Category: seroxat

…Mark’s blood contained high levels of the antidepressant drug paroxetine …


Another Paroxetine Death..

.. if SSRI’s like Paroxetine are so effective then why do people keep killing themselves on these drugs?

 


 

http://www.bathchronicle.co.uk/news/bath-news/coroner-finds-mark-hagan-51-640231#ICID=sharebar_twitter

 

Coroner finds Mark Hagan, 51, drowned in River Avon in Bathampton

His body was discovered lodged in the river shallows near a pub in July

A 51-year-old Bath man whose body was found in the River Avon in Bathampton died by drowning, a coroner has found.

Mark Richard Hagan, of London Road West, was pulled from the river near the Bathampton Mill pub on the morning of July 19.

An inquest into his death heard his body was discovered in the river shallows by a dog walker at about 7.30am.

A large man with a shaven head, Mr Hagan had been reported missing by his mother earlier that day.

His body was later identified by Isobel Rathbone, the vicar of the Church of St John The Baptist in Batheaston, who had known him and his mother for about two years.

The inquest at Avon Coroner’s Court heard that Mr Hagan was a single carer who lived with his mother.

Mr Hagan’s body was discovered in the river by the Bathampton Mill pub

He was socially isolated, had learning disabilities, dyslexia and was taking medication for anxiety and depression.

He was also overweight, had high blood pressure, sleep apnoea, swollen legs and was prone to leg ulcers.

Evidence from witnesses read out in court described how Mr Hagan’s mental health had deteriorated after the deaths of his father and sister at the end of 2016 and the recent diagnosis of his mother with cancer.

According to his brother, James Hagan, Mark had lived with his sister and parents as a “close unit” for nearly 30 years and the death of their father, in particular, had had a “major impact on Mark”.

The inquest was heard at Avon Coroners Court in Flax Bourton

James said Mark had become “fixated” on the condition of his legs and had said “life wouldn’t be worth living” if he lost his leg.

He had also told his mother he wished “God would take him”, according to James.

A post mortem found pathology “consistent with drowning”. Mark’s blood contained high levels of the antidepressant drug paroxetine but the concentration was not so high as to cause “serious toxicity”.

The dose of the drug had been raised to 40mg after he began “obsessing about his legs” and became anxious about his future after his mother was diagnosed with throat cancer.

Police at Bathampton Mill
Police at Bathampton Mill (Image: Artur Lesniak)

His former GP, Dr Charles Berrisford at Number 18 Surgery, said the last time he saw Mr Hagan on July 12 his patient was anxious but showed no signs of depression and he had “no cause for concern”.

His new GP, Dr Jim Hogg at Batheaston Medical Centre, made a similar observation upon meeting Mr Hagan for the first time when he visited the surgery on July 14.

No note was left by the deceased.

Reading her finding of death by drowning, assistant coroner Myfanwy Buckeridge noted the GPs’ remarks and the observation from James Hagan that his brother “struggled to make decisions by himself”.

She also noted there was no evidence of how Mr Hagan came to be in the river.

“I cannot rule out that the death was the result of a tragic accident,” Ms Buckeridge said.

No witnesses or friends or family of the deceased attended the inquest.

If you have been affected by this article, or are concerned about someone or need help yourself, please contact the Samaritans on 116 123.

Advertisements

Is GlaxoSmithKline The Harvey Weinstein Of The Pharmaceutical Industry?..


GSKHAVER

Think about it.

The Hollywood producer- Harvey Weinstein– has been getting away with abusing and harming women for 30 years or more. He got away with it because he is wealthy, powerful and could pay people to shut up. He could also use his power- and his immense influence and political sway- to keep people quiet.

People feared him. He is nasty.

People often don’t speak up because of the fear they have of powerful people like Weinstein; and the repercussions to them, their career or their families if they did speak out.

Weinsten is a bully, a predator, and seemingly displays no remorse for all the harm that he has caused for decades.

Weinsteins victims felt like it was their fault when he violated or bullied them. Some of them feel stupid for trusting him at all, but Weinstein is an abuser, with no regard for his victims.

Weinstein cares only for Weinstein and for what Weinstein wants and desires.

Weinstein violated people, and violated their bodies because he could, and nobody would dare to stand up to him.

Weinstein is a repeat offender, his behavior is pathological.

 

Sound familiar?

