Just reading through an article from 2013 about an Australian woman who had GSK’s Myodil dye injected into her spine, and in the article it mentions that up to 60,000 other people had Myodil injected into them over the decades. I don’t know if this figure is a global estimate or just an Australian estimate, but either way, it’s extremely disturbing to think that 60,000 people have been crippled by GSK’s Myodil dye and that GSK couldn’t give a damn about their suffering.
PHILIPPA Stewart-Hall wakes in the middle of the night with a blood-curdling scream.
After almost 40 years, it’s something she’s grown used to.
In 1975, Mrs Stewart-Hall was admitted to hospital with a back injury and was subsequently injected with Myodil during a routine Myelogram before her operation.
Myodil was an injectable dye used by doctors for x-rays in myelography.
“They put you on this tray and balance you back and forth like a seesaw so the dye will go through your body,” Mrs Stewart-Hall said.
“They don’t take the dye out … it doesn’t take much to do the damage.”
Three months later Mrs Stewart-Hall knew something was wrong.
“I was still numb in one part of my leg,” she said.
“I was getting shocking cramps, I had to sleep standing up.
“These days it’s getting worse to the point where I will wake up screaming, thinking something is trying to attack my leg.”
Mrs Stewart-Hall has been diagnosed with peripheral neuropathy, but shows symptoms of arachnoiditis.
The constant pain felt is as if her legs are “a conduit for an electrical fault”.
A spokesman for Myodil supplier GlaxoSmithKline said although a link between Myodil and arachnoiditis was not established, they became aware of a possible association in 1971 and immediately warned of potential risk.
Myodil was not withdrawn from the market in Australia, but discontinued in 1987, when newer diagnostic radiographic techniques became available.
In 1999, a court action around Myodil was launched and Glaxo reached a settlement with claimants.
However fewer than 200 people received compensation, despite more than 60,000 people being injected with the drug.
Mrs Stewart-Hall is preparing to visit a neurosurgeon in three weeks to find out if anything can be done to slow down her condition.
“Once the nerve endings are gone, they’re gone,” she said. “I have to put up with it and get on with life.”
Fortunately Mrs Stewart-Hall still has the use of her hands and refuses to let it damage her brain.
The internationally-renowned artist has been a part of “the game” for about 30 years and revels in teaching children and adult beginners the tricks of her trade.
“I’ve got a lot of knowledge and I love to pass it on,” she said.
60, 000 people affected by a GSK product, Myodil, and GSK do nothing for their suffering!
100, 000 excess heart attacks in the US alone because of GSK’s Avandia, and GSK do nothing to help these people and their families. At least in the US- there is some chance of legal success- in the UK- GSK do everything in their power to squash claims against them…
Hundreds of thousands of lives ruined from Seroxat/Paxil, and in the UK, at least- nothing is done to bring GSK to book over these grave abuses of human rights. We are talking about dead children here! Due to Seroxat’s suicidal side effects! That could be anyone’s son, daughter, child, sister, brother!
GSK… Once again… You are an utter disgrace to humanity.
Your Motto of “Do more, feel better and live longer” must be a sick bloody joke!
Shame on you..
Answers may give some rest
- March 3, 2013
- Read later
THE simplest movements – walking, sitting and even lying down – cause Joern Hagemann extreme pain. In 1978 his spine was injected with Myodil after a construction accident. But the dye used in X-ray procedures has been linked to adhesive arachnoiditis, a deteriorating and debilitating condition that leaves sufferers crippled with terrible pain, paralysed and incontinent.
Mr Hagemann considers himself lucky. He is able to walk around his Spence home with the help of his wife, Ursula, and a cane. He does not want pity, he wants answers. Why the oil-based ink was considered safe for internal use when doctors were warned to be careful about spilling it as it corroded rubber; and why it was used until 1987.
He said the February findings of a round table on adhesive arachnoiditis by the standing committee on health and ageing left many questions unanswered.
The committee’s first recommendation was for GlaxoSmithKline, the company that marketed the product for 42 years, to consider establishing a charitable foundation to assist the sufferers of adhesive arachnoiditis.
”I want it investigated further. I tried through the round table but they sugar-coated it,” Mr Hagemann said.
”I wanted the government to finally sort out what’s going on with the drug company. That’s not asking much when there are more than 60,000 people involved.”
