Join… The… Dots… Another Medication Induced Murder/Suicide in Ireland?…

Leonie Fennell has just written about the case of John Deegan and Deirdre Keenan on her blog. It has all the hallmarks of a medication induced murder suicide.  (see link)

John Deegan shot and killed Deirdre Keenan and then committed suicide, he was being ‘treated with medication’ for depression at the time. 

These murder/suicides are very typical of SSRI (anti-depressant) induced mania, psychosis, akathisia, de-personalization, violence, suicide, and homicidal impulsivity.

All of the aforementioned effects are listed in the side effect section of SSRI Patient Information Leaflets by pharmaceutical companies, whom now acknowledge these risks. (see link)

There has been a spate of `these ‘out of the blue’ medication related murders, suicides and murder suicides over the past 20 years. The correlation has been well established.

Before the SSRI- age, depression was rarely, if ever, connected to violence, murder, murder-suicides or aggressive behavior.

But ever since the SSRI age came upon us, not a week goes by without a case of SSRI induced violence occurring. The cases that make the mainstream media are only the situations that we become aware of, but I am sure there are thousands more- less extreme- cases of SSRI violence which occur on a daily basis. (see link)

When will the governments, media and mainstream psychiatric profession, begin to warn the public about these grave risks to human life from SSRI side effects?

Killer’s mental health clue in murder of mother of six

The anguished mental state of 53-year-old John Deegan emerged as a post-mortem confirmed that both he and Deirdre Keenan died from gunshot wounds to the head.

Investigating gardai also disclosed they were satisfied that Mr Deegan and his 51-year-old girlfriend had not died in a suicide pact.

Officers believe Ms Keenan, a mother of six, including triplets, had no idea of the looming danger as Mr Deegan hit her with a single blast from the shotgun.

The shootings happened at the Stonehaven B&B at Centaur Street in Carlow town on Monday morning.

It is understood that Mr Deegan had been on medication prescribed by a doctor during the past couple of months.

Last night gardai were trying to establish if the couple had a row shortly before their deaths and whether the shootings had been a “spur of the moment” incident. Gardai have established that he was the legal owner of the shotgun used in the tragedy.

Detectives were interviewing friends of Mr Deegan to determine if he was in the habit of bringing his shotgun with him when he was travelling.

He had brought the weapon with him while the couple were on a few days’ break in Wexford and Carlow.

Gardai are also anxious to discover whether the couple had met while socialising, or had become friends on the internet.

The pair had separated from their spouses and, shortly after they met, agreed to set up home together in a newly purchased house at Lumcloon, Cloghan, near Birr, Co Offaly.

The couple decided last week to go away for a few days and spent Wednesday and Thursday night in the Wexford area.

On Friday they booked into another guesthouse in Carlow for the night and the following day opted to move to the Stonehaven for two nights.

When last seen alive, at around 1 o’clock on Monday morning in the Stonehaven pub, across the road from the guesthouse and owned by the same family, the couple were said by locals to have been in good form.

Regulars in the pub said the couple had been chatting with locals during the night and seemed to be enjoying themselves.

Gardai are now trying to find out what took place to spark off the shooting incident when they walked back to the guesthouse.

Mr Deegan shot Ms Keenan in an upstairs bedroom and then killed himself in a downstairs room.

The shotgun was found lying beside him when the two bodies were discovered around 1.30pm on Monday.


Inquiries have been extended to Co Wexford and to the Cloghan area in an effort to find out if the relationship had run into difficulties in the past couple of weeks.

Friends said that Mr Deegan did not appear to have any financial difficulties and had moved into the large two-storied house at Lumcloon less than three months ago, while his wife lived in the family home in Ballycumber, Co Offaly.

Deirdre Keenan split from her husband Charlie last September but many of her neighbours in the area where she grew up, Our Lady’s Place in Naas, Co Kildare, were not aware they had separated until they heard news of her tragic death.

A detailed forensic examination of the Stonehaven guesthouse has also been carried out by members of the garda technical bureau. The shotgun has been undergoing ballistic tests.

The two bodies were removed from the guesthouse on Monday night and a post- mortem examination, carried out by deputy State pathologist, Dr Michael Curtis, confirmed yesterday that both died from gunshot wounds to the head.

Gardai last night appealed to anybody who noticed any unusual behaviour in the Centaur Street area between 10pm on Sunday and 1pm on Monday to contact them at Carlow garda station. And the investigating officers are also anxious to hear from anybody, who might have had contact with the couple in the Wexford area last week. 

Does Kathleen Lynch’s inaction make her partly responsible for the recent deaths of John Deegan and Deirdre Keenan?

This week the Irish Independent reported that John Deegan, a 53 year old farmer had shot and killed himself and his 51 year old partner Deidre Keegan. Both families are said to be ‘very shocked by what had happened’. It seems that this is another Irish case of murder/suicide, one in a long list of awful tragedies, and happening with increasing regularity.

Today the Independent reported that Mr Deegan had been suffering from depression and more importantly: “It is understood that Mr Deegan had been on medication prescribed by a doctor during the past couple of months.” The experts will say that incidents like this are enormously complex and that no-one knows the complexities or intent behind the perpetrator’s reasoning. What the experts won’t say is that these drugs can cause suicide, homicide, aggression, mania and akathisia (a known precursor to suicide and/or homicide). The dangerous period is upon starting, discontinuing and changing dosage (up or down). These are adverse effects of prescription drugs which are not widely known but the truth is, Minister Lynch, the person with responsibility for mental health, does know. She is well aware of the side-effects of prescription drugs.

