Quelle: http://www.fortitudelaw.uk/product-liab ... up-action/Following the halt of the Seroxat Group Action in 2010 when public funding was withdrawn, Claimants determined to continue with their claims for compensation have turned to Fortitude Law. We are now set to return to Court and confront GlaxoSmithKline (UK) Ltd. with evidence of the harm they suffered as a consequence of having become dependent upon the antidepressant, Seroxat. Fortitude Law is working with Counsel Jacqueline Perry QC and Niazi Fetto, 2 Temple Garden Chambers, London to represent 105 Claimants in their High Court claims.
Patients were reassured by their GPs that unlike other antidepressants, they would be able to stop taking Seroxat whenever they wanted. Instead, over 6,000 individuals advised their GPs that each time they reduced their dose they suffered bizarre and debilitating symptoms not previously experienced. These symptoms often included impulsive suicidal thoughts, thoughts of self harm and uncharacteristic aggressive behavior. Their withdrawal symptoms were so severe that the only way they could be avoided was to return to their previous daily dose. Several of the current Claimants were minors at the time they were prescribed Seroxat for transient mental healthcare problems.
Moreover, women who became dependent upon Seroxat delayed or decided not to start their families upon learning that Seroxat had the potential to harm their unborn infant ‘in utero’.
Several Group Actions have been settled in the US following Court proceedings related to harm caused to individuals who had become dependent upon Paxil (Seroxat in the UK) – an FDA approved and prescribed antidepressant.
“It is ironic” says Claimant Bob Fiddaman “this British company has compensated Americans for the harm caused to adults and children who became dependent upon its antidepressant Paxil (Seroxat) yet UK citizens have had to fight for years to have their case heard. We may now only be a group of 105 Claimants but we are determined to gain compensation for the harm caused to us.”
To see the genesis of this litigation, which first commenced with the BBC’s Panorama Programme ‘Secrets of Seroxat’ first shown in 2002, visit news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/panorama/2310197.stm
Auch interessant dazu ist der Blogbeitrag von Bob Fiddaman mit Auszügen aus einem Mailverkehr von Mitarbeitern von GlaxoSmithKline
http://fiddaman.blogspot.de/2015/09/ser ... -with.htmlAs with most clinical studies, Glaxo had, just like they did in Study 329, hired a ghostwriter to draft the positive results from Ballenger's study. Once again, just as in Glaxo's infamous 329 study, Sally K. Laden was handed the job of turning bad into good. Sadly, for Glaxo at least, even Laden couldn't spin the results of Ballenger's study, (known as "project 1059")
Internal emails between Laden and Daniel Burnham of SmithKline Beecham show Burnham write the following...
"The issue of discontinuation sx [side effects] vs. relapse is obviously a concern of the J Clinical Psychiatry reviewers... Thus we have decided to terminate further work on this manuscript."
The industry prefer to call withdrawal issues "discontinuation problems".
What is striking about this correspondence is Laden's response to Burnham...
“We understand your reasons for cancelling this project. There are some data that no amount of spin will fix, and these certainly fall into this category.”
This, to me at least, suggests that Laden was familiar with spinning poor results into bad.
Laden then told her bosses at Scientific Therapeutics Information, Inc. (STI)...
“Yes, Virginia, there is a God. SB cancelled our project 1059 (long term panic disorder study). Reason: the side effect data was terribly unfavorable to our favorite antidepressant. And we hate when that happens!”