 

I have documented GSK’s decades of unethical behavior here on this blog in over 1000 blog posts.  Four years before GSK were fined 3 Billion by the department of Justice for harming patients with dodgy drugs, and for their fraudulent behavior, I had already started blogging about GSK harming patients and consumers with Paxil/Seroxat and other drugs and compounds such as their Myodil dye.

GSK’s unethical behavior goes back long before 2008 though. Long before I started writing about them they had already been behaving unethically, illegally and immorally.  Their corruption is systemic, and they are currently under investigation by the UK’s serious fraud office. Even after they were fined 3 Billion in the US, they continued to try to bribe their way around their Chinese business in the far east. They were then fined 500 million dollars in 2014, in their deplorable China Bribe scandal.

Wherever GSK goes- abuse of patients, consumers, and laws follows.  They are completely disreputable and have no regard for anything but profit. Furthermore, amazingly- none of the top executives have ever faced repercussions, or jail-time for any of the crimes that GSK commited under their watch.

Isn’t that remarkable?

GSK are immensely powerful, people fear them, people fear speaking out against them, and they have huge power and influence over many facets of the industry in which they dominate. They can bully and intimidate doctors (see the Dr Buse Avandia scandal from 2007), and they can even threaten and bully entire nations (they utter veiled threats such as: to move their factories from the UK anytime a little heat comes on them there- for example). They are predatory in the way they exploit governments, patients, the media and those on their payroll- (see Greg Thorpe’s Department of Justice complaint about GSK’s nefarious activities and see how nasty they can get).

GSK violates patients with dodgy meds like Cervarix, Pandemrix, Seroxat, Avandia, Tafenoquine… the list goes on and on.

GSK get away with this abuse because they can. They break the law because they think they are above it and nobody holds them to account. They abuse consumers of their meds because they know they can get away with it or that they can shut people up through fear, coercion or through litigation gag orders.

GSK is a repeat offender, their behavior is pathological.

In my eyes, GSK are the Harvey Weinsten of the pharmaceutical industry.

What do you think?

Another Shooter… Another Mass Murder… What Did They Prescribe Stephen Paddock?…


Yer another mass murder with questions about the effects of psychiatric drugs written all over it…


 

10-07-2017

Public records reveal Las Vegas shooter Stephen Paddock was prescribed the anti-anxiety drug Valium.  He may have also been taking an antidepressant.

Valium, which is the trade name for Diazepam, is an anti-anxiety medication that is one of a number of drugs classified as a benzodiazepine, nicknamed “Benzo.” Others include Xanax, Klonopin and Ativan.

These drugs are linked to violent behavior in some patients.  Psychiatrist Peter Breggin, author of Medication Madness: The Role of Psychiatric Drugs in Cases of Violence, Suicide and Crime is one of a growing number of health professionals who say these drugs can, in some people, cause such severe personality changes that they can trigger the rage and even insanity.

Breggin believes in Paddock’s case, his drug use could be the key to what led to his killing rampage.  Breggin said Valium “can cause impulsivity, disinhibition, or loss of self-control resulting in violence.”

Breggin said he recieved an unconfirmed reports that Paddock “was prescribed antidepressants, which are commonly given along with Benzos.”  If true, that likely exacerbated the situation, according to Breggin.  However that link might never be known because while physicians must report benzodiazepine presecriptions to the Prescription Monitoring Program, they are not required to do so when prescribing antidepressants, Breggin said.

Earlier, Breggin told CBN News he believes psychiatric drugs play a larger role in mass killings than most in the medical community are willing to admit.

Like Breggin, pharmacist Suzy Cohen thinks the link between Paddock’s Valium prescription and the mass killing is more significant than many within the medical community are willing to admit.  

“He was either on a benzo or had just gotten off one,” Cohen told CBN, referring to the danger of not only taking these drugs, but also of stopping their use too fast.

She said although we might never know why Paddock became a mass killer with little to no warning signs, she said taking a benzodiazepine is “the fastest way to go from a normal, good citizen to insane at the drop of a hat.”

She continued, “I’m certainly not blaming Valium for a gunman gone mad; millions of people take these types of drugs without becoming psychotic. But I will share this with you: in a 2015 World Psychiatry study, 960 Finnish adults and teens convicted of homicide proved that the odds of them killing someone were 45% higher during time frame they took benzodiazepines. And one year prior, researchers in the Australian and New Zealand Journal of Psychiatry concluded: ‘It appears that benzodiazepine use is moderately associated with subsequent aggressive behavior.'” 