The facts: Two experts met with Minister Lynch in Leinster House last May. Professor David Healy told Minister Lynch that SSRIs were causing people to kill themselves and kill others. He said that drug induced death ‘is the leading cause of death Minister Kathleen Lynch. Picture courtesy of Irish Election Literaturewithin the mental health field‘. Declan Gilsenan, assistant State Pathologist for over 30 years, told her of his ‘intuition’ that SSRI’s are causing suicides and that more people have died by suicide as a direct result of seeking help, than those who didn’t. He said in his 30-year experience carrying out post-mortems, he had seen way too many suicides of people who had just started on SSRI antidepressants. So you would think that Minister Lynch would have acted immediately in order to stop any more unnecessary deaths; nope, it doesn’t seem so! Despite both experts offering their services to stop the rising deaths, nothing has been done. It seems that upsetting psychiatry’s ‘medical model’ or pharma’s ‘apple cart’ isn’t an option.

Another issue is whether Mr Deegan was monitored when first prescribed these drugs. Was he warned of the risks/side-effects of SSRI’s in advance of prescription? These are two simple recommendations, among others, set down by the Irish Commission of Human Rights last year.

Co-incidentally, a few days before this latest tragedy happened, Prof Healy published this blog: Prescription-only Homicide and Violence. He also did a report for Shane’s Inquest which might be of interest, here. The Irish Government cannot cry foul at this stage, or say they were not aware, as the information below proves otherwise:

The Dáil; Here

The Seanad (Senate); Here

Leinster House; Here

IHRC RecommendationsHere

As for Kathleen Lynch, James Reilly and the latest Irish Government: In my opinion they are putting the pharmaceutical industry’s interests before the interests of the people they purport to serve.



Bob Fiddaman Questions the Scruples of the MHRA and GSK

Great Post:


And I must say I wholeheartedly agree with Bob’s views here.

It seems to me that the MHRA couldn’t give a fiddlers about people harmed by Glaxo Products.

It was just almost 5 years ago that the MHRA CEO , Kent Woods, sent a scathing letter to GSK CEO, at the time- JP Garnier- basically castigating GSK for hiding (holding-back, suppressing, withholding- whatever way you want to word it) data about Seroxat causing suicide and self harm in young people. Literally tens of thousands of people in the UK were grievously harmed by Seroxat but the MHRA do absolutely nothing for them. They spend millions on a ‘criminal investigation’ only to come to the conclusion that they had no legal basis for a prosecution in the first place. Surely that money would have been put to better use setting up a fund to help people who can not come off Seroxat, or what about people who lost friends, family members, loved ones to suicide and other Seroxat damage- where is the justice? 

Quite simply, there is none.

The way the pharmaceutical companies and the regulators operate is through a revolving door- mutually beneficial arrangement- both serve the interests of the other- but it is the industry which pulls the strings of the MHRA. Dangerous drugs like Seroxat and Avandia kill and main hundreds of thousands of people- and the companies like GSK get fined in the US to the tune of Billions- yet in the UK- their CEO is invited to use the MHRA as a platform to deliver a lecture on the industry he represents. 

This is blatantly offensive to all consumers in the UK and a slap in the face to all those damaged by GSK’s unscrupulous behavior in recent times. 



UK Drug Regulator [MHRA] Cosy Up to Sir Andrew Witty

be in bed with

Definition – to work with a person or organization, or to be involved with them, in a way which causes other people not to trust you

If further evidence were needed to highlight the British drug regulator’s close ties to the pharmaceutical industry, in particular, GlaxoSmithKline, then one needs to look no further than this years MHRA’s annual Lecture.

I must confess, I had to do a double-take when I heard and read about this [hat tip toPharmagossip]

The MHRA are usually good at hiding their sycophantic allegiance to Glaxo but this time they are actually broadcasting the fact. This from the MHRA website:

“The MHRA Annual Lecture is an opportunity to hear from international experts on important themes in the regulation of medicines and medical devices and advances in science and research.

“This year’s lecture, on Monday 11 March 2013, will be given by Sir Andrew Witty, Chief Executive Officer of GlaxoSmithKline and member of the Prime Minister’s Business Advisory Group, who will be offering his industry perspective on the strengths, challenges and opportunities facing the UK life sciences industry.”

The message to the general public is clear, at least it is to me.

Glaxo recently were handed down a huge $3 billion fine. They agreed to plead guilty to a whole host of fraudulent charges that was laid against them.

Glaxo admitted guilt for promoting two drugs for unapproved uses and failing to report safety data about a diabetes drug to the Food and Drug Administration, the American version of the MHRA. No safety data was reported to the MHRA either.

The settlement covered criminal fines as well as civil settlements with the federal and state governments.

The case concerns 10 drugs, including Paxil, known in the UK as Seroxat.

Now, this is how perverse the relationship is between Glaxo and the MHRA.

Who better to give a talk to the MHRA than the head honcho of the very same company that admitted guilt to fraud?

I’m actually laughing out loud as I type this.

Let’s just look at how the MHRA dealt with the fact that Glaxo, for years, had been lying to them regarding the safety of Seroxat in children.

Here’s a recap – Glaxo had sat on information that showed how kids taking Seroxat were at a higher risk of suicidal acts. They also sat on information that showed, in fact, that Seroxat was not effective for treating depression in children and adolescents.

Once the MHRA became aware that they had been kept in the dark about this they decided to investigate Glaxo, an investigation that lasted 4 years – the result of which saw the MHRA publicly tell Glaxo off. “You’ve been naughty, now don’t do it again”.

