Interesting New Seroxat Channel on YouTube

Poor guy took Seroxat for 15 years… Is it no wonder he is angry?


Over 50,000 Hits..

My blog on GSK and Seroxat has just surpassed over 50,000 hits! While that doesn’t sound a lot in the grand scheme of things, it is quite an achievement, considering all my traffic is based on web engine key words, done also without advertising, promotion or any corporate muscle. It also takes some time for Google, and other search engine to Index a website. I can safely say, that this blog has now been firmly indexed as I am now averaging over 100 individual key word hits per day. This is what the past 5 years has been about: Building an information resource for Seroxat/Paxil sufferers to easily find via their search engine keywords. Of course, there are other bloggers who have had much more hits than mine. Bob Fiddaman’s blog “Seroxat Sufferers” is well on its way to half a million hits, and it seems Bob is becoming quite the thorn in GSK’s side…  Kudos Bob 🙂

I’ve been out of the country for the past two weeks or so, the reasons of which shall remain, like GlaxoSmithKline’s clinical trial data, hidden from the public eye. Sufficed to say, it’s been fruitful for me.

During my two weeks in Los Angeles I met with some old friends, some new ones, some really interesting ones.

I was introduced to a person, who shall remain nameless. She/he has a story to tell, she/he is a whistleblower.

She/he used to work for GlaxoSmithKline.

I was introduced to this person who was “dying to meet me”.


“I read your blog every day and have done for sometime, I’m a former Glaxo rep and I can tell you this, Glaxo cringe at your blog, keep up the good work.

Hey, being jet-lagged from a flight from LA to Newark and then Newark to Birmingham, that will really help me catch the zeds tonight.

One has to ask why Glaxo cringe, do I embarrass them, are they surprised at my staying power, do they know about the UK Seroxat litigation and the fight that has gone on behind the scenes, are they sick and tired of reading all their muck in one one place, is it because I’m just a blogger with no editor to answer to?

Who knows, who really cares?

GlaxoSmithKline are a multi-billion dollar entity who have thrown money in the direction of people they have injured with their drugs. I’m mainly concerned with their antidepressant Seroxat [Paxil] and the out-of-court settlements they have made, moreover the reasons why they make these out-of-court settlements, the reasons why they wish to seal documents disclosed in court rooms.

They are one of many, all of those who peddle the SSRi’s have secrets, have lies, have a lack of empathy to the human race, in particular children.


I’d do more than cringe if I were they.

That’s the second Glaxo whistleblower I’ve spoken to in the space of two months. One in person, one on Skype. No details have been given to me about the pending cases, that would be wrong but assurances have been given to me by one of the whistleblowers that they will let me have first dibs of an exclusive when the shit hits the fan.

I’ve been writing this blog since 2006, both the UK regulator [MHRA] and GlaxoSmithKline have been monitoring it, as have the honeytraps and hired shills who throw dirt in my direction. Ironically, it is they who have lifted the profile of this blog, it is they who have directed readers to inquire about getting off Seroxat  and readers who have a story to tell…but can’t tell it just yet.

Private Eye have recently been in touch – they are also interested in one of the whistleblowers that approached me.

2012 should prove interesting…the year of the Cringe, if you will.


Phil Lawrence : “Numb” : Groundbreaking Documentary on Paxil (Seroxat/Aropax) Withdrawal

I checked my mailbox in my apartment today and Phil Lawrence’s documentary about his withdrawal experience with Paxil (Seroxat/Aropax) had arrived as promised. Firstly, I would like to thank Phil for sending me a copy of his documentary for review. Thank you Phil, very kind of you.

Phil Lawrence is a courageous and brave documentary film maker. He had been taking Paxil for a number of years and he had decided that the Paxil treatment wasn’t doing him any good anymore. He was originally prescribed it for anxiety but for a long time It was making him feel emotionally “Numb”. He decided he wanted off it, so during a tapering regime, he thought it would be a good idea to document his withdrawal experience.

It is difficult for me to review this documentary without getting emotionally involved. I myself was once in Phil’s difficult position. I was prescribed Seroxat in 1998 for depression. For almost 4 years I was dependent on Seroxat, I could not stop it, and if i missed a dose, I would experience what I can only describe as a complete and utter collapse of my nervous system. I would get severe shaking, my eyes would roll around my head, I would sweat profusely, and my mind  felt like it was on fire, my emotions in turmoil. This was a severe withdrawal, but I didn’t realize it at the time. There was little information available about Seroxat (Paxil) around, I was left in the dark. It took me 9 months to get over the withdrawal symptoms of Seroxat and a number of years more before I felt in any way recovered.

When I finally decided to quit, I had no idea the sheer horror that I would experience. Phil Lawrence, and many hundreds of thousands of others have experience that horror, the horror of SSRI withdrawal is worse than heroin or cocaine or crack. Yet, these drugs are legal, and they are prescribed to some of the most vulnerable people in society.

This is a disgrace.

Phil had tried to get interviews from the APA (American Psychiatric Association) and other organizations who peddle SSRI’s, but none would take part in his film. I find this extremely telling. The Psychiatric community has long colluded with the pharmaceutical industry in covering up the side effects and withdrawal symptoms of SSRI’s and psychiatric drugs in particular. It is no surprise to me that they didn’t want to take part in his documentary. But what I will say is…

Psychiatry is an absolute disgrace.

There are some good interviews in Phil’s documentary with some of the big names in psychiatric drug awareness; Peter Breggin, Robert Whitaker and David Healy are all included.

These men are heroes.

Phil Lawrence was prescribed Paxil for 10 years. I was prescribed it for almost 4. I can only imagine how difficult it must have been for Phil. Based on my own experience. I experienced absolute torture and hell. Phil must have experienced worse.

Phil’s courage is extremely humbling.

“Numb’ documents Phil’s experience of Paxil tapering and the harrowing effects of how this dangerous drug impacts upon his him, his wife and family. This is the untold story of SSRI addicts. The tears, sorrow,heartbreak and pain that family members go through when they watch a loved one disintegrate in front of their very eyes from Seroxat withdrawal.

GSK should be deeply ashamed of themselves.

Phil’s documentary is an inspiring and courageous account of an experience which happens to many thousands of people every day. Paxil (Seroxat) and other SSRI’s can be extremely dangerous, there are thousands of SSRI stories which will never be told. Many people have been driven to suicide and homicide from the sinister affects of these debilitating drugs. SSRI drugs can be lethal.

Anyone who seeks to be educated on what to expect when a doctor or psychiatrist prescribes them an anti-depressant needs to watch this documentary. Be warned and be aware. These happy pills can push you over the edge.


Seroxat Secrets

New post over at Seroxat Secrets. If you haven’t seen the “Seroxat Secrets” blog, please check it out. It’s an amazing, and extremely well written and insightful, resource for those whom have been harmed by pharmaceutical companies and SSRI drugs…

Seroxat, of course, in particular.


I think we all know the internet is overflowing with all kinds of dubious sources of ‘information’ sources.

I’m a patient who suffered greatly at the hands of GlaxoSmithkline and decided to tell my story by creating this blog. As such I freely admit that I am not, by any stretch of the imagination, unbiased.

I see what I do as trying to counter (in some small way) the spin and lies that Glaxo routinely produces every week of the year.

I also hope I may be able to help some people understand what’s happening to them if they are suffering from Seroxat addiction and are trying to withdraw from the drug.

But if you don’t want to believe me, then can I suggest you look at the new blog written by Dr David Healy – Dr Healy being the internationally respected psychiatrist, pyschopharmacologist, scientist and author. I can’t recommend this blog enough. Go there now!

And for the record:

I believe Seroxat is defective and dangerous.

I believe that Glaxo has hidden clinical trial data that shows exactly how dangerous a drug it is.

I believe that something must be done to help people who suffer terrible problems with withdrawal, as they desperately try to stop taking Seroxat.

I believe that Seroxat is addictive.

I believe that Seroxat can cause anger, aggression and violence.

I believe that doctors have taken large sums of money from Glaxo to lie about the efficacy and safety of Seroxat.

I believe that GlaxoSmithKline puts profits before patients – their wealth before our health.

I took Seroxat for 9 years and it took me 22 months to withdraw from the drug little by little.

Maybe you should believe me – I do know what I’m talking about.



Seroxat For Sale : GSK Makes £435 Million A Year From Seroxat Sales


Seroxat (Paxil/Aropax) is one of the most controversial drugs of the past 20 years:

Birth defects, severe withdrawal symptoms, suicide, self harm, addiction, dependence, extreme debilitating side effects, controversy, lawsuits, headlines, fraud, corrupt sales practices, corrupt doctors and psychiatrists, documentaries, you tube videos, blogs, books, websites, users groups, internet forums….

Seroxat has it all…

Yet, GSK still makes £435 million a year on sales of this nasty drug.

You would have to ask? Are those whom remain on Seroxat too addicted to come off it…
Is this profiting from addiction?..

Most likely..

GSK’s cardiovascular and urogenital franchise generated 2011 turnover of £2.47 billion, a year-on-year rise of 8%. Within this, benign prostatic hyperplasia drug Avodart (dutasteride) sales reached £748 million, a leap of 20%, but blood thinner Arixtra (fondaparinux) declined 7% to £276 million. The central nervous system franchise was down 2% to £1.72 billion for the year, With Keppra (levetiracetam) contributing £53 million, up 20%, and Lamictal (lamotrigine) for seizures and bipolar disorder adding 536 million, a rise of 8%, while the antidepressant Seroxat/Paxil (paroxetine) generated £435 million sales, a fall of 13%. Oncology and emesis product contributed £693 million sales, up 2%, with breast cancer drug Tyverb/Tykerb (lapatinib) rising by the same percentage to £231 million.

GSK pays Damages of $3,000,000,000 (Three Billion) to settle defective drug Avandia Cases

That’s a lot of damaged customers from just one GSK drug…
Imagine how many more people they have maimed and killed over the years…
Seroxat, Myodil, Avanida.. The list goes on…


GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK), which is paying $3 billion to resolve government claims that it illegally marketed drugs such as the Avandia diabetes medication, agreed to settle more lawsuits over the pills, a lawyer said.
Glaxo, the U.K.’s biggest drugmaker, agreed last month to resolve more than 20,000 cases alleging Avandia causes heart attacks, said Paul Kiesel, a lawyer for former users. The accord, reached in court-ordered mediation, included a case that was set for trial in state court in Los Angeles, he said.
“We are pleased the mediation has successfully resulted in the settlement of a significant number of the remaining cases,” Kiesel, one of the lead lawyers for plaintiffs in the Avandia litigation, said yesterday in a telephone interview.
The settlements are part of London-based Glaxo’s efforts to resolve legal issues stretching back more than a decade. Executives announced in November that the drugmaker will pay $3 billion to settle U.S. criminal and civil probes into whether Glaxo illegally marketed Avandia and other medications.
The company already has agreed to pay at least $700 million to settle more than 15,000 patients’ claims that Avandia caused heart attacks and strokes, people familiar with the accords said last year.
‘Cash Resources’
The most-recent settlements of Avandia patients’ suits “are covered by existing provisions and those payments will be funded through existing cash resources,” Bernadette King, a U.S.-based Glaxo spokeswoman, said in an e-mailed statement yesterday.
More than 2,500 Avandia cases are consolidated before U.S. District Judge Cynthia Rufe in Philadelphia, who appointed a mediator in a bid to resolve the remaining claims over the drug. Other cases are pending in state courts around the U.S.
Patrick A. Juneau, a Lafayette, Louisiana-based lawyer named as the Avandia mediator, helped the company and plaintiffs’ lawyers reach agreement on the accords for the more than 20,000 cases, Kiesel said.
Bill Robbins, a New Mexico-based plaintiffs’ lawyer who represented many of the former Avandia users who settled their cases last month, didn’t return calls for comment on the accords. They included claims that were filed in both state and federal courts, Kiesel said.
Remaining Cases
Rufe had set a 75-day deadline to resolve 85 percent of the remaining cases through the mediation program, according to court filings. Kiesel said it’s unclear whether enough cases have been settled to meet the deadline.
If there aren’t enough settlements to meet the judge’s requirements, Rufe has said she will begin scheduling cases for trial. So far, no Avandia cases have been considered by a jury, Kiesel said.
Janet Johnson, a former Avandia user, was scheduled to bring her case to trial in state court in Los Angeles Jan. 17. Her claims were resolved as part of the latest round of settlements, Glaxo’s King said in an e-mail.
The company said in 2010 it would stop promoting Avandia worldwide after regulators said the treatment would be withdrawn from the market in Europe and sales would be limited in the U.S. because of studies linking the drug to increased risks of heart attacks.
Falling Sales
Sales of Avandia fell 43 percent in the wake of the restrictions, Glaxo said. Avandia was once the world’s best- selling diabetes pill, generating $3 billion in annual sales.
The $3 billion settlement is designed to resolve a federal- government probe of Glaxo’s marketing of drugs such as Avandia and its Advair lung treatment.
Federal prosecutors began an investigation in Colorado in 2004, later taken over by the U.S. attorney in Massachusetts, into whether Glaxo promoted drugs for unapproved uses and attempted to silence critics of the drug. The probe focused on nine of the company’s best-selling products from 1997 to 2004.
A University of North Carolina professor told lawmakers in 2007 that Glaxo officials pressured him to stop raising questions about the safety of Avandia when it came on the market in 1999.

The consolidated case is In re Avandia Marketing, Sales Practices and Products Liability Litigation, 07-01871, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia).
To contact the reporter on this story: Jef Feeley in Wilmington, Delaware, at
To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at

Dr David Healy : Pharmageddon : New Website, Book and Blog..

Can’t keep a good Irishman down..

Dr David Healy..

A true patient advocate, vocal critic of psychiatry and the corrupt drug companies..

I can’t praise this man high enough..

Heroic would be an understatement..

Check out his new Blog..

Burn in Hell

January 31, 2012 1 Comment

In my last post, Psychotic doubt, we saw the most successful maneuver that has ever been devised for hiding dead bodies and silencing us when we are injured.

We saw a mechanism that acts like the authority of a psychoanalyst (when Freud was still in vogue), or an ecclesiastical authority (until recently), to silence dissent and cause someone who has been abused to doubt their sanity and blame themselves for something done to them.
This mechanism that allows companies, regulators, and academics to hide dead bodies by an appeal to evidence that in actual fact shows an increased risk of death on treatment is not just psychosis-inducing; it also has a Burn in Hell component to it.

This is how it happens.

Here is Ronald Krall being deposed in 2007. He is the head of Global Safety at GlaxoSmithkline.
Q: Are you willing to tell the jury under oath that you are not aware of a single side effect that is caused by Paxil?
A: I am prepared to say to the jury that I am not sufficiently familiar with all of the data for all of the adverse events to tell you that there is an adverse event that is caused by Paxil.[1]
Here is Ian Hudson being deposed in 2001, then head of Global Safety at GSK, later a member of the British regulatory apparatus, the MHRA:

Q. Okay. So, your view is: It’s simply impossible for SmithKline Beecham to decide whether Paxil did or did not contribute to the homicidal or suicidal behavior of any one given individual; is that your testimony?
A. We would certainly gather all the information, but on an individual case basis it would be impossible to decide whether paroxetine caused an event or not… It is impossible, on an individual case basis, from individual reports, to assign causality especially in a very complicated area such as this. That’s why, when we have issues, we review all the available data and make a determination, on the basis of all the available data, whether there is an issue or not.

Q. Okay. Do you believe that it is possible that Paxil has caused any person, worldwide, to commit an act of homicide or suicide?
A: I have seen no evidence to suggest that at all.[2]

If there is even a small possibility the problem could have been caused by chance, then it has been caused by chance.
Hudson and Krall are demonstrating the standard company approach to determining causality. In this case GSK had lots of reports of suicide, aggression, birth defects, or dependence. In many cases the doctor, or patient, or a company employee notes that the problem happened soon after the drug was started, cleared up when the drug was stopped, and reappeared when the drug was restarted. As a result in many cases a GSK employee has said the drug has caused the problem. Both men know this, but for Hudson and Krall there is still no evidence that their drug causes a problem — even when the dependence on Paxil (Seroxat) is universally recognized.

Why not?

For Hudson and Krall and regulators like Bob Temple or Ian Hudson (who is now a member of the British regulatory apparatus), if a clinical trial hasn’t confirmed a statistically significant link between treatment and an adverse event, then the adverse event hasn’t been shown to be caused by the treatment. If there is even a small possibility the problem could have been caused by chance, then it has been caused by chance.

The refusal to do a study while events pour in that meet all the standard criteria for causality is the real Burn in Hell moment.

While the company avoids doing a sufficiently large clinical trial to test out the link, there will never be any evidence that the drug causes a problem. The refusal to do a study while events pour into the company that meet all the standard criteria for causality is the real Burn in Hell moment. Thousands of reports can pour in, each making a compelling case that the drug has caused the problem, but a Hudson or Krall or Temple will feel comfortable saying under oath they have seen no scientific evidence that the drug causes a problem.

Unbelievable though it will seem, lawyers for pharmaceutical companies have recently advised that company coding staff, when faced with convincing evidence a drug has caused a problem (that is, when a problem appears after the drug is started and clears when it is stopped and reappears when it is restarted), should not code this as caused by the drug as they have been doing.


When patients report problems to the company and ask if there is any evidence the drug might be contributing, they are commonly referred back to the doctor who has prescribed the drug — who will be faced with the scientific literature, which will say there is no evidence that the drug has caused the problem.

When patients ask for evidence on a drug, they are referred back to their doctor — who will be faced with the literature, which will say there is no evidence that the drug has caused the problem.

Here is an unknown woman in 2001 contacting GSK. She terminated her first pregnancy, after radiology showed the baby had a serious heart defect (truncus arteriosus) and would likely not survive.
The response from GSK is as follows:

‘We are attaching a copy of our current product information for Paxil… Please review the section on USE DURING PREGNANCY.Further questions about your treatment should be directed to the physician, pharmacist or healthcare provider who has the most complete information about your medical condition. Because patient care is individualized, we encourage patients to direct questions about their medical condition and treatment to their physician. We believe because you physician knows your medical history, he or she is best suited to answer your questions. Our Drug Information department is available to answer any questions your physician or pharmacist may have about our products.

She responds:
‘This response is in regards to an email I sent you preciously [sic]. I was asking to see if you have any, or were in the process of any clinical trials for women who are currently on Paxil and pregnant. I wanted to find out any information on women who were on Paxil during pregnancy and if they were able to have healthy babies. I am in no way insinuating your product did this to my child. I love the product and don’t think that I could have gotten through my panic attacks without the wonderful help of this miracle drug. I just want to get pregnant again soon. I do not want to put my unborn child through anything that would hurt him/her. Please, if you do not have information, where is this information held? Does anyone do studies like this? Please any information that you may give me would be great’.

The birth defects this woman’s child had suffered were coded as almost certainly linked to Paxil but neither she nor her doctor were told this.

In internal company documents, the birth defects this woman’s child had suffered were coded as almost certainly linked to Paxil but neither she nor her doctor were told this.

This seems eerily reminiscent of appeals by Catholic cardinals to Canon Law (an idiosyncratic take on legal significance) when asked to account for their handling of abuse cases in the Church.

[1] Deposition of R Krall, Head of Global Safety GlaxoSmithKline, 2007.
[2] Deposition of Ian Hudson in Tobin vs SmithKline Beecham, December 15th 2000, 30–33.