Cohen said although Paddock’s drug use raises red flags, more must be known about it to understand the connection to the Las Vegas killings. “Did he stay on it? Did he take more than prescribed? Did he combine it with other psychoactive medications? Did he suddenly stop it after taking such a high dose?” she questioned, “Unfortunately, these are questions for which we might never find answers.”

GlaxoSmithKline ranked worst in business group’s list of well run companies in the UK


http://www.independent.co.uk/news/business/news/glaxosmithkline-worst-institute-of-directors-well-run-companies-a7990721.html

GlaxoSmithKline ranked worst in business group’s list of well run companies in the UK

Drinks giant Diageo topped the Institute of Director’s ranking for good governance

Pharmaceuticals giant GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) has been ranked bottom in a list of the UK’s top companies for good governance. 

The owner of well-known consumer brands, such as Aquafresh, Horlicks and Sensodyne, came in at number 103 in the Institute of Director’s 2017 good governance report.

The IoD explained that GSK’s low ranking was down to its score in the audit and risk/external accountability category of the report, which had a strong weighting in this year’s overall ranking and was GSK’s worst score across the categories.

Rankings are based on 47 factors relating to how companies are run, including board diversity, directors’ pay, how long businesses have been with an auditor and whether they have a whistleblowing policy. The list included 103 of the largest companies.

A GSK spokesperson said: “We take our responsibilities with regard to corporate governance very seriously, particularly in areas such as executive pay, board governance, employee diversity, audit management and relations with external stakeholders. While there is always more we could do, we don’t recognise the conclusions of this work and will seek to understand the findings fully.”

The next lowest ranking businesses on the list were cruise company Carnival at 102 and security services firm G4S at 101.

Ken Olisa, deputy chairman of the IoD and chairman of the Good Governance Report advisory panel, said: “Corporate governance has rarely been out of the headlines since we first set about creating a way to rank the UK’s top companies’ performance in 2015, and with each scandal pressure grows for the imposition of tougher regulation along with calls to report statistics of dubious merit. This is the wrong approach. Corporate governance is about much more than compliance – it’s about achieving competitive advantage.”

The ranking is supported by the Chartered Quality Institute (CQI). Its director of policy, Estelle Clark, said the report challenges the assumption that corporate governance is solely a financial issue. “Corporate governance is much more than the narrow issue of executive pay and the misuse of zero hours contracts. Companies with potential governance issues will not find the remedy solely in the audit and remuneration committee.”

Drinks maker Diageo, which owns Guinness, Smirnoff and Johnnie Walker, was the UK’s top company for good governance.

Diageo was followed in the rankings by insurer Aviva in second place and engineering firm GKN in third. Also in the top 10 were Barclays, Smiths Group, Prudential, RSA Insurance Group, International Consolidated Airlines, InterContinential Hotels Group and Compass Group.

Across the 100 companies studied, IT firms underperformed compared to the average score, while energy businesses outperformed.

The size of the company seems to have no effect on the position of the 100 companies studied.

The IoD said its intention in producing the report is to encourage companies to consider a broad range of factors when doing a health check of how well their board and executive are functioning.

The report combines publically available data with over 2,000 rankings of the companies from people with knowledge of what good governance looks like, including members of the IoD and the CQI.

The number of measures the report examines was expanded for 2017 to give a more detailed view of how well a company works for shareholders, employees and customers.

 

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/pa/article-4964504/GlaxoSmithKline-falls-bottom-good-governance-survey.html

Fascinating Interview With Dr Peter Breggin..


Dr Peter Breggin sets the bar for how all psychiatrists and mental health workers should behave – he is humane, compassionate, intelligent, witty and his work has saved lives. What an inspirational human being- Thank you Peter for all you have done..

 

Despite The Headlines.. Peter Humprey’s Legal Case Against GSK Is Not Over Yet..


https://www.reuters.com/article/us-gsk-china-lawsuit/u-s-judge-dismisses-ex-sleuths-lawsuit-against-glaxosmithkline-idUSKCN1C72OB

U.S. judge dismisses ex-sleuths’ lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline

 

“….(Reuters) – A U.S. judge has dismissed a lawsuit by two former corporate investigators who accused GlaxoSmithKline Plc (GSK) of misleading them into investigating a whistleblower in China, leading to their arrest amid a bribery scandal involving the drugmaker…..”