No criminal charges were brought against GSK. Any child that had carried out suicide during this period of suppression from Glaxo was, in my opinion, shown two fingers by the MHRA.

The MHRA let Glaxo off the hook, so much so that the then CEO of Glaxo, JP Garnier, said publicly that Glaxo had done nothing wrong. To hold back information about a drug that can kill children and adolescents is, once again in my opinion, the work of a psychopath.

For years many advocates have been disappointed that Glaxo and other pharmaceutical companies have been allowed to throw money in the direction of plaintiffs in the US. What advocates want is jail time for the top executives at GlaxoSmithKline.

The MHRA, in their investigation, had a golden opportunity to root out the main players in the Seroxat cover-up. They failed on a miserable scale.

After 4 years of trawling through one million documents the MHRA had at their disposal they, through their CEO, Kent Woods, announced, “I remain concerned that GSK could and should have reported this information earlier than they did. All companies have a responsibility to patients, and should report any adverse data signals to us as soon as they discover them.”

Thanks for your own personal concern Kent, that really reassure’s me and, I guess, the likes of Stephanie Gatchell whose daughter, Sharise, hanged herself just weeks before the MHRA announced Seroxat wasn’t safe for kids.

Here’s where it gets even more perverse. During the 4 year investigation the MHRA did not interview one single employee of GlaxoSmithKline. What kind of investigation was it?

The MHRA relied solely on the fact that they had never granted a licence for the use of Seroxat in children and adolescents. Job done, they slept better in their beds at night.

However, Seroxat was being prescribed to children and the MHRA knew it. Their answer to this?  Well, the usual cop out. Dr’s can prescribe drugs off-label [for unauthorized uses] if they so wish. A few deaths here and there means nothing.

You see, the MHRA have their hands tied. They know drugs are prescribed off-label to children yet they claim they cannot do anything about it. In other words, “It’s up to the doctor”.

Excuse me?

Let’s take a scenario, it may be far fetched but it shows how utterly useless the drug regulatory authority is, furthermore it puts holes in their argument about not being able to intervene with doctor’s who wish to prescribe off-label.

If the MHRA granted licence to a drug for adults and indicated that it was not for use in children or adolescents then that’s fine. They are, for all intents and purposes, doing their job correctly.


Here’s the flaw in their argument.

It’s 2015 and ThumblyBarmy, a relatively new pharmaceutical company, apply for a licence from the MHRA for a new antidepressant they have produced. They show the MHRA how safe and effective this drug is, let’s call it Draxon for the sake of this argument.

Draxon is granted a licence for use in adults.

It’s now 2017 and the MHRA, via their adverse reporting system, are aware that Draxon is being prescribed to kids, in fact over 6,000 prescriptions have been dispensed for children sinceDraxon’s release in 2015.

No worries though because the MHRA have already said it’s for adults only.

2018 now and the MHRA are inundated with reports of suicide in children and adolescents, so many reports that the public are strongly voicing their opinions about the safety of this drug.

Do the MHRA just shrug their shoulders and say there is nothing they can do, the responsibility is with the prescribing doctor?

In 2019 100 children taking Draxon kill themselves over the period of one weekend. The link toDraxon inducing suicide is proven. Are we expected to believe that the MHRA wouldn’t find it in their power to ban the use of this drug?

There’s a myth in the UK that Seroxat is banned for use in children, in fact there’s a myth that all other SSRi’s are banned for use in kids. Truth is, they are not.

The MHRA have issued warnings to doctor’s that state that these types of drugs are “not recommended for children and adolescents”

One gain the MHRA will use the get out clause of responsibility that it’s the doctor’s decision and not their’s.

So, Draxon has just saw 100 deaths in one weekend. ThumblyBarmy deny any links to its drug and suicide in children. Are we to believe that a drug regulator would just shrug their shoulders and do nothing? Of course not. The MHRA would immediately act and ban the drug.

In other words, it would take a mass suicide [related to a product] that would make the MHRA act. Do we really need a regulator in place that is of the opinion that isolated suicides related to SSRi use is really, a; of no significance and/or b; not really a concern of theirs?

So, it’s 2013. The MHRA, after it’s 4 year investigation of Glaxo’s suppression of information that could have saved children’s lives and after hearing of GlaxoSmithKline’s recent admittance that they committed fraud decide to invite the head man at Glaxo, Andrew Witty, to give a lecture.

Sorry Kent but this is akin to the Battered Wives Association inviting Peter Sutcliffe to address an audience.

The MHRA’s Chairman, Alasdair Breckenridge, who is apparently resigning this year, was a former employee of GlaxoSmithKline [then SmithKline Beecham]. The MHRA’s Head of Licensing, Dr Ian Hudson, is the former World Safety Officer at GlaxoSmithKline.

By the way, neither Breckenridge or Hudson were interviewed during the MHRA’s four year investigation into Glaxo.

BBC Panorama have investigated both GlaxoSmithKline and the MHRA. If you haven’t watched it yet then I urge you to do so.

The UK needs to call for the MHRA to be disbanded. I, for one, cannot believe that such a band of limp-wristed ignorami are still regulating drugs that UK children take.

Want a better regulator? is a good place to start.

Andrew Witty will be lecturing for the MHRA on Monday 11 March 2013. Meantime, here’s the BBC Panorama documentary, “Taken On Trust”. At the time of filming, the MHRA were two years into their investigation of Glaxo. Nothing has changed.


GSK, Fraud, the Attorney General And Off-Label Drugs


Hey GSK – what’s a weekend boondoggle?

Louisiana attorney general files second suit against GlaxoSmithKline over off-label drug use

GlaxoSmithKline allegedly marketed nine drugs illegally for uses that have not been approved by the Food and Drug Administration and provided doctors with “consulting fees,” expensive meals and “weekend boondoggles” to convince them to prescribe those brands, according to a lawsuit filed this week by Louisiana Attorney General Buddy Caldwell. These practices cost the state’s Medicaid and medical assistance programs millions of dollars and subjected patients to “non-approved, ineffective and unsafe uses” of the drugs, according to the suit.

Attorney General Buddy Caldwell
“GSK’s egregious conduct and greed caused fraudulent claims to be submitted to the Louisiana Medicaid Program,” Caldwell said in an emailed statement. “As Attorney General, I will aggressively pursue and expose pharmaceutical companies who defraud our state and its citizens.”

The suit lists nine drugs that GlaxoSmithKline allegedly promoted improperly between 1997 and 2010: Paxil, Wellbutrin SR, Advair, Lamictal, Zofran, Imitrex, Lotronex, Flovent and Valtrex. GlaxoSmithKline allegedly promoted each of those drugs as treatments for symptoms and diseases that had not been approved by the FDA, according to the suit.

The suit also alleges that medical professionals were treated to perks, rewards and “kickbacks” for prescribing the drugs. The state is seeking a range of fines and penalties, as well as restitution to the state for off-label prescriptions paid for through Louisiana’s Medicaid program.

GlaxoSmithKline agreed to plead guilty to claims of fraud and failing to report safety data in a July 2012 settlement with the Department of Justice. The $3 billion settlement with the federal government and the National Association of Medicaid Fraud Control Units covered allegations that two of the drugs included in the Attorney General’s suit, Paxil and Wellbutrin, were promoted for uses not approved by the FDA.

That settlement was reached while the Attorney General’s Office was in the midst of a lawsuit against the British pharmaceutical company over the improper marketing, pricing and promotion of the diabetes drug Avandia. Louisiana was one of several states that did not sign off on the settlement because of the pending lawsuit.

The suit has been assigned to District Judge Janice Clark of the 19th Judicial District Court. Clark is also the judge in the attorney general’s previous case against the GlaxoSmithKline, which is set to go to trial in June.

Living with the pain of GSK’s Myodil

As Deputy Chair of the House of Representatives Standing Committee on Health and Ageing, I rise to respond to the chair’s statement on the report Living with the pain of adhesive arachnoiditis: report on the roundtable into adhesive arachnoiditis. I start with the following statement:

Our guiding principles are to focus on patient needs, respect people, communicate honestly and act with integrity. We are bound by a promise to keep our customers at the heart of everything we do. We do this work in partnership with Government, industry, the community and our peak industry association,

Any suffers of adhesive arachnoiditis will recognise this motherhood statement taken from the GlaxoSmithKline website. GSK is the company that released the Myodil and Pantopaque products into the medical world, which are a cause of the condition known as adhesive arachnoiditis, described in the report as a painful condition. We heard the chair say in her statement that this is a horrific condition.

The report states that the committee very much appreciates the contributions of all participants to its inquiry. The roundtable made clear to the committee how debilitating adhesive arachnoiditis can be to sufferers. The committee very much sympathises with and hopes that the recommendations of the report will help to improve the quality of life for sufferers and their families and carers. I particularly mention Mr Max Scott from my electorate of Swan, who first brought to this terrible condition to my attention. I also thank Mr Joern Hagemann and his daughter and carer, Mrs Erika Zorzit, who both came to visit me about Mr Hagemann’s condition. Their visit gave me the extra impetus to cajole, urge and convince the Standing Committee on Health and Ageing to commit to a roundtable and I thank my fellow committee members for their support in agreeing to the roundtable.

In particular I thank Steve Georganas, the previous chair, and Jill Hall, the current chair, both of whom played their part in getting this roundtable up. I thank the secretariat for their work on this difficult report as I felt there was a level of trepidation in dealing with this subject due to the long litigious history of the subject and the ongoing litigation. Thanks must also be given to the previous member for Throsby Jennie George for tackling this issue back in the early 2000s with the support of Jill Hall.

I also mention Mr Jonathan Martin from my office who spent a considerable amount of time dealing with sufferers and providing me with valuable research. His efforts should not go unnoticed by the people who read this report. During my time involved with the forgotten Australians apology more than three years ago, the comment that the Leader of the Opposition at that time, Malcolm Turnbull, made in his speech when he said, ‘We believe you,’ was, for many people, a significant moment. I think the same significance could be taken by arachnoiditis sufferers from the comments made by Professor Michael Sage, a radiologist, when he stated:

I believe that the most common cause of chronic arachnoiditis is Myodil, and most people have been suffering for 40 years. … These people have suffered, mainly because we were using a dye, Myodil, with no alternative. … there was a gradual recognition—with poor literature, I might say—that there was a problem. A needle was introduced to allow us to suck it out; the problem was that it was often impossible to suck it all out anyway. The bottom line was that, if there was some alternative, we should not have been putting it in. I was very concerned about this.

The report’s recommendation 1 goes back to the first part of my statement that was taken from the GSK website. This recommendation’s first paragraph states:

In the context of corporate social responsibility the Committee encourages GlaxoSmithKline to consider establishing a charitable foundation to assist sufferers of adhesive arachnoiditis.

This is a decision that only GSK can make. However, if we are to believe all the motherhood and community caring messages stated on their websites around the world, we can only hope that they honour these statements. If they do not act, their response to this recommendation will give us a true indication of GSK’s real community concern. In the report there is a comment that states there is an acceptable failure rate of 10 per cent for people who contract arachnoiditis from a myelography. I ask: would that be an acceptable failure rate for a motor vehicle manufacturer? The clear answer is no. My experience with manufacturing is that a one per cent failure rate is acceptable before they have a recall. I encourage people to read this report and again thank all the people who were able to finally have this debilitating condition brought to public awareness through this report. I commend this report to the House.

Seroxat/Paxil Can Cause Violent/Homicidal Impulses and Actions: Remembering David Carmichael

Published on Feb 4, 2013

Examines whether Paxil triggered the psychotic episode that cause David Carmichael to kill his 11-year-old son Ian on July 31, 2004.


my mistakes Paxil warning SSRI-induced psychosis
Greed, Fraud and Paxil through psychotic eyes contact me

W% Tragedy
killer side effects





In July 2003, at the age of 45, I experienced my first major depression. I started taking 40mg. of the antidepressant Paxil a day. By September, I was feeling mentally healthy again. After forgetting to take Paxil for a few days in February 2004, I weaned myself off the drug. I started to feel depressed again in July. My symptoms included insomnia, increased anxiety, rapid weight loss, low concentration and a lack of energy. I put myself back on 40mg. of Paxil a day.A few days after I started taking Paxil again, I was having suicidal thoughts. I thought I could get rid of the thoughts and recover more quickly if I increased my dosage. On July 17, I started taking 60mg. of Paxil a day. Three days later, I planned my suicide. I went from planning my suicide to planning a murder-suicide to planning a murder. On July 31, 2004, I killed my 11-year-old son Ian. I was charged with first-degree murder.

In November 2004, I was diagnosed by one of the leading forensic psychiatrists in the world as being in a “major depression” with “psychotic episodes” when I killed Ian. In May 2005, his assessment was supported by another leading forensic psychiatrist, who was hired by the crown attorney. On September 30, 2005, I was judged to be “not criminally responsible on account of a mental disorder” for murdering Ian. I received an absolute discharge from the Ontario Review Board on December 4, 2009.

I hope some of the information posted on this website can help prevent suicidal and homicidal tragedies.

my mistakes Paxil warning SSRI-induced psychosis
Greed, Fraud and Paxil through psychotic eyes contact me


Families face battle with GSK over dangerous diabetes drug

Helping people to do more, feel better and live longer!!!... 

Families face battle with GSK over dangerous diabetes drug

Exclusive: Pharmaceutical giant resists claims despite settlement with victims in US

Avandia pill bottle
GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to payouts in US lawsuits alleging Avandia pills could cause heart attacks. Photograph: Bloomberg/Getty Images

Thousands of families in the UK could be deprived of compensation for the death or harm of a relative caused by the diabetes drug Avandia, even though the British maker has agreed to pay billions of dollars to settle similar claims in the US.

The licence for Avandia was revoked in Europe, in September 2010, because of evidence that it could cause heart failure and heart attacks. The drug can still be prescribed in the US, but not to patients at risk of heart problems.

A scientist with the Food and Drug Administration estimated that Avandia could have been responsible for 100,000 heart attacks in the US.

The manufacturer, GlaxoSmithKline, has admitted concealing data about the damaging side-effects of the drug, and there is evidence of the drug’s harmful effects. But, despite this, GSK is not prepared to settle claims in the UK without a court fight.

The history of drug litigation in the UK suggests that families might not easily get  compensation.

Daniel Slade, with the Express company of solicitors in Manchester, has 19 cases on his books and has begun proceedings against GSK in four of them.

The pharmaceutical firm has told the solicitors that it will contest the cases. In just one of the cases it has indicated a willingness to spend £600,000 on its defence, which, the solicitor says, would be a fraction of what the claim is worth.

“It is very disappointing,” said Slade. “We anticipate that these claims do have a good prospect of success, but they still have to prove their case in the UK with suitable evidence. They are tasked with having to produce that evidence, including medical expert opinion. It is a burden one would have thought they might not have to go through.”

He expected that, if GSK fought in the courts rather than settled outside, as it had done in the US, it would take years for bereaved relatives, or those who have been harmed, to get any sort of payment.

A spokesman for GSK said: “We have every sympathy for people with complications associated with diabetes and those who care for them, but unfortunately we are unable to comment on individual legal cases. We continue to believe that the company acted appropriately and responsibly in its management of Avandia.”

Liz Thomas, policy manager at the patient safety charity Action against Medical Accidents, said it had “become increasingly difficult in the UK to challenge large corporations such as pharmaceutical companies, an incredibly expensive form of litigation”.

Corporations have a vast amount of money at their disposal to contest legal cases, but legal aid is about to cease for medical negligence cases.

The Avandia cases in Manchester will be fought on a “no win, no fee” basis by Express solicitors.

The cases in the US were settled by GSK extremely quickly, said Thomas. “I would hope they would not take advantage [in Britain] of the inequality of arms.”

Avandia was first introduced in the NHS in July 2000. It was given to people with type 2 diabetes whose glucose levels were no longer being properly controlled by the standard drugs – metformin and a sulphonylurea drug. Avandia could be prescribed with those drugs or on its own.

The drug, which generically is known as rosiglitazone, was designed to lessen the body’s resistance to insulin. It was available as a standalone drug – Avandia – or in a combination with metformin, and known as Avandamet.

When both drugs were withdrawn by the European Medicines Agency, there were about 90,000 people taking them in the UK.

The first warnings of trouble with Avandia came in 2007, when a prominent US scientist, Steve Nissen, published data from a review of 42 clinical trials which had been carried out on the drug. The trials involved 28,000 patients, and showed that Avandia could cause heart attacks. Further trials, the results of which were published in 2010, found people on Avandia were 27% more likely to have a stroke, 25% more likely to have heart failure, and 14% more likely to die, than patients on an alternative diabetes drug.

Potentially yet more damaging for GSK was its guilty plea to federal charges of concealing data about the drug’s side effects. Most of the data on the drug comes from GSK’s own trials. In November 2011 GSK agreed to pay $3bn to the US government over the Avandia issue and to end investigations into its marketing of the antidepressants Paxil (Seroxat in the UK) and Wellbutrin.

“This is a significant step toward resolving difficult, long-standing matters which do not reflect the company that we are today,” Andrew Witty, chief executive of GlaxoSmithKline, said at the time.

GSK is also still defending cases in the UK from people who claim to have been badly affected by Seroxat. A group action, involving people who say they suffered severe withdrawal problems when they tried to stop the drug, has been going on for years though many claims have been settled in the US.

The same is true of Vioxx, made by Merck, the painkiller that was withdrawn after it emerged eight years ago that it doubled the risk of a heart attack.

Diabetes drug causes death and now they want another pill approved

Spirit Happy has reported on the shady practices of Glaxo Smith Kline for many years. As far back as 2008 we reported that their drug Avandia would cause heart attacks and that is exactly what the drug did. Unfortunately this has not stopped them from seeking another Billion dollar profit drug for diabetes. They refuse to stop making diabetic drugs because it profits them over 4 Billion dollars a year.
Here is their History in Diabetes drugs
  1. Glaxo was ordered to pay 90 million dollars in the Unites States for the heart attacks and deaths related to their drug Avandia. We warned the public but few listened back in 2009, we told the public that very few people need a drug Type 2 diabetes, it can be reversed naturally. We informed the public that Avandia, Actos, and other high blood sugar medications were all dangerous drugs that destroyed the heart valve. The drug maker simply lie and they do it because the billions are too great a temptation for them. They simply want the money at any cost, even death to the person taking the drugs.
    1. 90 million is a low settlement seeing as the drug profited over 5 Billion dollars each year for 5 years. Each family victimized is reported to receive 53 thousand dollars. In addition the drug maker makes much more money on stocks once the drugs receive approval. When a diabetic drug is approved the company’s stocks fly up because it means millions in straight profit. This is the billion dollar big money game in pharmaceutical drugs.
    2. The story about Glaxo gets sicker as they were also found guilty of fraud, a 9 year investigation showed that the company lied to the public and hide information that the diabetes drug and other drugs they made were dangerous. They bribed doctors to promote their drugs. Did you know doctors get cash and vacations for prescribing a certain number of drugs? Glaxo sales reps lied and told doctors that the drug Avandia would even help the heart( while the drug really causes heart attacks) Drug companies have sales people who push the drugs on the doctors( Legal street drugs are not the only dirty drug game, prescription drugs may be more dirty)
    3. Glaxo salesmen get commissions( $) based on how many doctors they can get to prescribe the drug
    4. Glaxo was found guilty of hiding the heart attack risks from the FDA.
    5. Glaxo moved the dirty operation and had the drugss made in  factories in Puerto Rico to save tax dollars. What a shame.
These are the things they were found guilty of, this is not just an opinion, they admitted lying and hiding the truth and they pleaded guilty to all the charges above.
In total Glaxo has paid back the largest suit in US drug history 5 billion dollars, yet Glaxo profited over 20 billion dollars in 5 years from the diabetes drug
The drug business is a dirty business operated for huge profits.
In an amazing development Glaxo filed to the FDA to have a new diabetes drug approved and they have been approved last week!
The USA reported the story
GSK Diabetes Drug Receives FDA Approval As Initial Therapy
and here is the statement for Glaxo’s spokesperson
“GlaxoSmithKline is committed to developing diabetes therapies to treat a disease that has reached epidemic proportions in the United States and throughout the world,” said Anne Phillips, vice president of Clinical for North America Cardiovascular-Metabolic at GSK,
What hypocrisy, they have admitted lying and defrauding the diabetic yet they say they are committed to helping the diabetic. . They caused deaths which no settlement could ever make up for. Glaxo stocks went up 1.6 % after the settlement and the stockholders were said to be “happy”  that they did not lose their investments in the company.
Diabetes for them is a stock market game with billions dollar of dollars at stake. Their executives make more money than the average person will ever see. Ask your doctor if type 2 diabetes can be reversed without drugs and he will inform you that it can. The drugs are part of a billion dollar con game.
We reported on Glaxo in 2009 and here in 2011 see here  Dangerous diabetes drugs

GlaxoSmithKline told to set up charity for thousands of Australians left crippled by X-ray dye

GlaxoSmithKline told to set up charity for thousands of Australians left crippled by X-ray dye

THEY are the forgotten Australians – 60,000 victims of a devastating medical practice that has left them crippled with pain, paralysed and incontinent.

This week they enjoyed a rare ray of light when Federal Parliament said they deserved the help and support of the drug company linked to their suffering.

GlaxoSmithKline (GSK), which for 42 years marketed a dye used in an X-ray procedure connected to their pain, has been told to set up a charitable foundation to help.

However, while the pharmaceutical giant told News Limited it was “considering” the parliamentary report’s recommendations, it has so far not yet committed to providing any assistance.

Medical experts who gave evidence to a parliamentary inquiry have compared the case to the harm caused by tobacco giants and asbestos company James Hardie.

“I sit back and think: cigarettes, mesothelioma – I go through it all. These people have suffered mainly because they were using a dye, Myodil, with no alternative,” Professor Michael Sage, past president of the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of radiologists told the roundtable.

Between 1945 and 1987 tens of thousands of Australians were injected with a dye during an X-ray procedure called a myelogram that at the time was the only way for doctors to see the spine clearly before surgery.

The federal government, state health authorities and doctors sanctioned the use of the chemical even though they knew evidence had emerged in medical journals as early as the 1950s that it was linked to a condition called arachnoiditis that causes burning back, neck and leg pain.

The condition is caused by the inflammation and fusion of the nerves and membranes of the spinal cord and is estimated to have affected around one per cent of patients who had the procedure.

Pain expert Professor Michael Cousins told the parliamentary roundtable victims suffered pain that was burning and “like bolts of electricity” – just moving to the end of the bed can be enough to trigger a paroxysm of pain.

Patients can also experience loss of muscle function, paraplegia, incontinence, unpleasant sensations such as ants walking on the skin or having hot water poured on one’s legs. Many are wheelchair-bound.

Arachnoiditis sufferer Maxwell Scott told the committee he now existed on an electric wheelchair and a bed, transferring from one to the other by means of a slide board.

News Limited first exposed the issue of spinal injections in 2002 and it was raised in federal parliament but the plight of the victims was ignored by the government even though its own medical regulator had evaluated the dye and approved it for general marketing.

Liberal MP Steve Irons pushed for a parliamentary investigation after being approached by a constituent and says it’s time for GSK to “act like a good corporate citizen” and set up a charitable foundation to help the victims.

“I guess if you look at GSK’s website they talk about openness and transparency, but I felt they hadn’t taken responsibility for this and assisted the people who were affected,” he said.

“Where you take no responsibility it smacks of the tobacco industry’s approach to smoking and cancer,” he told News Limited.

The parliamentary roundtable said it had no power to order GSK to pay the victims’ compensation – that was a matter for the courts.

In 2000 GSK faced a class action from 140 Australian victims of the dye, the case was settled out of court and the payouts were confidential .

In 1995, 3,600 UK victims sued GSK but only 426 received an average payout of 16,000 British pounds in an out of court settlement.

In a statement this week GSK said it “had the utmost sympathy for the people who have been, and are, afflicted by arachnoiditis” and believed it had “acted responsibly at all times in relation to the supply of myodil”.

“Arachnoiditis is a complex condition that may be caused by a number of conditions such as spinal infections, surgery and trauma,” the company said.

Many victims can’t get a diagnosis from their doctors, who also fear legal action, and many have their legal options complicated because they had surgery after a myelogram.

There is currently another compensation case underway in Australia but the president of victim support group The Australian Arachnoiditis Sufferers Association NSW, Maureen McLean, says lawyers have warned victims they “could lose their homes if they sue the company unsuccessfully”.

“It just doesn’t seem fair,” she said.

John Hagerman who had a myelogram in the 1970s is greatly disappointed at the parliamentary roundtable’s findings.

”There are thousands of Australians suffering like hell and no direct course to have it properly investigated,” he said.

He wants someone to be made legally responsible for the suffering cause by the dye.


  • 1945-87: oil based dyes Myodil and Pantopaque injected for use in spinal x-rays
  • 1956: article in The Lancet links Myodil to persistent pain in head, neck, back and legs
  • 1960s: two articles in journal Radiology link the dye to arachnoiditis and call for it to be removed after x-ray
  • 1969: US officials ask producers of Pantopaque to state on the product it should be removed after x-ray
  • 1970s: UK doctors decide to remove Myodil after the x-ray because of concerns
  • 1971: GSK inserts on its product information advice for Myodil that “occasionally arachnoiditis has been reported”.
  • 1973: GSK changes product information to “emphasise the importance of removing as much Myodil as possible at the time of investigation”
  • 1979: federal Department of Health approves an application to register Pantopaque for general use in Australia
  • 1980s: Pantopaque and Myodil (1987) withdrawn from sale
  • 1995: 3,600 UK patients seek compensation from GSK in relation to Myodil, 426 get a small settlement.
  • 2000: GSK reaches out court settlement with around 140 Australian claims in relation to Myodil


  • 2003: GSK drug Seroxat, a common anti-depressant, was banned for use in children aged under 18 in the UK because of concerns it triggered suicides
  • 2010: The licence for GSK’s diabetes drug Avandia was revoked in Europe because of evidence that it could cause heart failure and heart attacks.
  • 2011: GSK settled a US lawsuit over Avandia but continue to fight compensation claims over the drug in Britain. (Avandia is still sold in Australia)
  • 2012: GSK was hit by a $3 billion penalty in the US after revelations it handed out cash, rock concert tickets, pheasant hunting trips to induce doctors to prescribe medicines for unapproved conditions.

Remembering Sara Carlin : A Seroxat/Paxil Induced Suicide



From : Seroxat Secrets-

I came across the above named video, ‘Sara Carlin – death by Paxil’, on Bob Fiddaman’s website Seroxat Sufferers.

Bob has been following the inquest into the death of Sara Carlin. Yesterday the jury returned its findings.

In a  phone conversation between Neil Carlin (Sara’s father) and Bob, Neil explained that both he and his wife “…are extremely pleased with the outcome of the inquest into our beloved Sara’s Paxil related suicide with the recommendations that the jury have given in their verdict.” He added, “The jury were under very strict restraints in their ability to name or blame any party in this inquest, including the three doctors from Oakville Ontario Canada – and the drug company GlaxoSmithKline – maker of the SSRI antidepressant Paxil.”

Neil went on, “We feel that through the breadth & depth of their 16 recommendations, the jury has carefully listened to the evidence they have heard over these past several weeks & through the quality of those recommendations have identified the root cause of Sara’s death. It is our belief if these recommendations are implemented & followed in the future, that they will surely avoid the tragic waste of young life as occurred in our Sara’s case.”

I suggest you read the rest of the post here.

And here are links to more detail on the story:

Sara Carlin Inquest – Latest

Sara Carlin Inquest – Failure of Oakville Medical Profession

Sara Carlin – ‘Death by Paxil’ Inquest – The ‘Expert’

Sara Carlin Inquest – Coroner’s Witness In U-Turn… And That Man Shaffer!

SARA CARLIN Ontario, Canada

Coroner’s Inquest – Glaxo & Friends Vs The Carlin Family

Sara Carlin Inquest – Local MP Slams GlaxoSmithKline



SARA CARLIN INQUEST – What The Jury Should Know

Sara Carlin Inquest – “Paxil likely played important role in teen’s suicide”

Sara Carlin Inquest – The Eli Lilly ‘Links’ & Today’s Recommendations.

**Exclusive – Sara Carlin Inquest: The Bias Of Coroner’s Counsel, Michael Blain & Coroner, Bert Lauwers?

Sara Carlin Inquest – We Know How, Now Tell us Why!

Share this:

How Soderbergh’s New Movie Side Effects Depart From Reality

Interesting review from Alison Bass, in the Huffington Post:

I went to see Steven Soderbergh’s new film, Side Effects, with anticipation and dread. The movie, after all, carries the same name as my 2008 book, Side Effects and from what I could tell of the trailers, its plot seemed loosely based on the issue I explore in my book: the sometimes dangerous effects of antidepressant drugs. Soderbergh’s film turns out to be a cleverly done thriller with lots of twists and turns, but it is clearly not based on reality – either the reality of mental illness or the reality I expose in my book about how drug companies hid the negative effects of antidepressants. What the film does get right (but only touches on tangentially) is the extent to which drug companies lure doctors into selling their souls in return for lucrative consulting gigs to promote their drugs.

The plot line is this: Emily, a young woman with a previous history of depression tries to kill herself after her husband (the hunky Channing Tatum) is released from prison after serving four years for insider trading. Her new psychiatrist, the appropriately named Dr. Banks (ably played by Jude Law) prescribes an antidepressant in the class known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRIs), which includes Prozac, Zoloft, Paxil, and Celexa. The drug (we aren’t told which SSRI she gets) makes Emily nauseous and deprives her of her sex drive (both actual side effects of SSRIs), and Emily asks if she can take another new antidepressant she has heard about, the fictitious Ablixa. The new drug causes Emily to sleep walk and after a few weeks on it, she stabs her husband to death, ostensibly while she is sleepwalking. Right here, the movie departs from reality, since sleepwalking is not a side effect of any antidepressant I am aware of; it is, however, a dangerous side effect of sleeping pills like Ambien and Lumina, although I haven’t heard of anyone committing murder while sleepwalking on these drugs.

As the plot thickens and Emily (played with haunting intensity by Rooney Mara) goes on trial for the murder of her husband, it seems as though the movie is going to be a screed against doctors who prescribe potent drugs without knowing their side effects. At one point, one of Banks’ colleagues even mentions the black box warnings put on antidepressants by the FDA to warn people about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviors in young people. But in another break from reality, Banks appears to never have heard of these warnings. I found this implausible since the 2004-2005 warnings received so much publicity (both for and against the FDA’s decision) that any semi-conscious psychiatrist practicing in New York would have known about them. At any rate, Emily is declared not guilty by reason of insanity (because of the sleepwalking) and remanded to a local psychiatry hospital, where she is assured by her psychiatrist and lawyer that she will be released as soon as they deem her no longer dangerous to herself or others.

Here is where the plot starts turning. Banks’ reputation has been tarnished by all the publicity over the trial, his partners no longer want him in their practice and even the New York medical board is investigating him. At the same time, Banks begins to believe that Emily is lying about how and why she killed her husband. Here Soderbergh rachets up the drama by bringing to light an earlier case in which a mentally ill patient of Banks accused him of sexually abusing her. These accusations turn out to be false but they are enough to seed doubt in Banks’ wife about his integrity. (The movie takes another page from my book with this plot turn, since one of the real psychiatrists I profile was falsely accused of sexual misconduct by a troubled female patient). So when compromising pictures hinting at a sexual relationship between Banks and Emily are sent to his wife, that’s enough to provoke her into taking their young son and leaving him. That’s when Banks realizes he is being framed and it is up to him to solve the mystery of why Emily really killed her husband.

I don’t want to spoil the ending for those of you who haven’t seen the film; suffice it to say that the plot twists from here on in strain credulity. I found it very hard to believe, for instance, that Emily’s previous psychiatrist, played by the ever beautiful and indomitable Catherine Zeta-Jones, would be stupid or desperate enough to have sex with a female patient and then get involved in a plot to kill for money. (I covered many cases of sexual abuse by psychiatrists when I was mental health reporter for The Boston Globe and none of them involved a woman having sex with her patient). In addition, it is exceedingly unusual for a woman, even a very troubled one, to kill her spouse for money; the vast majority of women kill their husbands after years of physical and/or psychic abuse. But what I found myself most disappointed by was Soderbergh’s unwillingness to tackle head-on what should have been the heart of this story: the dangers posed by a medical-industrial complex that sometimes cares more about profit than it does about patient safety.

Follow Alison Bass on Twitter: