems of millions of young couples are rarely mentioned.
Whatever the reason, due to the ever widening marketing campaigns by the psycho-pharmaceutical industry, young people need to be warned before they get conned into taking psychiatric drugs.
After five years of tracking Big Pharma’s disease mongering and off-label marketing schemes, I can say without a doubt that the sickest plot ever devised is the legislation moving through the US Senate right now referred to as the “Mothers Act,” for short.
This is the sickest of all marketing schemes because it is aimed at young couples in child bearing years and reaches into the cradle where the brains and bodies of the most vulnerable victims will be forcibly drugged through pregnant and nursing mothers without any voice of their own in the matter.
FULL STORY
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
New Zealand. Seroxat/Paxil "Almost a cover-up"
Source: New Zealand Herald
Hat Tip - Ruth
Jade Pinkerton says a 'mental fog' descended after she began taking paroxetine. Photo / Mark Mitchell
"In New Zealand there's a lot of naivete around the use of paroxetine ... It's almost a cover-up."
May 30, 2009
Jude Pinkerton had an extreme personality change and tried to take her own life after taking a widely used antidepressant drug.
This week, the 22-year-old spoke to the Weekend Herald to warn others off paroxetine hydrochloride, which she believes is highly dangerous.
Medical opinion is still divided about paroxetine and similar drugs. Some psychiatrists have condemned them but others maintain they are safe for use in adults.
Mrs Pinkerton said she was put on Prozac in January last year for depression, which she attributes to a stressful job as a social worker. It was the first time the Wellington woman had had any psychological problems and she had never harmed herself nor thought about committing suicide.
The depression lifted, but she had an allergy to an ingredient of Prozac and a GP in October put her on an alternative antidepressant, Loxamine, a generic version of paroxetine.
"Within 24 hours of taking it I started acting impulsively," she said.
Things deteriorated from there.
A mental "fog" descended, visual disturbances began and she got into debt. She became highly emotional and irrational, wild mood swings took hold and, eventually, she started to think about harming herself.
On March 30, she was referred to mental health workers. The next day, she attempted suicide, taking an overdose of medicines, and was admitted to Wellington Hospital. Underlying mental disorders were ruled out and a psychiatrist recommended stopping paroxetine.
But on April 3, Mrs Pinkerton was re-admitted after a second attempt.
She immediately went off the drug but believes that although she is now slowly improving, she is still suffering its ill effects.
"In New Zealand there's a lot of naivete around the use of paroxetine ... It's almost a cover-up."
In fact, a lot has been written about the dangers of antidepressants, although much of it resides in technical documents and the public discussion has centred on the greater risks in children and adolescents.
Government drugs regulator Medsafe says all drugs in the Prozac/Loxamine class - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - are linked with increased suicidal thoughts and attempts in children and adolescents treated for major depression, although this "suicidality" had not been proven to lead to suicide.
In trials, only fluoxetine (the chemical in Prozac and its generic versions such as Fluox) has been found more effective than dummy pills in children and adolescents.
Pooled studies of antidepressants have found the increased risk of suicidal ideas and attempts among users of the drugs extends to young adults.
The Loxamine data sheet says: "Young adults, especially those with major depressive disorder, may be at increased risk for suicidal behaviour during treatment with paroxetine."
But drug makers also say the risk of suicide bids is inherent in depression.
Outspoken Australian psychiatrist Dr Jon Jureidini, who chairs the group Healthy Scepticism, said he never prescribed antidepressants to those under 25. If their condition was bad enough, he admitted them to hospital. The drugs' risks were too high.
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Hat Tip - Ruth
Jade Pinkerton says a 'mental fog' descended after she began taking paroxetine. Photo / Mark Mitchell
"In New Zealand there's a lot of naivete around the use of paroxetine ... It's almost a cover-up."
May 30, 2009
Jude Pinkerton had an extreme personality change and tried to take her own life after taking a widely used antidepressant drug.
This week, the 22-year-old spoke to the Weekend Herald to warn others off paroxetine hydrochloride, which she believes is highly dangerous.
Medical opinion is still divided about paroxetine and similar drugs. Some psychiatrists have condemned them but others maintain they are safe for use in adults.
Mrs Pinkerton said she was put on Prozac in January last year for depression, which she attributes to a stressful job as a social worker. It was the first time the Wellington woman had had any psychological problems and she had never harmed herself nor thought about committing suicide.
The depression lifted, but she had an allergy to an ingredient of Prozac and a GP in October put her on an alternative antidepressant, Loxamine, a generic version of paroxetine.
"Within 24 hours of taking it I started acting impulsively," she said.
Things deteriorated from there.
A mental "fog" descended, visual disturbances began and she got into debt. She became highly emotional and irrational, wild mood swings took hold and, eventually, she started to think about harming herself.
On March 30, she was referred to mental health workers. The next day, she attempted suicide, taking an overdose of medicines, and was admitted to Wellington Hospital. Underlying mental disorders were ruled out and a psychiatrist recommended stopping paroxetine.
But on April 3, Mrs Pinkerton was re-admitted after a second attempt.
She immediately went off the drug but believes that although she is now slowly improving, she is still suffering its ill effects.
"In New Zealand there's a lot of naivete around the use of paroxetine ... It's almost a cover-up."
In fact, a lot has been written about the dangers of antidepressants, although much of it resides in technical documents and the public discussion has centred on the greater risks in children and adolescents.
Government drugs regulator Medsafe says all drugs in the Prozac/Loxamine class - selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) - are linked with increased suicidal thoughts and attempts in children and adolescents treated for major depression, although this "suicidality" had not been proven to lead to suicide.
In trials, only fluoxetine (the chemical in Prozac and its generic versions such as Fluox) has been found more effective than dummy pills in children and adolescents.
Pooled studies of antidepressants have found the increased risk of suicidal ideas and attempts among users of the drugs extends to young adults.
The Loxamine data sheet says: "Young adults, especially those with major depressive disorder, may be at increased risk for suicidal behaviour during treatment with paroxetine."
But drug makers also say the risk of suicide bids is inherent in depression.
Outspoken Australian psychiatrist Dr Jon Jureidini, who chairs the group Healthy Scepticism, said he never prescribed antidepressants to those under 25. If their condition was bad enough, he admitted them to hospital. The drugs' risks were too high.
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Tuesday, June 02, 2009
Antidepressants linked to recurrent breast cancer
I hate to be the one to tell Nursing Times that this was known back in 2000, nine years ago!
Research done by Michelle Cotterchio, M.D., of Cancer Care Ontario found that women who took Paxil saw their risk of breast cancer increase by seven times even when other possible risk factors were fully accounted for. (Citation: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 342, June 29, 2000, p. 2003.)
Source: Nursing Times
1st June 2009
Research shows antidepressants can increase the risk of recurrent breast cancer while taking the cancer prevention drug tamoxifen.
According to a new study by Medco Health Solutions, drugs prescribed for depression including fluoxetine, paroxetine and to a lesser extent sertaline can virtually wipe out the benefit tamoxifen provides.
Tamoxifen cuts the chances of breast cancer recurrence by half, but many patients take antidepressants for hot flashes as an alternative to hormone pills which are not considered safe after breast cancer.
It has long been thought that some antidepressants can lower the amount of tamoxifen’s active form in the bloodstream, but this study, which is the largest to look at the issue, confirms the drugs` interfering nature.
Scientists looked at 353 women taking tamoxifen plus other drugs that might interfere with it and 945 women taking tamoxifen alone.
The women were tested for second cancers in the following two years and the findings show breast cancer recurred in 7% of women on tamoxifen alone, but by 14% in women taking other drugs that could interfere.
The antidepressants paroxetine and fluoxetine were the most likely to increase the risk of recurrent breast cancer.
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Research done by Michelle Cotterchio, M.D., of Cancer Care Ontario found that women who took Paxil saw their risk of breast cancer increase by seven times even when other possible risk factors were fully accounted for. (Citation: New England Journal of Medicine, Vol. 342, June 29, 2000, p. 2003.)
Source: Nursing Times
1st June 2009
Research shows antidepressants can increase the risk of recurrent breast cancer while taking the cancer prevention drug tamoxifen.
According to a new study by Medco Health Solutions, drugs prescribed for depression including fluoxetine, paroxetine and to a lesser extent sertaline can virtually wipe out the benefit tamoxifen provides.
Tamoxifen cuts the chances of breast cancer recurrence by half, but many patients take antidepressants for hot flashes as an alternative to hormone pills which are not considered safe after breast cancer.
It has long been thought that some antidepressants can lower the amount of tamoxifen’s active form in the bloodstream, but this study, which is the largest to look at the issue, confirms the drugs` interfering nature.
Scientists looked at 353 women taking tamoxifen plus other drugs that might interfere with it and 945 women taking tamoxifen alone.
The women were tested for second cancers in the following two years and the findings show breast cancer recurred in 7% of women on tamoxifen alone, but by 14% in women taking other drugs that could interfere.
The antidepressants paroxetine and fluoxetine were the most likely to increase the risk of recurrent breast cancer.
----
Fid
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Monday, June 01, 2009
BLAST FROM THE PAST - ROB ROBINSON PAXIL ACTIVIST
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.
Respect.
Fid
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.
UPDATE:
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
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
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.
Respect.
Fid
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.
UPDATE:
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
ORDER THE PAPERBACK
'THE EVIDENCE, HOWEVER, IS CLEAR...THE SEROXAT SCANDAL' By Bob Fiddaman
SIGNED COPIES HERE OR UNSIGNED FROM CHIPMUNKA PUBLISHING
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
Please contact me if you would like a guest post considered for publication on my blog.