If you happened to read this headline (above) by Reuters recently, you could be forgiven for thinking that Peter Humprey’s case against GlaxoSmithKline was finished at the first hurdle- however this is far from the case.  Peter -and Yu’s- legal cases are ongoing, and a number of points should be made about them- for the record.

There is a major inconsistency between the fact that the SEC and the DOJ can punish companies for bribery offences committed abroad under the FCPA, and the fact that this judge feels that a company can no longer be held to account under the RICO law in a US court for issuing criminal orders from its US and UK headquarters to its gang members in China to commit the offences against Humphrey and Yu that led to their imprisonment, orders which constitute racketeering and organised crime.

This first round ruling in Philadelphia only concerns the applicability of the jurisdiction of this particular court on these particular charges outlined in Humphrey & Yu’s writ. It should be pointed out that the order does not say that their allegations are untrue. It is also worthy to note that GSK has not denied the allegations of Humphrey and Yu. That is because it cannot refute the charges – it knows that they are true and can be proven. For that reason, it is trying to block a trial in open court and trying to force Humphrey and Yu to sue or arbitrate in China – knowing that legal action in China is impossible because Humphrey and Yu are banished (thanks to GSK) from that country and cannot pursue a case there, and knowing that Humphrey (thanks to GSK) is frail, having been denied medical treatment in captivity, which led to his cancer. And knowing that China would not allow such a court case anyway because it is too political for China’s communist dictators. As Peter has said in interviews, and as it well known anyhow- there is no rule of law in China. How cynical and callous can GSK get?

They have ruined the lives of Peter and Yu. This does not surprise me however, as I have documented thousands of lives ruined by GSK’s behavior over the past decade. This blog shows a history of GSK’s unethical practice, and it serves a purpose: to highlight the human collateral damage from GSK’s indiscriminate human rights abuses, and their flagrantly unethical and immoral actions in the pursuit of profits before human life. People’s lives have been destroyed, some people have even been killed because of GSK’s greed. Their behavior has harmed many.

Humphrey and Yu can and should appeal against this erroneous court ruling. Humphrey and Yu also clearly have options to use other venues for litigation and to pursue other charges in addition to those cited in their writ. They also have the option – not yet pursued -of suing individuals and not just the company.

Furthermore, there is also a much larger court than a court of law. That is the court of public opinion and reputation. In that greater court, we all know how GSK will be judged and condemned for its callous criminal behaviour. GSK have had decades of negative headlines, do they need more?

Humphrey and Yu obviously have masses of evidence that has not yet been presented to the public. We can only look forward to that coming out, while GSK must be nervous by that prospect and will not wish that evidence to be aired in any court at all. Who knows, they might even prefer to negotiate. Either way, it seems that these cases are far from over.

I wish Peter and Yu well in their fight against GSK (a deplorable company with absolutely no shred of human decency). See Greg Thorpe’s Department of Justice legal complaint against GSK from 2012 and read for yourself just how low GSK’s unethical behavior goes..

https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2015/08/28/whistleblower-greg-thorpes-7th-ammended-complaint/

 

“No Smoke Without Fire” : GSK’s Controversial HPV Vaccine -Cervarix- Examined In New Documentary ‘Sacrificial Virgins’ .


https://pressdispensary.co.uk/releases/c994243/The-HPV-scandal:-pain-and-suffering-for-young-women–Sacrificial-Virgins-II.html

The HPV scandal: pain and suffering for young women. Sacrificial Virgins II

2017-10-05
 Launch of Pain and Suffering: part two in the trilogy of films, Sacrificial Virgins
 HPV vaccine is by far the world’s biggest source of vaccine adverse reactions
 Film uncovers reasons for HPV vaccine’s poor record
 YouTube: Pain and Suffering

October 05, 2017, London, UK. Press Dispensary. The HPV vaccine – one of the world’s most popular vaccines – is also the world’s greatest source of serious adverse reactions, on a different scale to any other mass-administered vaccine, according to a new film launched today on YouTube. Pain and Suffering, part two of the three-part series Sacrificial Virgins, examines why the reported number of adverse reactions associated with the HPV vaccine is so great, offering a shocking analysis of what may have gone wrong.