He said a suggestion to start a charitable foundation was not enough for a dark incident in Australian medical care that Throsby MP Jennie George called a ”conspiracy of silence”.
‘‘We were never told it was dangerous. We were never asked if we wanted it. This is the whole point.”
In a statement a spokeswoman from GlaxoSmithKline said the company acted responsibly in relation to the supply of Myodil.
”We are currently considering the information within the report, including recommendation one, which encourages GSK to establish a charitable foundation to assist sufferers of adhesive arachnoiditis,” she said.
But Mr Hagemann wants a real investigation.
”This has been going on for years and years and years.”
I have written before on the culture of denial about the dangers of SSRI medications in the psychiatric and medical professions. This culture of denial is also rampant within the pharmaceutical industry. It could be argued that because this culture of denial emanates from the industry, thus by association this mindset infects and contaminates the medical profession; which itself is an industry that relies on the pharmaceutical industry for support and funding. Note how the behavior of GSK, in regards to its dangerous diabetes drug Avandia, evokes the scandal of Seroxat. GSK’s long history of bad pharmaceutical practice is all too evident and all too clear. It seems that the culture of denial, suppression of data, intimidation of critics, corruption, spin and the corporate agenda is the GSK norm. Would you trust any of GSK’s products? When you consider the sheer volume of bad press this company has generated for itself over the past 20 years, would you trust their medicines?
WASHINGTON—One of the panelists who voted in favor of the diabetes drug Avandia at a Food and Drug Administration advisory meeting last week is a paid speaker for the drug’s maker, GlaxoSmithKline PLC, according to the company and its records.
The panel voted 20-12 to keep Avandia on the market, though most of the members wanted stronger warnings.
Endocrinologist David Capuzzi of Philadelphia confirmed that he has been on Glaxo’s speakers bureau for several years and said he doesn’t see the relationship as a conflict.
I have not given any talks [to doctors’ groups] promoting Avandia,” he said in an interview. He said he spoke on behalf of another Glaxo drug called Lovaza, which can help lower triglycerides in the bloodstream that often lead to heart attacks.
Avandia, approved in 1999 as a medicine to lower blood sugar in diabetics, has been under fire because of a series of studies linking it to an increased risk of heart attacks. The two-day FDA meeting last week was closely watched by Wall Street and the industry because of its implications both for Glaxo and the agency’s stance on broader drug-safety issues.
Though the panel voted to keep Avandia on the market, 17 of the panelists in favor wanted either tighter prescribing restrictions or more warnings about cardiovascular risks. Dr. Capuzzi defended the drug during the meeting. He was one of only three experts who wanted the drug to stay on the market with no additional warnings or restrictions.
Glaxo’s website shows that he received $3,750 from the company as a speaker between April 2009 and March 2010. A Glaxo spokesman said Dr. Capuzzi also received about $8,000 in speaking fees from the company before that period and an additional $3,000 in the second quarter of this year, making the total payments about $14,750. The company has said Avandia is safe and should stay on the market.
None of the other panelists received money from Glaxo during the April 2009-March 2010 period, according to the company’s website.
Dr. Capuzzi said he told the FDA about his relationship with Glaxo. In a statement, the FDA said it screens all the financial ties of advisory-committee members and is looking into whether there was disclosure to the agency and, if so, why it wasn’t conveyed to the committee.
With so much at stake, FDA officials said before the meeting that they wanted to avoid any questions about conflicts of interest.
Dr. Capuzzi said that despite his vote he isn’t a fan of Avandia and uses metformin, an older diabetes drug, in his practice. He said one reason for his vote was concern that another drug that works similarly to Avandia, called Actos, might also have safety problems.
“The danger I worried about was that if we pulled Avandia, people might automatically switch to Actos and think it’s all hunky-dory,” he said. Actos maker Takeda Pharmaceutical Co. says its drug is safe; the committee members voted overwhelmingly that Actos poses few heart-attack risks than Avandia.
“In the middle of a firestorm over a drug, all connections to the company involved should be disclosed,” said medical ethicist Arthur Caplan of the University of Pennsylvania. Otherwise experts leave themselves “open to post-facto criticism and second-guessing,” he said.
One of the panelists who voted to keep Avandia on the market, cardiologist Arthur Moss of the University of Rochester Medical Center in New York, said he wished the FDA disclosed that Dr. Capuzzi spoke for Glaxo. “I’m surprised we weren’t told,” Dr. Moss said.