Excellent 3-Part Swedish Documentary Series About SSRI’s Drugs


I have just watched the first part from an excellent Swedish documentary series about the dangers of SSRI drugs, and the implications of SSRI usage, both for the individual, and the society they inhabit.

Mainstream psychiatry take note: the SSRI game is up… GAME OVER

https://www.artimus.se/whocaresinsweden/film-one.php

(Part 1 of 3 films in this series)

For more on these  3 brilliant documentaries see Bob Fiddaman’s and Leonie Fennell’s blogs through these links:

http://leoniefennell.wordpress.com/2012/09/25/this-is-what-ive-waited-3-years-for/

http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2012/09/who-cares-about-sweden-trilogy-ssri.html

PRESS RELEASE A Documentary Trilogy

from ARTIMUS Film SVB AB 3 parts, each 60 min.

Stockholm, Sweden Title:  Who Cares in Sweden?

Premiere September 10, 2012 at: http://www.artimus.se

——————————————————————————————-

Millions of people throughout the world have a friend or a family member whom they no longer recognize.

This also happens in Sweden. However the Swedes do not dare to admit to themselves that their health

care system could be corrupted and that personality change could be caused by a prescription medicine,

like the SSRIs (Selective Serotonin re-uptake inhibitors).

You may have known a healthy person who became worried, started taking an SSRI, changed and was diagnosed

bipolar or … someone that was on SSRI and who committed suicide? Unfortunately you are not alone. Just about

every tenth Swede takes an SSRI every morning, of which the positive effect is that one “cares” less. One is less

concerned about family, increases in weight, an unpleasant boss, an untidy home, that one’s children could harm

themselves, gruesome memories of an accident or a loss of a friend. These drugs blunt conscience and those

people who commit suicide seem to be “caring” less about their immediate surroundings”

Children want their father and mother to be caring. However an entire generation has grown up with parents

and teachers on SSRIs. It is of course important to discuss mental ill health but mental problems are not always

a good reason for medication. In these days more and more young people are being persuaded to take SSRIs for

a growing amount of diagnoses. Both doctors and medical salesmen refer to the same “Bible”, DSM (Diagnostic

Statistical Manual) published by an association of American psychiatrists. Schools have become outright market

places for treatments for insomnia, pre-menstrual problems, depression, angst, obsessions, eating disorders,

gameaholics, etc. In the year of 2011, 41600 young Swedes between the ages of 10-24 were started on SSRIs,

a chemical that reduces ones sexuality and which is intended to affect brain cells that are effecting our whole body,

our thoughts and our personality.

Is not the capacity for empathy and clean conscience worth defending in a civilized society?

The soldier, who in war has killed a child, feels horrible and has nightmares. This soldier is prescribed exactly the

same SSRI-medicine that for example a judge who is grieving after the death of his mother. The soldier returns to

the war front and the judge continues at his profession, as do the insurance doctor, the police and the preschool

teacher. They take their medicine every morning under the impression that it corrects an imbalance in their brain.

SSRIs increases the risk for: aggressiveness…………. and is involved in many murder cases.

suicide…………………… but are prescribed to prevent suicide.

birth defects……………. but are prescribed for pregnant woman.

*************************

In the films “Who Cares in Sweden?” scientists, doctors and journalists address themselves to the citizens of

Sweden who are letting themselves be fooled by a handful of scientists (Key Opinion Leaders) in close association

with the pharmaceutical companies. These companies in the USA include in their budget billions of dollars to cover

fines that are taken for granted as a cost of doing business. The same companies are responsible to a large degree

for most of the continuing medical education of Swedish doctors. In Sweden the Fox guards the chicken coop …

We, ARTIMUS Film SVB AB are neither against foxes, medicines or prosperous pharmaceutical companies. There

exists neither a bad side nor a good side. The problem starts when greed and cowardice are accepted as normal

when journalists and the state retreat to the sidelines. Mankind forgets what is necessary for a civilized society; the

judiciary system but also our own evaluation of its importance. Unfortunately the Swedish government has not only

lost control of the situation but is selling the country out and they who should be investigating what is happening

seem not to care.

All are losers in this seemingly spinning carousel where public relation bureaus supply the media with doctors,

scientists and “positive” patients who contribute in totally obscuring the problem. We are hoping that these films

will awaken the interest of serious journalists and politicians to revaluate the Swedish health care and media

system, both of which have succumbed to the manipulations of clever pharmaceutical companies. We hope doctors

and medical students will unite to mutually support each other. The corruption today is rampant in universities,

pharmacies and doctors offices. Commentaries from ARTIMUS Film will be found via Twitter and Facebook. The

participants can be contacted through the web sites.

The films are exhibited on Internet by artimus.se and also on its own web site whocaresinsweden.com

together with information on the participants.

Radio Interview With Seroxat Activist Bob Fiddaman (Aropax in Australia/NZ)


Well worth checking out..

http://fiddaman.blogspot.co.nz/2012/07/planet-fm-interview-with-seroxat.html

Earlier today I gave my first full radio interview on Planet FM in Auckland, New Zealand. I talk about my book, GlaxoSmithKline, the MHRA and withdrawal.

GlaxoSmithKline fraud case: Does crime pay?


FOR FULL VIDEO AND DISCUSSION OF GSK FINE FOR FRAUD SEE LINK BELOW:

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestoryamericas/2012/07/201271084038662313.html

In the biggest health care fraud settlement in US history, a federal judge approved a fine totalling $3bn for criminal and civil violations by the British pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline, last week.

“Most of the examples … are of a drug that is approved for disease A and it is thought to be safe and effective for disease A but they’re not selling enough. It’s still on patent … as long as it’s on patent, as long as they can charge more, they will start pushing it for disease B and C and D for which there is no evidence that the benefits outweigh the risks so this is a strategy widely used by companies to increase their sales.– Dr Sidney Wolfe, co-founder and director of the Health Research Group

The company admitted illegally marketing the popular antidepressants Paxil and Wellbutrin and also withholding the data on the health risks of its best-selling diabetes drug, Avandia.

For seven years Glaxo failed to report data showing drug Avandia increased the risk of heart attack by as much as 40 per cent.

And the company claimed Wellbutrin was beneficial for weightloss and treating sexual dysfunction.

In the case of Paxil, GlaxoSmithKline promoted the drug for use by children and teenagers, despite the US Food and Drug Administration not approving it for patients under 18.

In fact, a clinical trial had found that the drug made adolecents more likely to attempt suicide.

Whistleblowers said that the company gave doctors lavish trips and spa treatments in order to pursuade them to prescribe the drug for uses not approved of through testing – what are known as off-label prescriptions.

Glaxo also hired a company to write a medical journal article downplaying the risks.

The US deputy attorney general called the settlement historic, saying it sent a clear warning to any company that chooses to break the law.

“They are doing the calculation … and it comes out in their favour that you might as well take the risk here. The basic economics are fairly straight forward, we know that these drugs could be produced, with few exceptions, very cheaply …. There is an enormous incentive for them to lie, cheat, steal, whatever, try and push these drugs.– Dean Baker, co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research

But there have been some other big drug companies that have been caught acting illegally.

In January 2009, the American pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly agreed to pay more than $1.4bn for illegally promoting the drug Zyprexa.

Prior to Glaxo, the previous record-setting case involved Pfizer Inc., which in September 2009 paid $2.3bn for improperly marketing 13 different drugs, including Viagra.

In April 2012, Johnson & Johnson and a subsidiary were ordered to pay more than $1.2bn for minimising or concealing dangers associated with the antipsychotic drug Risperdal.

And in May, Abbott Laboratories settled for $1.6bn in regard to false marketing of the antiepileptic and mood-stabilising drug Depakote.

So, with the profits over more than a decade of illegal selling far larger than the amount Glaxo agreed to pay, will pharmaceutical companies really be put off? And do drug companies put profits before patients in the US?

Inside Story Americas, with presenter Shihab Rattansi, discusses with guests: Dr Sidney Wolfe, the co-founder and director of the Health Research Group; Dean Baker, the co-director of the Center for Economic and Policy Research; and Wendell Potter, an author and corporate health analyst.

Inside Story Americas also invited GlaxoSmithKline to take part in this discussion, but the company declined.