It is a medical scandal,” asserts the film’s writer and narrator, Joan Shenton. “The Human Papilloma Virus vaccine – or HPV vaccine – is in a class of its own when it comes to causing pain and suffering, and in Sacrificial Virgins we are asking why.

The vaccine is supposed to prevent cervical cancer in later life. In part one of our series, we lifted the veil on that claim. Now, in part two, we look at what adverse reactions really mean and uncover an appalling potential cause for them: replacing long established vaccine additives with new additives or new combinations of additives that have not undergone long-term safety trials.

The leading HPV vaccines, Gardasil and Cervarix, are widely administered, often freely in schools or through national immunisation programmes. In the UK, the uptake in adolescent girls is well over 85%(1); in the US, it’s 60% of adolescent girls and boys(2). Japanese rates were comparable with the UK’s until the government suspended the programme in 2013 because of the number of adverse reactions(3).

There has been no such suspension in the UK, US or most countries. Yet UK government records, revealed in the film, show that in the years 2008-2014 reports of adverse events attributed to the HPV vaccine far exceeded reports for any other vaccine, including those on the most common mass vaccination programmes: by April 2017, such reports had reached nearly 9,000, including more than 3,000 “serious” reports(4). No other vaccine comes close.

Christopher Exley, professor of bioinorganic chemistry at the UK’s University of Keele, points to the manufacturers’ choice of new aluminium additives as the probable cause. For 90 years, aluminium “adjuvants” have been added to vaccines, to enhance the body’s immune response, but the formulations in both the leading HPV vaccines are not the traditional ones.

In the film, Professor Exley censures Cervarix for trialling its vaccine without including its new adjuvant mixture – “All of the safety trials for Cervarix did not use the mixture” – and Gardasil for using “a completely new aluminium adjuvant – one which has essentially not been used before.” Exley also criticizes the manufacturers of both vaccines for adding aluminium to the placebo group in their safety trials: “This is clearly crazy. This is clearly something which has been designed … so the whole vaccine looks safe.

Dr Christian Fiala, Viennese specialist in obstetrics and gynaecology, also censures the use of aluminium in the vaccine placebo groups: “This is what basically would be called cheating. In scientific terms, it is called bias.

Pain and Suffering shows how adverse effects can be fundamentally life changing, including severe neurological conditions. The film introduces two young women who suffered exactly such conditions shortly after receiving HPV vaccine treatments. Ruby Shalom, now 16, became almost entirely paralysed as a young teen after receiving her first HPV vaccine injection and Chloe Leanne Brooks became ill after her second injection at the age of 12: she too has suffered a form of paralysis and her condition has deteriorated to the point where, unable to eat, she is now wholly dependent on intravenous fluids, medications and her mother’s care.

Joan Shenton concludes: “There is no smoke without fire. These young women are suffering, like so many others. Society, as well as manufacturers and governments, have to ask if it is right to allow a vaccine which has not even been shown to be effective against cancer to continue to damage girls and young women.

YouTube: Pain and Suffering

– ends –

Notes for editors
(1) UK government report: http://bit.ly/HPV-UKgovt
(2) US government infographic: http://bit.ly/HPV-USgovt
(3) The Lancet: http://bit.ly/HPV-Lancet
(4) UK Secretary of State for Health: http://bit.ly/HPV-UKsecState

Sacrificial Virgins is a series in three parts written and narrated by Joan Shenton and directed by Andi Reiss. It is a co-production between Meditel Productions and Yellow Entertainment.

Part one, titled Not for the Greater Good, is now live on YouTube at http://bit.ly/SV-NotGood

Part three, A penny for your pain, will be launched soon and will look at the litigation around the world, including a potential game-changing class action in Japan.

A 30 minute version of Sacrificial Virgins will be presented to international film festivals, starting later in the year.

Joan Shenton has extensive experience of producing and presenting television and radio programmes, including many peak time network documentaries for the BBC, Channel 4, Central TV, and Thames TV.

Joan Shenton’s independent production company, Meditel Productions, has won seven television awards and was the first independent company ever to win a Royal Television Society Award for an episode of Channel 4’s Dispatches. It has produced eight network documentaries for Channel 4, Sky News and M-Net, South Africa on the AIDS debate. “AIDS – The Unheard Voices” won the Royal Television Society Award for Current Affairs.

The HIV/AIDS documentary film, Positive Hell, has won a wide array of film festival awards since 2015, most recently the Special Jury Prize for Global Social Impact at the prestigious Queens World Film Festival in Queens, New York. Like Sacrificial Virgins, Positive Hell was written and narrated by Joan Shenton and directed by Andi Reiss, and is a co-production between Meditel Productions and Yellow Entertainment.

For further information please contact
Joan Shenton, Sacrificial Virgins
Tel: 011 44 79 57 58 55 15
Email: joanshenton@clara.co.uk
YouTube: http://bit.ly/SV-Pain

Woman In Ireland Sues Irish Medicines Regulator, GSK, And Minister For Health Over GSK’s Narcolepsy Causing Vaccine- Pandemrix..


An interesting case is brewing in Ireland over GSK’s Narcolepsy inducing vaccine- Pandemrix. It will be interesting to see how the case unfolds, and to what extent the Irish regulator (formerly- IMB- now the HPRA) and GSK, knew (or were aware), of the risks involved with Pandemrix.

Pandemrix was over sold, over-prescribed and over-hyped. There was really no need for these mass vaccinations at the time, but GSK made a tidy profit from it, they hyped it to the max and used every ounce of their power to promote it- and the public were used as guinea pigs.

This is typical GSK behavior, as can be seen from their Seroxat and Avandia debacles of past years, and perhaps also illustrated by their Tafenoquine human guinea pig experiments of the present.

Pandemrix is yet another useless GSK poison that was rushed to market on dodgy ‘evidence’ of effectiveness.

GSK are truly the Global Serial Killers.


 

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/woman-suing-state-over-swine-flu-jab-is-one-of-70-cases-initiated-1.3245950

Woman suing State over swine flu jab is one of 70 cases initiated

Kildare woman says she suffered narcolepsey and fainting fits after getting Pandemrix vaccine

Signs posted in Dublin Airport in 2009 warning about swine flu. Photograph: Frank Miller

Signs posted in Dublin Airport in 2009 warning about swine flu. Photograph: Frank Miller

An action by a woman who claims she suffered narcolepsy after receiving the swine flu vaccine is among 70 cases initiated here over the vaccine.

Aoife Bennett is among those suing the Minister for Health, the HSE and Glaxosmithkline (GSK) Biologicals S.A in the High Court over being given the Pandemrix vaccine against “human swine flu” in the period 2009-2010.

Her case was before the Master of the High Court on Thursday when he granted a preliminuiary application to join the Health Products Regulatory Authority (HPRA), formerly the Irish Medicines Board (IMB), as a defendant.

Ms Bennett, from Naas, Co Kildare, claims she suffered injuries including narcolepsey and cataplexy disorder, fainting fits, as a result of being given Pandemrix in 2009.

The application to join the HPRA came after her lawyers discovered information about the vaccine’s safety records furnished by GSK in 2009-10 to the then IMB.

The IMB, which became the HPRA in 2014, is a State body whose role is to protect and enhance public health by regulating medical products.

It is alleged the safety reports show a “particularly striking” difference between the number of adverse effects in those given Pandemrix and a similar vaccine also made by GSK.

Had parents been aware of the “vast difference” in the numbers of people who had adverse effects from the respective vaccines, they would not have given their consent to the administration of Pandemrix to their children, it is claimed.

As a result of the documents, Ms Bennett claims the HPRA owes a duty of care to persons given Pandemrix, including relating to how the safety and appropriateness of the vaccine was monitored.

‘Breach of duties’

She alleges that the manner in which the HPRA performed its functions breached those duties.

William Binchy BL, instructed by solicitor Gillian O’Connor, for Ms Bennett secured permission from Master Edmund Honohan to add the HPRA as a defendant.

In a sworn statement seeking to have the authority joined, Ms O’Connor said the application followed examination of 4,500 documents discovered to the plaintiff by GSK.

The HPRA was not represented at Thursday’s hearing but, in her sworn statement, Ms O’Connor said it has said in correspondence the board would not be admitting any culpability in the matter.

Ms O’Connor said the discovery process had revealed the IMB had data concerning the safety records of Pandemrix which is made in Dresden, Germany and a very similar vaccine also used to treat swine flu made in Quebec, Canada, called Arepanrix.

There are some differences in the manufacturing processes between Quebec and Dresden, Ms O’Connor said.

The safety records show the level of adverse effects in those administered Pandemrix ranged between 10 and 7 times higher than the Canadian made product, she said.

Adverse effects

One report from late 2009 stated, of the tens of millions of vaccines administered, there was a serious adverse effect rate of 75.9 per million for Pandemrix compared to 7.9 per million for Arepanrix. The type of adverse effects listed in the reports range from conditions such as convulsions, facial palsy, to stillbirth and fatal outcomes in those who got the vaccines, she said.

Ms O’Connor said the discovered material did not indicate the IMB made the information it had received available to the Minister or the HSE immediately after it was received, or at all.

A representative of the IMB attended all meetings of the National Public Health Emergency Team, which was set up by the Department of Health to oversee the administration of pandemic vaccines, she said.

While discovery is awaited on those meetings, no minutes were recorded regarding adverse effects of Pandemrix at meetings to monitor and oversee the swine flue virus, she said.

A HSE brochure issued to the public in 2009 about swine flu contained information to the effect it was safe to use Pandemrix, it had been appropriately tested and side effects were rare.

Mrs O’Connor said the reality, which she said was known to the Irish Medicines Board, was not all the conclusions contained in the brochure were warranted. Pandemrix was not adequately tested on children and young people before it was licensed, she said.

Will GSK Have To Face The People They Have Hurt?..


https://plattner-verderame.com/blog/beware-drug-manufacturers-may-actually-face-people-hurt/?%20%E2%80%A8utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=people-hurt

 

Beware, Drug Manufacturers – You May Actually Have to Face the People You Hurt

Beware, Drug Manufacturers – You May Actually Have to Face the People You HurtThe Supreme Court of the United States may be best known for hearing cases that capture the attention and imagination of the American public, but that is not all they do. In fact, on October 2, 2017, the Supreme Court of the United States heard motions on a case that we have been paying close attention to, even if the public at large has not. That case involved GlaxoSmithKline, LLC, the manufacturers of the popular anti-depressant Paxil.

GSK is a UK company, but its American division is headquartered in Philadelphia and incorporated in Delaware. Paxil is sold in pharmacies throughout the country. In a 2014 lawsuit filed in Illinois, 16 people – 8 mothers and 8 children, from 6 different states (including Illinois) – claimed that Paxil, when ingested by the mothers during their pregnancy, led to congenital, catastrophic birth defects in the children. The lawsuit against GSK alleged:

  1. “strict liability and failure to warn,
  2. strict products liability and design defect,
  3. negligence,
  4. breach of implied warranty,
  5. breach of express warranty, and
  6. negligent misrepresentation and concealment.”

GSK, of course, moved to dismiss the case, claiming “it was not subject to general jurisdiction because Illinois is neither the state of its incorporation nor its principal place of business.” Furthermore, they claimed:

“Illinois lacks specific jurisdiction because the out-of-state plaintiffs’ claims did not arise from its Illinois activities. Moreover, defendant GSK claimed that its actions or omissions in Illinois were not the ‘but for’ cause of the alleged harm: plaintiffs did not serve as study subjects in Illinois, did not receive Paxil prescriptions in Illinois, did not ingest Paxil in Illinois, and did not suffer injury from Paxil in Illinois. Finally, defendant GSK argued that the out-of-state plaintiffs may not create personal jurisdiction by tacking their claims onto those of the two Illinois plaintiffs.”

A lower court ruled against GSK, which then attempted to appeal to the Illinois Supreme Court. When that, too, failed, they went to the Supreme Court of the United States – and the Supreme Court denied their petition for a writ of certiorari, which means the lower court’s decision stands.

Why this denial is important for victims of dangerous drugs

“Personal jurisdiction” has been used as an argument by drug companies before, to avoid lawsuit filings in states that are deemed “less friendly” to those companies – or, in layman’s terms, in states where a strong civil justice system exists to protect people, not profits. The decision of the Supreme Court, to allow the original decision to stand, sets a precedent for other drug companies seeking to use the same loopholes to avoid lawsuits over dangerous and defective drugs.

