FIDDAMAN BLOG

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

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

Wednesday, April 05, 2017

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

Continued from Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Cross-examination of Wendy Dolin

Ursula Henninger continued her cross-examination in an attempt to dismiss the role Paxil played in Stewart Dolin's death. Henninger tried to shift focus from Paxil's adverse side effects to Stewart's work history and previous prescriptions. (Stewart was prescribed another SSRI, Zoloft, years earlier and it was discontinued because he experienced several adverse side effects.)

Henninger reviewed Stewart Dolin's employment history and raised questions about work-related tension and anxiety. She even asked questions about Stewart's experiences in law school and first professional job decades earlier.

I mean, C'mon! Doesn't everyone feel a little anxious when taking an important exam or starting a new job? Certainly, GSK and all pharmaceutical companies fully understand such situational anxiety considering all their sales pitches promote SSRIs as some sort of miracle pill to wash away anxiety and sadness. GSK and other SSRI makers use these scenarios to their advantage when advertising SSRIs. But in court, situational anxiety is touted by GSK attorneys as a cause of violent death!

To add insult to injury, Henninger then changed direction and asked Ms. Dolin about the time when her aging parents temporarily moved in with them. Henniger asked whether or not Stewart felt anxious about it. What loving son-in-law wouldn't feel concern about his aging in-laws?

Throughout the cross, Wendy Dolin explained that Stewart was dedicated to finding the right balance and that he viewed therapy as a personal investment to help maintain such balance. Henninger's repetitive questioning continued, and she even inquired about the dreadful night Wendy learned Stewart had died. Henninger reminded Wendy that in her original deposition Wendy had not reported any unusual behavior to the police officers the evening Stewart passed away. Wendy replied that she was "in a total state of shock."

Going down this line of questioning was unsavory and appeared unnecessary, but hey-ho, it is what we've come to expect from King & Spalding during this trial.

Re-direct

After Wendy's cross-examination, she was redirected by David Rappaport, and a video of Stewart's life was played for the jury. The jury saw Stewart high on life, active, fun, goofy, traveling, hiking, skiing but, most importantly, they saw the sheer joy and happiness on the face of a man who was devoted to the family and friends he dearly loved. When the video finished, David Rappaport turned to the jury and rested the case.

After the jury had recessed, King & Spalding petitioned the court to dismiss the case. The GSK lawyers claimed there was not sufficient evidence to support Wendy’s claim that Paxil’s adverse side effects and misleading, inadequate warning caused Stewart's death. I believe this is standard procedure for defence attorneys when faced with what seems to be impending defeat. It's also quite possible that the Bayman, Davis & Co. circus is suffering delusions.

GSK attorneys cited points of law and case points, but the Honorable Judge Hart wasn't buying their bull. Judge Hart ruled that the evidence Dolin has presented is to be viewed in a light most favorable to Dolin. The trial will proceed.

Counter Evidence

GSK is now starting to present its counter-evidence and yesterday called its first "expert" witness, Robert Gibbons. To call Gibbons an "expert" is laughable considering Gibbons has been labeled a "Shill"* by members of his own profession.

Gibbons, a biostatistician, has infamously lobbied for the removal of the black box warnings for children. He appears to believe children are not harmed by SSRIs and that some kids are actually dying because they are not prescribed SSRIs. Further, Gibbons has also made outlandish claims stating SSRI drugs, such as Paxil, actually reduce suicide.

More on Gibbons tomorrow, although not too much. I feel it improper to give Gibbons a platform to spout his ignorance and junk science on my blog.

Bob Fiddaman

*A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Tuesday, April 04, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"

Yesterday several witnesses gave evidence in the Dolin Vs. GSK trial. Stewart Dolin's co-worker, Mike LoVallo was first examined by plaintiff's attorney, David Rappaport. Rappaport asked LoVallo a few questions about Stewart's day-to-day role at their firm. The same can't be said for King & Spalding's resident jack-in-the-box, Andrew Bayman, whose cross-examination gave a whole new meaning to the word "boring."

Bayman seemed to gain nothing with his tiresome line of questioning. Rather, he unwittingly highlighted for the jury the lame ways GSK tries to defend its drug and product labels. Thus far, GSK has blamed the FDA, the prescribing physician, and the now deceased Paxil victim, Stewart Dolin. GSK's repetitious cross-examination never focuses on the company's duty to inform doctors and patients of the real risks posed by its product. Had GSK done everything it could have and should have done decades ago when Paxil hit the market, there would be no Dolin Vs. GSK trial.

As we've seen before, Bayman's cross-examination of LoVallo lasted longer than plaintiffs' direct examination. King & Spalding plays the 'you-didn't-say-that-two-years-ago' game. They frequently ask the witness or expert questions that were already answered years ago in depositions. Perhaps King & Spalding believe it is ground-breaking to discover that a witness might use slightly different words when explaining the same sentiment and thoughts the witness shared years before? Their tactics are akin to a team of schoolyard bullies goading their victim, trying to put words into their mouths. More often than not, witnesses and experts called thus far have had to tell King & Spalding to read the whole of the depositions. But King & Spalding want to take lines out of context and read, what they deem, might be damning evidence against the witness or expert. GSK's attorneys know full well there is no "caught you" there, but they hope some of their misleading questions will be heard by the jury to cast doubt on Paxil's starring role in Stewart Dolin's death.

Apparently, pharmaceutical company attorneys like to "cherry pick" data and stretch the truth in court just as pharmaceutical companies do in clinical trials. But today GSK's legal tactics didn't amount to much when questioning the Dolin family.

King & Spalding's Cross-Examination

King & Spalding chose a new player for their circus performance. No jack-in-the-box Bayman, no clown antics from Todd Davis. Instead, King & Spalding opted to cross-examine the Dolin family by using a female attorney from their firm. Ursula Henninger (pictured above) has, according to her online profile, more than 20 years of experience trying personal injury claims in courts throughout the United States. She has defended a variety of product liability claims, including those against tobacco manufacturers and pharmaceutical companies. Seems a bit odd that she was relegated as a mere courtroom sidekick, sitting quiet as a mouse with seemingly no active role in the trial until today when the Dolin family took the witness stand.

You can draw your own conclusions as to why King & Spalding decided to use Henninger to cross-examine the Dolin family. Is it a stereotypical, sexist tactic? You know, choose a female attorney to question the widow and her children? Is GSK hoping the jury will see a female lawyer as a "softer, kinder" interrogator? Perhaps. But if playing the gender card was part of GSK's strategy, it didn't seem effective. Henninger offered no condolences to any member of the Dolin family and instead jumped straight into her questions. She lacked sympathy and empathy, and I suspect this deficit will be noticed by the jury.

Stewart's children, Bari and Zach, gave evidence first and spoke of the love they had for their father and how empty they have felt since his passing. It was then the turn of their mom, and Stewart's widow, Wendy.

Enter Wendy Dolin.

I am going to be brief here as the court was recessed part-way through Wendy's evidence at the time of this writing. I'll update when Wendy Dolin finishes her testimony. With that said, it's important to report on Wendy's evidence thus far.

Wendy told the jury how she met Stewart at the age of 16 in Miami, Florida. She noted that they were married on June 15th, 1974. She recalled Stewart had a strong work ethic from a very young age. "He was delivering prescriptions for the Belmont Pharmacy. And or those of you I know are from Chicago, the pink hotel on Bryn Mawr used to have a soda shop. And he was a short-order cook there. And this was at 15 years old. So he was an extraordinarily hard worker and really smart."

Regarding Stewart's work-related anxiety problems, she told the jury, "Stewart was someone who was really proactive. I think that's the best way to put it. He took care of it. I mean, he thought about it, you know. You know, I just thought he was a normal human being who periodically had stress and anxiety like probably most of us."

Being asked about her typical weekends with Stewart, Wendy told the jury how much she and Stewart enjoyed each other's company. "Our weekends consisted of something that's really special. On Fridays and Saturday nights, he'd say, "Well, what time do you want to get up, Babes?" He used to call me Babes. And I'd tell him the time. And he'd usually bring up a cup of coffee, and then the dog would follow. And he would wake me up, and we'd come downstairs, and we'd sit on the couch in the living room, talk for a long time.

"Our friends used to say to me, "What the heck do you talk about?" And I'd say, "Well, we manage to talk." And that became known as couch time. And what's really special about couch time is my friends know how special that is, so when my friends sleep over, everybody has to have couch time. But that was really, you know, it's really funny, not funny ha ha. It's that, you know, we worked so hard to get to a place where we had no debt, and our house was paid off. You know, you saw these two beautifully high-functioning connected kids settled in their jobs, and you're able to do things like go to dinner or go on a trip. But when it's all taken away, that's what I just ache for, that special time, which is just brings you back to what it was really like to just be Wendy and Stewart."

Explaining her grief, Wendy told the jury, "I love writing to him. It's like cathartic. It's like couch time, you know, through a letter. And then the cemetery is still something that -- I don't know. Grief, it's, you know, everyone in this room, I'm sure, has had a loss of someone dear; and it's just really hard, you know. And I try to be whole as much as I can. I try to put on a happy face, but it's hard. There's always something there to remind me of him."

Cross-examination

Tomorrow I will report on Wendy Dolin's cross-examination.

Bob Fiddaman

MISSD

Since Stewart's drug induced death, Wendy has set up a non-profit organization dedicated to honoring the memory of Stewart and other victims of akathisia by raising awareness and educating the public about the dangers of akathisia.

Akathisia is a disorder, induced by SSRI medications, which can cause a person to experience such intense inner restlessness that the sufferer is driven to violence and/or suicide. It has been said, "Death can be a welcome result."

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

Monday, April 03, 2017

Guest Post From Kim Witczak - Who is Dan Troy?

Dan Troy ~ GlaxoSmithKline's Senior Vice President & General Counsel and a member of the Corporate Executive Team

The following is a guest post from patient advocate Kim Witczak. I say patient advocate but Kim is much more than that.

Today's guest post is by Kim Witcack. Our paths first crossed back in 2011. Kim was familiar with my advocacy work as I was of hers. Recently we chewed the cud in Chicago at the Dolin Vs GSK Paxil-induced death trial. Though justice doesn't bring back the dead, we are both keen to see justice. We also are intrigued to see how GSK attempts to defend its product and Paxil labeling.

Kim's husband, Woody, died a Zoloft-induced death in 2004. Woody had no history of depression and was prescribed Zoloft, Pfizer's poison pill, for insomnia (rather ironic considering insomnia is one of many listed side effects of Zoloft!). Five weeks later, Woody was hanging from the rafters of their garage. He left no suicide note. Internal Pfizer documents showed its scientists knew akathisia and suicidality was an adverse drug reaction of Zoloft. Apparently, Pfizer forgot to tell Woody and other trusting consumers.

Kim filed a wrongful death suit against Pfizer and has been advocating for drug safety and transparency ever since.

She is a co-organizer at Selling Sickness, an advocacy group dedicated to creating a new partnership model of professionals and advocates to challenge the selling of sickness.

Kim has also been appointed to the voting position of Consumer Representative on FDA Psychopharmacologic Drugs Advisory Committee. The role of the committee is to review and evaluate data concerning the safety and effectiveness of marketed and investigational human drug products for use in the practice of psychiatry and related fields. The committee also makes recommendations to the Commissioner of Food and Drugs.

Kim has been featured in major news media such as Fortune, Readers Digest, Consumer Reports, Wall Street Journal, New York Times as well as the subject of many local and national television news stories and documentaries. She has testified before the US Senate and FDA regarding FDA-related consumer safety issues. Her website, WoodyMatters, shares her families adverse drug reaction tragedy so that others might live.

Kim has a vast knowledge of SSRIs and insipid industry/government ties. Her knowledge about Dan Troy exceeds mine, and I invited her to write a guest post. Troy seems to have mastered the art of collusion and uses the revolving door between government regulators and the pharmaceutical industry to turn a personal profit.

As ever, it's left to those who mourn the death of their loved ones to carry the light that will, eventually, lead people to the truth. I salute you, Kim.

--

Kim Witczak

DEJA VU…The Fox Is Still In The Hen House
Kim Witczak

As I watch the federal trial regarding the Paxil-induced death of Stewart Dolin, I can’t help but ponder the role Dan Troy is playing behind the scenes. Troy, Glaxo’s General Counsel, has long protected the pharmaceutical industry concerning FDA issues and government regulations. Now he's the top dog in GlaxoSmithKline's global legal department. Having personally witnessed Troy's negative impact on consumers' rights and civil lawsuits, I see his fingerprints all over Dolin v GSK.

Long before President Bush appointed Troy as Chief Counsel for the FDA, Troy assisted drug companies and drug-company supported trade groups such as the Washington Legal Foundation. Under his unofficial FDA leadership, he helped modify the generic-drug application process, oversaw reform to the Hatch-Waxman Act, and was chief architect and author of the original preemption argument used against private citizens in litigation. Troy's efforts served to protect pharmaceutical companies and erode consumers' rights and protections.

Preemption and Congressman Hinchey

In the early 2000s, the FDA started filing amicus curiae “friend of the court” briefs intervening on behalf of the pharmaceutical industry. It seemed whenever drug companies faced civil suits regarding their products' harmful side effects--side effects concealed from prescribing physicians and consumers--Troy worked hard to protect drug makers. These FDA briefs argued that because the products were FDA approved, such lawsuits were “preempted” by federal law and should be dismissed. The briefs suggested that, even if drug manufacturer wanted to warn unsuspecting consumers, the FDA wouldn’t let companies update their warning labels if the FDA didn’t agree. Further, these briefs supported the notion that the FDA is the ultimate authority on product safety and effectiveness and related drug labels. Troy's work at the FDA promoted the view that juries and judges should not second-guess decisions made by FDA scientists and experts.

Many civil lawsuits were tossed out by judges across the country who believed the FDA is the final authority on drug labeling. This effort essentially gave drug companies, such as Pfizer, a free pass when their products caused harm and death. In my husband’s case, Witczak v Pfizer, Minnesota Chief Justice James Rosenbaum overturned FDA-supported pre-emption arguments in their entirety stating, “The FDA has no authority to declare, ipse dixit, that a label is false and misleading.” Judge Rosenbaum went on to state, "It is obvious that state failure-to-warn laws do not pressure manufacturers to include false or invalid warnings. Instead, they give drug manufacturers every incentive to warn of real, known risks as soon as they are discovered -- even before any FDA action."

During a December 15, 2003, presentation titled, “The Case for Preemption,” at the annual Drug and Medical Device Litigation conference for in-house counsel and trial attorneys, Troy asked the audience to contact him if they had a case in which the FDA could help. Clearly Troy's "help" was not meant to assist consumers. Fortunately, my talented attorney clandestinely attended Troy's lunchtime presentation long enough to hear Troy declare, “we have to pick our shots so make it sound like a Hollywood pitch."

Of course, considering the FDA is supposed to serve and protect the public, not drug companies, we took Troy's "Hollywood pitch" speech to New York Congressman Maurice Hinchey. Congressman Hinchey then conducted an investigation of Dan Troy. “For the first time in history,” Hinchey said, “FDA’s Chief Counsel is actively soliciting private industrial company lawyers to bring him cases in which FDA can intervene in support of drug and medical device manufacturers.” Hinchey learned that Pfizer was one of Dan Troy’s previous clients at Wiley, Rein, & Fielding and that in the three years before Troy's appointment as FDA Chief Counsel, Pfizer paid the law firm more than $350K for services provided directly by Troy.

Lo and behold, a few years later Malcolm Wheeler, an attorney for Pfizer, called Troy and requested that the FDA get involved in a Zoloft-induced suicide lawsuit filed against them by a private citizen in California. The FDA, through the Department of Justice which represents the FDA in court, filed a brief in support of Pfizer. Together, they stated the plaintiff’s claims were preempted by federal law. This case was then dismissed on preemption. Case in point: money buys influence and power, which is then used against those who have neither.

By 2004 with much damage done, Troy resigned from the FDA and headed straight to the Sidley Austin law firm where he continued working on lucrative pharmaceutical company litigation. Recognizing Troy's long history as a drug company protector, GlaxoSmithKline hired Troy as its top legal General Counsel in 2008. Andrew Witty, GSK’s then chief executive officer, said of hiring Troy, “Dan’s wealth of experience in the regulatory legislative area will be of enormous benefit to us, and ultimately to patients.”

Hmmm...Troy helps patients? Tell that to my friend Wendy Dolin and thousands of other families whose loved ones have suffered or died from Paxil and other SSRIs. Who needs Hollywood movie pitches when the revolving door between pharmaceutical companies and government regulators provides such real-life drama?

With Troy at the helm, it will be interesting to see what arguments GSK has ready to pull out of its back pocket when appealing a verdict for Dolin. Time will tell. But today one thing is certain: The fox continues to guard the hen house.

Kim Witczak

Thursday, March 30, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK - Glenmullen Nails It!

On Tuesday a series of video depositions were aired to the jury. Sadly, I have no access to the videos and cannot directly report on them. Thankfully, GSK's lawyer, Todd Davis, has provided fabulous entertainment akin to a desperately sad clown. Yesterday Davis ineffectively cross-examined the plaintiff's next expert witness, Dr. Joseph Glenmullen.

Dr. Glenmullen is yet another thorn in the side of GSK. He has previously served as expert witness in many Paxil lawsuits, and, just like Dr. David Healy, is disliked by GSK and their King & Spalding attorneys. Both Glenmullen and Healy were subjected to GSK's pre-trial circus in which GSK filed motion after motion arguing that these renowned doctors should not give evidence at this trial. GSK's attempts were denied.

After yesterday, I can vividly see why GSK opposed Glenmullen as an expert. In short, Glenmullen ran circles around Davis. More on this further on down this blog post.

Glenmullen detailed Stewart Dolin's medical notes and told the jury the akathisia Stewart experienced occurred the last time he was prescribed Paxil. This was six days before Stewart's Paxil-induced death. During these six days, Stewart showed increased signs of agitation, just as he did when he was previously prescribed Zoloft years ago. In fact, when the Zoloft dose was increased, Stewart's adverse drug reaction (akathisia) worsened. When Stewart stopped taking Zoloft, his agitation subsided. Sadly for Stewart and his survivors, when he last took Paxil his adverse drug reaction ended in death. Akathisia, as Glenmullen stated yesterday, is "a drug-induced reaction, a compulsion to kill yourself." Glenmullen added that a death such as this is referred to "as a paroxetine-induced accident, not a suicide. It's paroxetine. It's the label that didn't warn that is the cause."

Regarding GSK's supposed adult suicide warning on the Paxil labeling, Glenmullen clearly nailed it. Referring to the 2010 Black Box warning displayed in court, Glenmullen told the jury how there was explicit language that short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to sugar pills in adults beyond age 24. He also pointed out the sentence, "Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in risk of suicide." He explained to the jury, "...What that tells me as a practicing psychiatrist is that if I'm treating a 57-year old patient and I put them on Paxil, Paxil couldn't make them worse. Paxil couldn't make them suicidal. It would be, and it says explicitly, their depression or other psychiatric condition."

Glenmullen further noted the black box warning is "really bad" because it implies the suicide warning is just for children, ergo a doctor treating an adult could not warn about a potential risk of suicide because the labeling suggests there is only a suicidality risk among children taking Paxil.

The jury was informed that the labeling was written in such a way so that doctors would not only NOT know about the adult suicide risk, doctors would actually increase the dose because they would assume worsening of depression and/or new disturbing behaviors had nothing to do with Paxil.

Glenmullen added, "And here's another dimension to it. If the patient gets worse and it might be the drug, what do you do? You take them off the drug to see. If they get worse and it couldn't be the drug but it's the depression, what do you do? You increase the drug, which is going to worsen the risk. So it's very dangerous. And that's why, in my opinion, it's really this lack of a warning that's responsible for his (Stewart Dolin's) death."

Glenmullen told the jury he is "100% certain" that "Mr. Dolin's was a "paroxetine-induced, Paxil-label-induced death."

Cross-examination by King & Spalding's Resident Clown

As per his norm, Davis repeatedly tried but failed to discredit the witness. He attempted to catch out Glenmullen with answers Glenmullen provided in various testimonies, including testimony that was more than 11 years ago!

A spectator in the court told me, "You should have seen the spectacle created by GSK when it came time to do their cross. They were so unorganized with their multiple binders that the jury started to laugh."

Davis also went down the route of asking Glenmullen how much he was paid to give expert opinions in previous Paxil litigation. Leaves me wondering how much Todd Davis has been paid to defend one of the most controversial drugs in history. Further, I wonder whether he and his law team view their thousands of "settlements"as victory.

In what world is it viewed as a success to place gagging orders on families of Paxil victims so that the truth about the dangerous product is hidden?

Thus far, Davis has done a fine job of entertaining both spectators and jurors alike. Today's Davis looks more like a sad clown than the smug clown who skipped into court three weeks ago. So, there you have it: King & Spalding attorneys seem to work well together if one considers their joint performance mere entertainment. Sad clown Davis and his jack-in-the-box sidekick, Andrew Bayman, will continue their lame cross-examination of Glenmullen today.

Bob Fiddaman

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

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

The Todd Stance

Oh Todd, oh Todd, oh Todd,

you make us feel so weary.

Your questioning of Stewart's doctor

really is quite dreary.

So, GSK's warning letter

is the crux of your defence?

It's not logical or rational;

it simply makes no sense.

You say you warned the doctors

of Paxil's suicide risk.

Yet Andy Bayman denies this claim,

like a repeating compact disc.

Adults are perfectly safe, he states:

It's just kids who should be warned.

But your former CEO confirms

it's your duty to inform.

You can keep your fancy haircut, Todd,

and expensive Armani suit.

You can keep your sense of what's right and wrong

in this wrongful death lawsuit.

You can keep your lack of due care

and misleading words of warning.

We know Paxil causes death, you see,

and leaves families deep in mourning.

Bob Fiddaman ~ 2017

Day 8 of the Dolin Vs GSK Paxil-induced suicide trial saw Stewart Dolin's physician and long-time friend, Dr. Marty Sachman, take the stand.

Sachman was first questioned by David Rappaport, one of the attorneys representing Wendy Dolin (Stewart's widow).

The jury heard more about Stewart Dolin, the man, and less about the fact that GlaxoSmithKline concealed Paxil's propensity to induce suicidality. Sachman told the jury, "Stew was a very reserved, quiet, intelligent, loving man. I never heard him raise his voice over our 25-year relationship. We were like brothers. We spent weekends together, travel together. He was my closest friend. A loving person and a loving family man."

Sachman was also questioned about Stewart Dolin's anxiety, which, according to the doctor, was a result of work-related issues. He told the jury that he never thought Stewart was depressed and that Stewart always responded to the treatment he gave him from 2005-2010. On each occasion, after Sachman prescribed Stewart drugs, he would warn him of the side effects and, once Stewart felt better, would wean him off the prescription.

Two days before Stewart's Paxil-induced death, Sachman and Stewart attended a memorial service for the father of their mutual friend. Later that evening Sachman, Stewart and Wendy went to dinner together. Sachman was asked to describe what he remembered about Stewart that night. He answered, "His demeanor was, as usual, our conversation was as usual. He was calm."

Sachman then recounted his "absolute shock" upon hearing the news of Stewart's death. He told the jury, "I just think that we depend on honesty in reporting research and data. How can we treat people effectively and safely if we can't depend on that?"

Rappaport then asked Sachman about the communication between pharmaceutical companies and doctors regarding drug labeling. Sachman's answer, which King & Spalding objected to and was struck by the judge, highlighted Dr. Sachman's feelings about being deceived:

"Well, you know, physicians, myself and millions of other physicians, every day try to protect people, try to help people and protect them. We rely on truth and honesty from pharmaceutical companies and to falsify information or hold back information is totally criminal. It affects the lives of our patients."

It's appropriate Sachman used the word 'criminal' given that GlaxoSmithKline have previously pled guilty to criminal charges. Therefore, GlaxoSmithKline are criminals.

Concluding his examining of the witness, David Rappaport asked Sachman about the tie and belt he was wearing. Sachman started to weep, sharing that they belonged to Stewart. Dr. Sachman wore them to "remember him today."

Cross-examination by King & Spalding's Todd Davis.

The cross-examination by Davis centered around GlaxoSmithKline's "Dear Doctor Letters" sent out whenever GSK decides to share a problem with their products. Davis went over and over a series of these letters sent to Sachman. Sachman told Davis that he had, indeed, received these letters. Once again, King & Spalding tried to catch a witness by asking the same questions that were asked years ago during deposition. GSK's attorneys futilely tried this tactic with Dr. David Healy and Dr. David Cross earlier in the trial.

Davis droned on about the "Dear Doctor Letters" and whether Sachman read them. Finally, an understandably frustrated Judge Hart interjected and admonished Davis, "You're covering the same ground...over and over again now, Mr. Davis...Let's not go over the same thing over and over again."

Davis, however, continued to go over the "Dear Doctor Letters," and the judge again interjected, "Mr. Davis, the document speaks for itself, and the doctor has accepted it. I don't see any reason to read the document to him and ask him whether he agrees or disagrees."

King & Spalding's "finest" then switched gears, inquiring about Sachman's prescription of Levaquin (an antibiotic) to Stewart Dolin. Davis asked Sachman if he had read the Levaquin warnings regarding the drug's propensity to cause adverse effects including suicidal acts or thoughts.

It's good to see Levaquin manufacturers use the appropriate suicidal acts in their warning label. This term is surely more understandable than the intentionally ambiguous "emotional lability" term GSK prefers. I can't help but wonder whether Davis would be equally concerned if his spouse consumed a product that states it can cause "emotional labilty" as he would if the warning listed "suicidal acts?"

Bizarrely, Davis next asked Sachman if he was aware Stewart's widow and children had taken trips in and out of the US since Stewart's death? Davis likely knows this is irrelevant, but shamelessly asked anyway in a lame attempt to imply Stewart's widow and children couldn't possibly be mourning Stewart's Paxil-induced death if the family has traveled in the last six years. An appropriate question on my mind is "Does Davis take trips in and outside the US after settling cases for GSK in which innocent consumers have died?"

Davis finished his cross-examination, and I presume the jury and judge were glad to have a break from Davis' tedious repetition. Davis is largely ineffective; GSK might want to reexamine their legal fund investment in Davis when GSK is, no doubt, embroiled in future wrongful death lawsuits.

David Rappaport - Re-direct

I won't go into too much detail regarding the re-direct because the following question and answer seemed to undue Davis' performance:

Q. Have you seen in any of the labels that you've ever seen from GSK about Paxil any reference to the fact that they had a suicide signal from attempts and suicides in the initial clinical trials that was of the magnitude of 7 to 8 times greater risk than similarly-depressed people on placebo?

A. I certainly have not.

Before leaving the stand, Dr. Marty Sachman told the jury, "I'd like to say that in the midst of all of this attempted confusion of the real issue here, if it was clear that this drug had a higher risk of causing suicide in the age group Stewart Dolin was in, I would have never prescribed it."

Three doctors have now taken the stand: All have stated if they had known about the increase in suicidality and behavior in adults taking Paxil they would have never prescribed it.

Your move, Todd!

The trial continues today with a series of video depositions that, sadly, I won't have access to unless they are made public.

Bob Fiddaman.

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin Vs GSK - 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users