“Many observers, including myself believe that as long as it is just money that’s involved, it’s not a sufficient deterrent. The drugs that were involved in this settlement earned tens of billions of dollars over a long period of time. So the settlement was less than a single year’s sales of just one of those drugs, Avandia, the drug that I was involved in exposing the risks of. And so it’s just money, and it’s just part of doing business. Many people, particularly on Capitol Hill, believe that it’s time to begin holding these executives accountable for actual jail time when they commit this kind of criminal fraud.”Dr. Steven Nissen, a cardiologist at the Cleveland Clinic who in 2007 published findings that showed the health risks of the drug Avandia

___________________________________________________________________________________________________

THE GLAXOSMITHKLINE FRAUD CASE:

  • GlaxoSmithKline promoted antidepressants for unapproved uses
  • Glaxo failed to disclose diabetes drug increased heart attack risk
  • The company pleaded guilty and agreed to pay $3bn fines – the largest settlement ever by a drug company
  • The fine includes $1bn criminal fine and $2bn for the civil settlement
  • The $2bn civil settlement involved asthma drug Advair and claims that Glaxo overcharged the US government
  • The criminal charges involved Paxil Wellbutrin and Avandia
  • The antidepressant, Paxil, brought in $11.6bn in sales for Glaxo
  • Sales of the diabetes drug, Avandia, brought in $10.4bn
  • Sales of Wellbutrin, another antidepressant, brought in $5.9bn for Glaxohttp://aje.me/Mi1MVF

GSK and Seroxat (Paxil) in Japan: Psychoactive Drugs and Increasing Suicide Rate


http://www.japantimes.co.jp/text/fd20120916pb.html

The Japan Times Online
print button email button
Sunday, Sep. 16, 2012
MEDIA MIX

Japan’s depressing increase in psychoactive drug use

In July, the British pharmaceutical behemoth GlaxoSmithKline reached a $3 billion settlement with the U.S. Department of Justice over the company’s illegal marketing of several drugs in the United States. One of these, the antidepressant Paxil, was pushed by GSK salespersons for treating children, even though it was not approved for children. Studies show that Paxil is ineffective for younger patients and some believe it makes them suicidal.

News photo
Pill poppers: As an overwhelming proportion of psychiatrists prescribe pills over therapy, sales of drugs such as Zoloft have gone up by 30 percent in Japan over the past four years.

Three billion dollars is only a fraction of what GSK makes on antidepressants in a single year, so the fine isn’t going to affect it much.

American TV airwaves are filled with commercials for prescription drugs, including antidepressants, and by law these ads have to state possible side effects. Usually, the side effects outnumber the benefits, and if you shut your eyes to the relaxing images of couples walking on beaches at sunset and concentrate on the voiceover, the CMs can be horrifying. But these drugs still sell well.

The impressive sales growth of psychoactive medications in Japan has occurred over a shorter period of time. It wasn’t until the 1990s that the word utsu (depression) received wide currency. According to the health ministry, the number of clinics treating depression increased by 140 percent between 1996 and 2008, as the number of people diagnosed with depression jumped from 240,000 in 1999 to 700,000 in 2008. Sales of psychoactive drugs have gone up by 30 percent in the past four years.

The media has portrayed psychoactive drug usage as being out of hand, owing to the lack of alternative treatments, meaning counseling. As with most mental illnesses in Japan, depression was seen as a condition that had been ignored for too long, and drug treatment was a means of catching up with the rest of the world.

A recent article in the Tokyo Shimbun focused on the link between injudicious prescribing of psychoactive drugs and suicide, a connection the health ministry has yet to address formally, even in its campaign to bring suicide numbers down. The paper mentions several cases, including a 37-year-old Tokyo woman who in May was diagnosed with postpartum depression, for which she was prescribed antidepressants, antianxiety meds and sleeping pills. She hung herself in July. The woman’s mother said her condition wasn’t that bad before she received the drugs, but after she started taking them she deteriorated rapidly. In a survey of 1,016 families who had lost members to suicide, the newspaper found that 69 percent had been taking medication.

Psychoactive drugs can help many mental-illness sufferers lead productive lives, but the problem in Japan seems to be that doctors aren’t knowledgeable enough about medications to dispense them effectively. One physician interviewed by the paper said that postpartum depression is usually not serious enough to warrant medication, especially three different types at the same time, and in any case psychiatrists should observe patients for at least two weeks before prescribing anything. Most, however, give out drugs on the first visit.

The GSK suit highlighted the role of money, and money certainly has something to do with how readily Japanese doctors prescribe psychoactive drugs. Counseling, which is supposed to go hand-in-hand with medication, is not cost-effective for doctors who belong to the national insurance system, which recompenses a psychiatrist ¥5,000 for the first 30-minute consultation. With subsequent sessions, payments get smaller, to the point where the doctor will only receive ¥3,300 for a consultation that lasts between five and 30 minutes. In such a situation, there is no financial incentive to talk to a patient formore than five minutes, but in any case psychiatrists who are serious about counseling usually don’t belong to the health insurance system. They just charge patients what they want and the patient pays 100 percent. So even if doctors don’t directly make money off the drugs they prescribe, medication is an easier means of tackling the problem.

This attitude seems to have pervaded the general population. A recent edition of NHK’s in-depth news show, “Closeup Gendai,” looked at the proliferation of psychoactive drugs in the treatment of children who have difficulties in school. The announcer prefaced the report with a disclaimer that it is not NHK’s intent to “deny the benefits of drugs” in the treatment of mental and behavioral disorders, but what followed was provocative.

The program reported that the number of people under the age of 20 being treated with psychoactive drugs increased from 80,000 in 1997 to 150,000 in 2009. What was shocking is that 39 percent of the children on these medications started taking them prior to entering elementary school and 36 percent started between first and third grade.

Dr. Norihiko Ishikawa, a guest on the program, pointed out that there is no real clinical consensus on how most of these drugs affect developing brains, but the dominant trend in all disciplines is for early diagnosis and early treatment. Medical institutions are pressured to nip burgeoning mental and behavioral problems in the bud.

Moreover, schools understand that these drugs are available and pressure parents of students with perceived developmental disorders to seek treatment, which means medication. One parent told NHK that her son’s school wouldn’t let him attend classes after she decided unilaterally to take him off his meds, which she felt was doing him more harm than good.

Not all psychiatrists rely on drugs, but what used to be called the “talking cure” never caught on in Japan. Similarly, mental illness has traditionally been treated as an inpatient matter, and Japan has per capita one of the largest mental-institution populations in the world. In such a clinical environment pharmaceuticals leap-frogged analysis as a treatment option. Japan went from the snake pit to Zoloft without even waving at Freud.

print button
email button
The Japan Times

Sir Andrew Witty: Glaxo, Drugs is a Dirty Business


Paxil was being prescribed as an anti-depressant to treat depression in kids. One clinical trial showed that teens that took the drug for depression were more likely to attempt suicide then those who took placebos. Oops…time for a little massage on that result. So Glaxo hired a company to prepare a medical journal article to say that Paxil was actually good for teens with depression.

This is what happens when you sell drugs and take your product—loss of judgment. You are apparently so hopped up you let your lawyer persuade you to admit to criminal wrongdoing. As a corporation? Are you high? We never ever admit to criminal wrongdoing—especially to the charge of bribing doctors to prescribe pills that kills kids, I know it was just a misdemeanor, and the top execs face no personal criminal action, no bonuses get clawed back, and you got to keep the other $25B…but accepting criminal wrongdoing……….no.

And to Sir Andrew Witty, CEO of Glaxo, it doesn’t make any difference to me what a man does for a living, but your business, the way you conduct it, is a little dangerous.

Seroxat Side Effect: “Akathisia” Video


http://www.smd.qmul.ac.uk/risk/yearthree/casestudies/seroxat.html

Seroxat is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) antidepressant. Marketing of the drug began in 1992 by the pharmaceutical company SmithKline Beecham, now GlaxoSmithKline. Seroxat is used to treat major depression, obsessive-compulsive, panic, social anxiety, and generalised anxiety disorders in adult outpatients.

In adults, the efficacy of Seroxat for depression is comparable to that of older tricyclic antidepressants, with fewer side effects and lower toxicity. Differences with newer antidepressants are subtler and mostly confined to side effects. It shares the common side effects and contraindications of other SSRIs, with high rates of nausea, somnolence, and sexual side effects. Unlike two other popular SSRI antidepressants, fluoxetine and sertraline, Seroxat is associated with clinically significant weight gain and statistically significant increase in the risk of suicidality in adults. Pediatric trials of Seroxat for depression did not demonstrate efficacy and showed an increase in the risk of harmful outcomes, including episodes of self-harm and potentially suicidal behaviour.

Discontinuing Seroxat is associated with a high risk of discontinuation or withdrawal syndrome. Due to the increased risk of birth defects, pregnant women or women planning to become pregnant are recommended to avoid or discontinue Seroxat use.

Seroxat is primarily used to treat the symptoms of major depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD), (PTSD), panic disorder, generalized anxiety disorder (GAD), social phobia/social anxiety disorder, and premenstrual dysphoric disorder (PMDD).

Seroxat was the first antidepressant formally approved in the United States for the treatment of panic attacks.

According to the prescribing information provided by the manufacturer of the Paxil brand of Seroxat (GlaxoSmithKline) and approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) the effectiveness of Seroxat in major depressive disorder has been proven by six placebo-controlled clinical trials. For panic disorder, three 10-12 week studies indicated Seroxat superiority to placebo. Similarly, three 12-week trials for adult outpatients with social anxiety disorder demonstrated better response to Seroxat than to placebo. Additional studies show patients are 10-20% more likely to benefit compared to placebo.

Among the common adverse effects associated with Seroxat treatment of depression and listed in the prescribing information, those with the greatest difference from placebo are nausea (26% on paroxetine vs 9% on placebo), somnolence (23% vs. 9% on placebo), ejaculatory disturbance (13% vs. 0% on placebo), other male genital disorders (10% vs. 0% on placebo), asthenia (15% vs. 6% on placebo), sweating (11% vs. 2% on placebo), dizziness (13% vs. 6% on placebo), insomnia (13% vs. 6% on placebo), dry mouth (18% vs. 12% on placebo), constipation (14% vs. 9% on placebo), and tremor (8% vs. 2% on placebo).[18] Other side effects include headache, agitation, weight gain, impaired memory and paresthesia.

General side effects are mostly present during the first 1–4 weeks while the body acquires a tolerance to the drug, although once this happens, withdrawal can cause a rebound effect with symptoms re-emerging in an exaggerated form for very long periods of time. Almost all SSRIs are known to cause either one or more of these symptoms. A person receiving Seeroxat treatment may experience a few, all, or none of the listed side-effects, and most side-effects will disappear or lessen with continued treatment, though some may last throughout the duration. Side effects are also often dose-dependent, with fewer and/or less severe symptoms being reported at lower dosages, and/or more severe symptoms being reported at higher dosages. Increases or changes in dosage may also cause symptoms to reappear or worsen.

On 9 December 2004, the European Medicines Agency’s (EMEA) Committee for Medicinal Products for Human Use (CHMP) informed patients, prescribers, and parents that paroxetine should not be prescribed to children. CHMP also gave a warning to prescribers recommending close monitoring of adult patients at high risk of suicidal behaviour and/or suicidal thoughts. CHMP does not prohibit use of Seroxat with high risk adults but urges extreme caution. Due to reports of adverse withdrawal reactions upon terminating treatment, CHMP recommends to reduce gradually over several weeks or months if the decision to withdraw is made.

The FDA conducted a statistical analysis of Seroxat clinical trials in children and adolescents in 2004, finding a statistically significant 2.7-fold raise in suicide behavior and ideation as compared to placebo; the trend for increased suicidality was observed in both trials for depression and for anxiety disorders.[6] A University of North Carolina review of SSRIs found the average risk of suicide among adolescents was 4%, versus 2% on placebo, and among all patients “the greatest risk of self-harm was among Seroxat users. Cases of akathisia and activation syndrome have been observed during Seroxat treatment. Rarely serotonin syndrome, a severe adverse effect may occur.

Seroxat and other SSRIs have been shown to cause sexual side effects in most patients, both males and females. In males, Seroxat is also linked to sperm DNA fragmentation.

Mania or hypomania may occur as a serious side effect of Seroxat affecting up to 8% of psychiatric patients treated. This side effect can occur in individuals with no history of mania but it is more likely to occur in those with bipolar or with a family history of mania.

Schmitt et al. (2001) suggested that Seroxat negatively affects memory (i.e., IQ). In their study, healthy participants given Seroxat for 14 days (20 mg for days 1–7 and 40 mg days 8–14) showed poorer recall of words on day 14 compared to those receiving a placebo Schmitt et al. did not take into account a significant difference in verbal recall at baseline between the Seroxat and placebo groups, however, and this difference may have been the source of the significant group difference on day 14. Moreover, participants receiving seroxat scandal recalled as many words at baseline as they recalled on day 14, which is not consistent with the conclusion that Seroxat negatively affects verbal recall.

For 10 years, GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) stated that it was “not habit forming,” which numerous experts and at least one court found to be incorrect. In 2001, the BBC reported the World Health Organization had ranked Seroxat as the most difficult antidepressant to withdraw from. In 2002, the U.S. FDA published a new product warning about the drug, and the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations said GSK had misled the public about Seroxat and breached two of the Federation’s codes of practice. The British Medical Journal quoted Charles Medawar, head of Social Audit: “This drug has been promoted for years as safe and easy to discontinue…. The fact that it can cause intolerable withdrawal symptoms of the kind that could lead to dependence is enormously important to patients, doctors, investors, and the company. GlaxoSmithKline has evaded the issue since it was granted a license for Seroxat over 10 years ago, and the drug has become a blockbuster for them, generating about a tenth of their entire revenue. The company has been promoting Seroxat directly to consumers as ‘non-habit forming’ for far too long. Seroxat prescribing information posted at GlaxoSmithKline now acknowledges the occurrence of a discontinuation syndrome, including serious discontinuation symptoms.

Since the FDA approved Seroxat in 1992, approximately 5,000 U.S. citizens have sued GSK. Most of these people feel they were not sufficiently warned in advance of the drug’s side effects—particularly the withdrawal syndrome discussed above, after GSK had specifically advertised the drug as non-habit forming.

In 2001, GSK increased its American TV advertising of Paxil after the September 11 attacks; in October 2001, GSK spent nearly twice as much as in October 2000. The difficulty of withdrawal from Seroxat, and GSK’s concealment of it, was later reported on ABC.

In the UK, since 2001 lawsuits have been filed representing people who have been prescribed Seroxat. They allege that the drug has serious side effects, which GlaxoSmithKline downplayed in patient information.

In early 2004, GSK agreed to settle charges of consumer fraud for $2.5 million. The legal discovery process also uncovered evidence of deliberate, systematic suppression of unfavorable Paxil research results. One of GSK’s internal documents had said, “It would be commercially unacceptable to include a statement that efficacy [in children] had not been demonstrated, as this would undermine the profile of Seroxat.

In June 2004, FDA published a violation letter to GSK in response to a “false or misleading” TV ad for Paxil CR; FDA stated, “This ad is concerning from a public health perspective because it broadens the use of Paxil CR [beyond the conditions it was approved for] while also minimizing the serious risks associated with the drug. GSK claimed the ad had been previously reviewed by FDA, but said the ad would not run again.

On January 29, 2007, the BBC broadcast a fourth documentary in its Panorama series about the drug Seroxat. This programme, entitled “Secrets of the Drug Trials”, focused on three GSK paediatric clinical trials on depressed children and adolescents. Data from the trials show that Seroxat could not be proven to work for teenagers. Also, one clinical trial indicated that adolescents were six times more likely to become suicidal after taking it. Results from Study 329, one of the trials, were reported in a way which misled readers about paroxetine’s safety and efficacy, and contributed to repeated distortions in the assessment of the drug’s value in paediatric depression in the scientific literature.

The court documents released as a result of one of the lawsuits in October 2008 indicated that GSK “and/or researchers may have suppressed or obscured suicide risk data during clinical trials” of Seroxat. One of the investigators, “Charles Nemeroff, former chairman of the Department of Psychiatry at Emory University, was the first big name ′outed′. In early October 2008, Nemeroff stepped down as department chair amid revelations that he had received over $960,000 from GSK in 2006, yet reported less than $35,000 to the school. Subsequent investigations revealed payments totaling more than $2.5 million from drug companies between 2000 and 2006, yet only a fraction was disclosed”.

The suppression of unfavorable research findings on Paxil by GSK — and the legal discovery process that uncovered it — is the subject of Alison Bass’s 2008 book Side Effects: A Prosecutor, a Whistleblower, and a Bestselling Antidepressant on Trial.

In 2007, Seroxat was ranked 94th on the list of bestselling drugs, with over $1 billion in sales. In 2006, Seroxat was the fifth-most prescribed antidepressant in the United States retail market, with more than 19.7 million prescriptions. In 2007, sales had dropped slightly to 18.1 million but Seroxat remained the fifth-most prescribed antidepressant in the U.S.

With all the controversy surrounding the use of Seroxat, do you think that Seroxat should be on sale?

Do you think that the benefits out way the risks associated with Seroxat?