It also holds these drug companies accountable for their actions in the states where those actions are committed. GSK held between 18 and 22 clinical trials in Illinois. Even though the plaintiffs in this case were not a part of those trials, one cannot deny that GSK has significant ties to that state. This renders their argument that Illinois has no jurisdiction moot. And as trials like these can (and do) happen in all 50 states, drug companies can be tied to actions in all 50 states, meaning plaintiffs can file lawsuits with confidence in regard to jurisdiction.

There will always be exceptions, of course. Not every case will proceed as this one did, nor will every case move on to be heard by the Supreme Court. But for those of us who fight on behalf of victims, this is a “win”: for our clients, and for the civil justice system.

Plattner Verderame, P.C. offers honest guidance and aggressive representation for injured clients throughout Arizona. If you were harmed because of a defective medical device or dangerous drug, our Phoenix product liability lawyers are here to help. Please call us at 602-783-8793, or fill out our convenient contact form, to learn more.

Tafenoquine And Lariam…


http://www.9news.com.au/national/2017/09/08/17/21/aussie-veteran-compares-antimalaria-drugs-to-agent-orange

Veteran likens anti-malaria pill’s effects to Agent Orange

Veteran likens anti-malaria pill's effects to Agent OrangeAn Australian veteran (not pictured) who claims her brain injury was caused by a controversial anti-malaria drug has compared the tablets with the notorious Agent Orange chemical.

An Australian veteran who claims her brain injury was caused by a controversial anti-malaria drug has compared the tablets with the notorious Agent Orange chemical.

The decorated veteran, who requested to remain anonymous, told Nine.com.au she was urged by superiors to sign a document agreeing to trial mefloquine – also known as lariam – before her deployment to East Timor in 2000.

Former military personnel who took the drug have since reported developing chronic brain injuries and psychiatric conditions.

They include bipolar disorder, schizophrenia, major depression and anxiety, seizures, hallucinations and psychosis, suicide attempts and suicide.

The former Australian Army sergeant told Nine.com.au that despite receiving no briefing about the anti-malarial drugs she was urged to take, she was confident they were safe.

“I thought they wouldn’t do an Agent Orange twice”.

Agent Orange was a toxic chemical defoliant weapon sprayed across Vietnam by the US military during the Vietnam War.

Related Articles

It aimed to destroy thick jungle foliage and crops to deny the enemy cover and disrupt their food supplies.

But years later it resulted in serious health problem among US and Australian military personnel who served in Vietnam and their offspring.

The veteran said officers made it clear she and other soldiers had to sign the document or they wouldn’t make the peacekeeping force deployment to East Timor.

“I was confident the drugs were not going to harm us. I listened to our officers and was sure the army had learned from Agent Orange,” she said.

But after returning from the six-month deployment in 2001, her health took a turn for the worst.

An Australian veteran who claims her brain injury was caused by a controversial anti-malaria drug has compared the tablets with the notorious Agent Orange chemical.An Australian veteran who claims her brain injury was caused by a controversial anti-malaria drug has compared the tablets with the notorious Agent Orange chemical.

“I started feeling really tired, lacking any energy and experiencing diorrehea and feeling queasy. I had been a keen runner and into fitness but felt so tired all the time.”

Then soon after playing in a rugby trial she experienced serious sight problems and doctors discovered swelling on her brain.

In 2004, she was medically discharged by the army due to hearing loss, but her health problems continued.

Today she suffers an array of ailments including chronic arthritis, sinus troubles and a very low immune system. Most alarmingly, she says her brain injury has continued to worsen.

But she says she feels luckier than many of the estimated 2500 ADF personnel who took mefloquine or another anti-malaria drug tafenoquine.

“I was one of the older soldiers and in a position of leadership. I’ve kept fighting for over a decade now.”

“But it’s the younger soldiers I really feel for. The ones who took it when they were just 18 or 19.

“I’ve heard of self harm and even suicides by some of them due to their poor health from these drugs.”

A spokesperson for the Department of Defence told nine.com.au: “Defence has published a significant amount of information on this matter as part of ongoing efforts to assist those with concerns regarding the use of mefloquine in the ADF.”

“That information includes details on the deadly impact of malaria, anti-malarial medications, research publications, an IGADF (Inspector General of the ADF) inquiry report, and the support services that are available, and can be found at www.defence.gov.au/Health/HealthPortal/Malaria/default.asp.”

Nine.com.au established the correct identity of the veteran in this article but respected her wishes to remain anonymous.

© Nine Digital Pty Ltd 2017

%d bloggers like this: