Tagged: GSK

Wendy Dolin: “…GSK would stop at nothing to intimidate me…”


Reading through Bob Fiddaman’s latest post (an interview with Wendy Dolin)- I can’t help but be struck by Wendy’s admirable bravery and courage in the face of a continual onslaught of  attempted character assassinations and intimidation towards her by GlaxoSmithKline.

To say that GSK (and the money hungry, blood thirsty lawyers, academics and doctors on their payroll) are abhorrent, reprehensible and sociopathic, would be putting it very mildly.

In my opinion, GSK behave in an utterly evil manner.

They hid the side effects of Paxil (Seroxat) through manipulation of their clinical trials and data. They failed to warn properly of the dangers of Paxil induced Akathisia and suicide. They were found responsible (and liable) for Stewart Dolin’s death in a US court of law. Furthermore, despite GSK’s lawyers relentless attempts to undermine Wendy (plus her family and friends), and the attacks on Stewart’s memory,  she maintained her dignity and resolve.

Her moral and ethical strength is remarkable.

GSK could learn a lot about humanity from Wendy Dolin.

Read Bob’s latest post (below) for a poignant and moving interview with Wendy.


http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/04/exclusive-interview-with-wendy-dolin.html

Tuesday, April 25, 2017

Exclusive: Interview With Wendy Dolin

Wendy Dolin

Wendy Dolin’s name has been cemented in history, as has that of her late husband, Stewart Dolin.

Her victory against pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline, was never simply about Paxil causing the death of an adult. Many people in my circles already knew Paxil can and does cause akathisia and death among people of all ages. But GlaxoSmithKline and its paid experts have played down this truth for many years. Other pharmaceutical companies that manufacture SSRIs, (Pfizer-Zoloft, Eli Lilly-Prozac, etc.) have also actively concealed that akathisia is a serious adverse side effect of their products.

Wendy’s husband needlessly died as a result of GlaxoSmithKline failing to warn about akathisia. Furthermore, GSK failed to warn that akathisia can lead to suicide.

I started writing about Wendy’s case two years ago. I never knew back then the impact it would have on me as a writer, a consumer, and a human. It was inevitable that our paths would cross. Most of the stories on my blog feature real people harmed by drugs the pharmaceutical companies call “antidepressants.” These people are not fictional characters; their loved ones are not simply statistics. All are real people who, as a result of corporate greed and deceit,  lost a family member. I have personally met the majority of the families featured on my blogs, families who, through no fault of their own, have been left devastated by unimaginable, avoidable deaths. These courageous family members are left to pick up the pieces of a life obliterated by the pharmaceutical industry and its incestuous relationships with medicine regulators, such as the FDA and MHRA.

My own personal belief is that pharmaceutical CEO’s and executives should be imprisoned for withholding important safety information from consumers, particularly when withholding such critical information leads to suffering and/or death. This was surely the case in Dolin Vs GlaxoSmithKline. I also believe experts called to defend products in pharmaceutical litigation should be imprisoned if the evidence they produce at trial is shown to be false and if it is deemed perjury. One only has to look through the court transcripts in this case to see several statements by experts that were simply untrue.

Wendy, her family and close circle of friends, have remained dignified throughout the trial and pre-trial. On the other hand, the tactics of GlaxoSmithKline’s hired attorneys, King & Spalding, has been nothing short of repugnant. If their pre-trial tactics were legal, then the legal system needs a complete overhaul. Wendy’s interview today shares some of the shenanigans GSK pulled years ago before the trial began.

I have a particular disdain for King & Spalding, probably more so than GlaxoSmithKline. That disdain has been strengthened after interviewing Wendy and, of course, after being present during the first two weeks of this trial.

I think it’s safe to assume King & Spalding don’t like me either. I can live with that safe in the knowledge that I am, in essence, trying to do part of a job coroners should be doing. I try to give the dead voice. King & Spalding, it appears, not only try to stifle the voices of the living, but they also try to suppress and manipulate the voices of the dead.

I’m really proud of Wendy and her children, just as I am of others who take on the mighty pharmaceutical industry, be it through lawsuits, blogging or other advocacy work. It’s a dark, seedy world. I should know, I’ve been writing and researching about Big Pharma for more than ten years.

~ Bob Fiddaman

Here’s my interview with Wendy Dolin.

Congratulations on last week’s successful trial against GSK. You worked tenaciously since filing the case in 2014. I imagine today’s feelings of victory are bittersweet for you and your family.

Many people are unaware how traumatic the pre-trial process can be when challenging pharmaceutical companies and their attorneys. Can you share your experiences?

I knew when I filed this lawsuit, it was going to be a very difficult process. But I was unprepared for the sheer number of depositions and subpoenas GSK demanded. I was told this was a record number of requests. I understood the need for certain information, but it became very clear early on that GSK’s goal was to send a powerful message to me: That is, when you have the audacity to challenge GSK, all attempts will be made to harass everyone you care dearly about. GSK also repeatedly tried to humiliate me. For example, depositions that should have been a few hours became eight hours in an attempt to wear people down. GSK asked the same question over and over and over again hoping to manipulate, confuse and take people’s comments out of context.

Some of the irrelevant but personal questions GSK asked me included, “How many times do you go to temple? Are you dating anyone? Who are my partners at work?” They even requested Stewart’s high school transcripts. All were totally irrelevant and useless questions posed by attorneys from King and Spalding and Dentons. They were calling my friends, not identifying themselves and trying to get people to somehow say terrible things about my relationship with Stewart. There was nothing to say, of course, and GSK’s attorneys just embarrassed themselves. It became a joke amongst my friends as to who would be called next and who did GSK think they were dealing with that they thought their sweet talking female attorney was somehow going to get information?

All of these questions were offensive, but what is truly the most offensive and egregious act was showing my children Stewart’s therapy notes during depositions. As a therapist, as a mother and a compassionate human being, I am aware there was no purpose to have done such. I have talked to therapists, physicians and pharmaceutical lawyers and all agree there was nothing gained by this other than to show me that GSK would stop at nothing to intimidate me.

So, let me get this straight, attorneys for GSK telephoned your friends to try and dig up dirt on you? What sort of questions were they asking your circle of friends?

The good news regarding the phone calls is that most of my friends very shortly into the conversations realized something wasn’t quite right, and therefore they shortly ended the conversations. They asked “Do you know Wendy and Stewart Dolin?” or “What can you tell us about Wendy and Stewart Dolin’s relationship?” Most people said, “Whose side are you on?” To which, GSK attorneys replied, “You could be getting a subpoena, and that is not a very pleasant experience, so maybe you would like to tell us now what you know before the subpoenas arrived.” Several of the people GSK attorneys contacted were never, ever going to receive subpoenas but as part of my deposition, GSK wanted to know who were our closest friends and who were we with the weekend before Stewart died. What also was interesting is that GSK attorneys called my friends on their cellphones rather than their landlines. I never gave out any numbers. I don’t know for sure, but I think perhaps GSK’s attorneys naively thought they would somehow catch my friends off guard and get more info.

Interesting.

Thank you. The word akathisa is relatively unknown to many. Can you tell me when you first heard the word and how it related to Stewart’s death?

After Stewart, died nothing made sense. On Friday, August 13th a friend called me and said, “akathisia killed Stewart.” And of course, I replied, “What?” She suspected early on that she thought Stewart’s death was related to Paxil since that was the only thing that was different in his life that week. When I first heard the word, akathisia, I was walking my dog at the time. When I got home and wrote the word down, I decided to google “akathisia, Paxil, and suicide.” All of a sudden this wealth of information appeared.  One of the first articles that appeared was one by Dr. Peter Breggin titled “How GlaxoSmithKline Suppressed Data on Paxil-Induced Akathisia: Implications for Suicidality and Violence.” Then another article showed a connection between SSRIs and suicide and violence and included a definition of akathisia. It listed characteristics of akathisia. For the first time, what didn’t make sense now became perfectly clear. Stewart’s physical inner and outer restlessness, agitation and anxiety that I observed his last week of life now made sense. It was in this article that I first had the revelation that the drug I thought Stewart was ingesting to deal with his work related stress and anxiety instead created suicidal thoughts and actions, both of which he did not have previously.

The article went on to state that Akathisia is so terrible, “Death Can Be A Welcome Result.” This is an actual quote by Dr. Roger Lane, the chief medical officer for Pfizer. Pfizer makes Zoloft, which like Paxil, is also a SSRI. It was at that moment I knew I needed to do something to help protect others and improve public health. How can this devastating drug side effect not be unknown to most health care professionals or patients?

After learning about akathisia, did you research attorneys who might help you seek justice?

I was told that Baum Hedlund was the best law firm in the country regarding pharmaceutical litigation. I was told very early on by Baum Hedlund that the generic issue would be a large hurdle.

Moving on to MISSD. Can you tell me what MISSD is all about and why it was important to create this organisation?

When Stewart died, I wanted to start an organization to raise awareness regarding akathisia. It is incredible how the organization name came to me. So many people were saying to me how awful it is when someone dies so young and how much they will miss their loved one. I kept hearing the name “miss.” That’s how the name MISSD came to me. It stands for The Medication Induced Suicide Prevention and Education Foundation in Memory of Stewart Dolin.

After choosing the name, I gathered together close friends and family and was privileged to have the incredible Kim Witzcak as a board advisor. I have the best and most dedicated board. Since akathisia is what killed Stewart and very few people had ever heard of it, including health care providers, we decided our mission would be to educate the public regarding akathisia. The mission of MISSD is simple: To educate the public that when starting, stopping or changing a dosage of a medication like SSRI’s, the drug side effect akathisia can occur. MISSD highlights the symptoms of akathisia and what to do if you are experiencing akathisia. We are a non-profit organization and take no money from pharmaceutical companies. This is important to note because many nonprofits do take money from the pharmaceutical companies and I believe this can create an unethical relationship.

MISSD presents at local, national and international conferences. We have created a booth and have exhibited in conference halls at too numerous to count. Last year our organization created an animated video about akathisia which has received almost 15,000 hits. In addition to the educational booth, pamphlets have been produced in English and Spanish that communicate the warning signs of akathisia, and we also have power point presentations. Two months ago my incredible board members and I presented at Loyola University Graduate School of Social Work.

MISSD is obviously near and dear to my heart. MISSD has saved lives and provided comfort to many people who have experienced such terrible loss.  We have a “Share” link on our MISSD website, and I keep seeing similar stories posted over and over again. They always start out “My loved one was fine, and then, gone, out of the blue, with no explanation.” In the middle of the trial, a woman texted me stating her husband ended his life after starting Paxil. I believe he was prescribed Paxil not for depression, but in an attempt to deal with side effects from chemotherapy. As I keep hearing these real stories, it makes me more determined to spread the word of MISSD.

We are particularly interested in working with military groups given that the military suicide rate is at a record high. MISSD believes there is a correlation between the number of drug cocktails our veterans are prescribed and the increases in suicide and suicidality. In March, MISSD helped sponsor an event called “K9’s for Veterans” where I talked to more than 400 military vets and their family and friends regarding akathisia.  After I had spoken, so many people came up to me and said thank you. They said, “that happened to me” or “It happened to someone I know.” MISSD is important to my board and me because it is helping prevent needless deaths. We are all so proud and thankful for our supporters who have helped us make a positive impact. I believe MISSD is the first organization in the world to raise awareness about akathisia. We are a safe patient advocacy group. When we all realized Stewart’s death could have been prevented, MISSD was our way to take action. Our knowledge of akathisia became a defining moment in all of our lives. We had to share this side effect so that the public can be better informed than we were.

What sort of response have you had from the launch of MISSD, have you come across any opposition from regulators or pharmaceutical companies?

No opposition from any regulators. At one point in my lawsuit, GSK wanted information on my board members, donators and GSK attorneys (either Andy Bayman or Todd Davis) presented print outs from our MISSD website. They wanted MISSD to be explored. Judge Zagel promptly stated MISSD was out of the lawsuit. The fact that GSK was worried about MISSD was gratifying because it confirmed we were shedding light on a subject they preferred to keep hidden.

The recently released MISSD video surely helps spotlight akathisia. What has been the overall response from the video?

Fantastic. We realized that if we were going to present to schools, hospitals, etc., we needed a powerful educational tool. We wanted a tool that was simple, short, and to the point. The video is creative and state of the art. Wherever we show the video, it is always very well received. It has been incredibly gratifying how well we have been received by the public. I think this is due in part because MISSD is not anti-drug, it is simply dedicated to raising awareness of akathsia and saving lives. Our mission resonates with so many people. Everything MISSD does is done very professionally, and we are viewed as a very important safe patient organization. Our initial fundraiser was primarily attended by friends, family members and associates of our board members. This is no longer the case. Today MISSD events are well attended, and I meet many new people for the first time at every event. They explain that they first found MISSD online as an important resource after their loved one died from prescription drug-induced akathisia. The families of akathisia victims who attend MISSD events come from all backgrounds and all parts of the country. We usually have more than 300 people at each event.

You’ve had many people visit Chicago from across the world, some of them also have tragic stories regarding the loss of loved ones due to prescription drug-induced akathisia. When did you realise the extent of this problem? 

When Kim Witczak presented the Selling Sickness conference in Washington, D.C. in 2013, I met many people, such as Mathy Downing and Sara Bostock, who lost loved ones to akathisia. This was important as I started to realize I was certainly not alone.

Later when I spoke in Copenhagen with Kim and Mathy and met Steffini Lynch and Leonie Donnelly, it further emphasized this was a universal problem. Recently as the MISSD presence has expanded, I realize that through our website many people have come to Chicago to MISSD events and found comfort and support from the mission of MISSD.

The jury unanimously agreed that GlaxoSmithKline is liable for not updating the Paxil label regarding the increased suicide risk created when adults take Paxil. In essence, the jury stated they believe, after hearing all the evidence presented by both sides, that Paxil caused Stewart’s suffering and death. Furthermore, the jury believes GlaxoSmithKline knew about these potential risks yet failed to warn consumers.

During the trial it came to light that 22 patients died in Paxil clinical trials, 20 of these died by suicide, and the other two deaths are suspected to be suicides. All 22 victims were taking Paxil at the time, and 80% of these patients were over the age of 30. GSK likes to argue that it was an “illness” that caused these deaths and not Paxil. What would you say to the surviving family members of these clinical trial victims if you had a chance to meet them?

That is a great question because it brings up so many issues. GSK talks at length about underlying illness. Yes, there are people that kill themselves because they have had a lifelong history of mental health issues. They struggle and medications have been life-saving in many situations. However, when you talk to love ones of people who died from akathisia you hear from many of them that the drugs were prescribed for issues such as insomnia, test anxiety, or situational stress. The drug companies seem to want to pathologize what it means just to be human.

During the trial, my sister sat through opening arguments and texted me, “I don’t know who they are talking about.” GSK tried to create a view of Stewart that quite frankly didn’t exist. But specifically, regarding prescription drug-induced suicides, I would tell the surviving family members to realize the death was not the fault of their loved one.  People sometimes say that when someone ends their life, it was their choice. I am not sure that that is a correct statement either. But death by akathisia is not a choice. It is not a suicide. It is a fatal drug reaction.

Additionally, I would tell surviving family members to get involved. There is a favorite quote of mine from the anthropologist Margaret Mead, “Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful, committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it’s the only thing that ever has.” Talk to others, spread the word regarding akathisia, contact government agencies. As we learned from this lawsuit, GSK blamed the FDA; We need to be proactive and contact our regulatory agencies to say inadequate warnings are just not acceptable. What this lawsuit has shown is that akathisia is a real, legitimate adverse drug reaction. The public needs to be aware of akathisia signs and symptoms.

Do you have any advice for consumers who are considering pharmaceutical industry litigation?

I think the person has to be aware that this process is emotionally and physically difficult. In addition to having the necessary courage and conviction, it is imperative to have top lawyers. My lawyers from Baum Hedlund and David Rapoport were incredible. They are professional and highly knowledgable. But they are also amazing human beings who understand the injustice that was done to Stewart. Our work together felt less like a lawsuit and more like a personal journey and commitment shared by all of us.

We know Glaxo is appealing the verdict. This means the funds the jury award for Stewart’s avoidable death and suffering will be held until the appeal process is finished. There have been a few online comments left on media articles in which a few posters have suggested this trial is just about money. How do you respond to people who suggest such?

I always want to respect people’s divergent opinions, and I can understand from the outside looking in one interpretation of the lawsuit might be that is about money. However, this notion is furthest from the truth. I would hope these individuals actually understood what critical information was highlighted in this trial because this information affects their lives as well as Stewart’s. I hope people would educate themselves regarding drug safety, drug studies, the role of the FDA, generics, etc. The vast majority of people have had very, very positive reactions to the verdict. There will always be people who disagree, and that is their prerogative.

I knew from the moment this lawsuit was filed that GSK was always concerned that this was a generic drug.  I was told before we even went to trial, that, if GSK lost, they would appeal. In fact, I believe there was a lawyer in the courtroom for GSK that was there for the sole purpose of  gathering information to start the appeal process. Appeals take several years and, of course, I could lose on appeal. It has been suggested that GSK wants to take this case to the Supreme Court because they are so afraid of what this guilty verdict means. As it stands, the legal ramifications for this verdict are so damaging for pharmaceutical companies that reaching the Supreme Court is very possible. That could take 5-7 years.

Clearly this case has never been about money. For me, it has always been about awareness, highlighting akathisia and ultimately changing the black box warning to include all ages. If those individuals who think this case is about money actually read the entire articles, they would learn about MISSD and all the work I do to increase akathisia awareness. While I am eternally grateful to the generosity of our supporters, I have also used my own resources to help educate the public about akathisia. I do this in honor of Stewart and to help others avoid similar tragedy.

Thank you, Wendy.

Please, if there is anything you want to say to the readers of my blog, feel free to do so.

I am so grateful to the overwhelming support of many people from all over the world. A special thanks to you, Bob, for all you have done over the past years to raise awareness of drug side effects, specifically akathisia, and my lawsuit. You have devoted so much of your time and resources to this case, and I am eternally honored by your efforts. You are remarkable. Thank you so much.

Links

What is Akathisia? (Short Educational Video)

MISSD

Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman

Rapoport Law Offices, P.C

Dolin Vs GSK Paxil Trial Court Transcripts

Dolin v. GSK Paxil Trial Exhibits



Dolin Vs GSK Blog Coverage

Dolin v GSK – Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK – Day Two – “Jack-In-The-Box”

Dolin vs GSK – Healy ‘Rocks Da House’

Dolin Vs GSK – JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK – The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK – Day 4 – Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK – 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Dolin Vs GSK – Day 6 – Ass Kicking Semantics

Dolin Vs GSK – Day 7 – Abraham Lincoln

Dolin Vs GSK – Day 8 – Get to the Point, Todd!

Dolin Vs GSK – Glenmullen Nails It!

Dolin Vs GSK – “Babes”

Dolin Vs GSK – Wendy’s Cross and GSK’s Petition

Dolin Vs GSK – Robert “Bling Bling” Gibbons

Dolin Vs GSK: Suicide Prevention Warning “Futile”, Claims GSK Exec

Dolin Vs GSK : Jury shown List of the Dead in Paxil Clinical Trials

Dolin Vs GSK: Last Man Standing & The Return of Dr. Healy

Dolin Vs GSK: Closing Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK – The Verdict

Glaxo’s Last Mudslinging Act At The Stewart Dolin Paxil Trial..


Page_1

GGG.png

“….Next came the issue of Rothschild’s cozy relationship with GlaxoSmithKline. In the Dolin case alone, Rothschild has been paid approximately $165,000 for his testimony.

Rapoport pressed Rothschild further and asked him about previous cases where GSK has called him as an “expert” witness.

When asked how many times GSK has hired him as a witness in Paxil death cases, Rothschild couldn’t seem to count that high. “Going back 15 years, I can’t give you an exact number, but it’s probably in the neighborhood of 20 or 30.”…”

-Bob Fiddaman:

http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/


Two weeks ago, I decided to take a blog-break due to some health issues which I need to try to attend to. I still intend to pull back from blogging, as blogging about this stuff can be exhausting at times, however I feel It’s important to highlight the Stewart Dolin Paxil induced suicide trial currently ongoing in the US.

It seems to me that Glaxo’s case in defending Paxil, has been more of a masterclass in mudslinging as opposed to a legitimate defense of their drug. They seem to think that if they hire every pharma-whore they can find available and get those pharma-whores to sling mud at Stewart Dolin’s character, then that will be enough to sway the jury that it was not Paxil which caused Stewart to kill himself.

Pretty pathetic on Glaxo’s part, in my opinion.

Bob Fiddaman has been covering the Dolin trial on his blog for a few weeks, and his last two posts show just how desperate Glaxo are to deny that Paxil (seroxat) can cause suicide and akathisia.

It is simply astounding how GSK can try to defend Paxil/Seroxat in court on the premise that Paxil doesn’t cause suicide or akathisa, while at the same time, they admit in their PIL’s (Patient information leaflets) that Paxil can induce suicidal thoughts/ideation, akathsia and changes in behavior etc.

You can’t have it both ways, but it seems that isn’t going to stop Glaxo from trying.

One of Glaxo’s so called ‘experts’ in the Dolin trial is Dr Anthony Rothschild. Rothschild has apparently been defending GSK’s Paxil/Seroxat in possible Paxil induced suicide cases for many years.

I wonder how much money Dr Rothschild has made over the last 15 years defending Paxil? If he got over 150,00 dollars for one appearance, and he has done 20 to 30, for Glaxo, then perhaps defending Paxil alone has made him a millionaire?

You’d have to wonder too, does Dr Rothchild care about the wellbeing of those prescribed SSRI’s like Paxil?, does he care about the truth of the side effects of these drugs seeing the light of day? or does he care more about the hundreds of thousands of dollars he receives per court appearance from GlaxoSmithKline? and the monetary grants and honoria he receives from the drug industry?

I think astute readers will come to their own conclusions about that.

Seroxat/Paxil does cause Akathisia, I experienced it myself, and so have many others. Paxil/Seroxat does cause suicidal behaviors, I experienced this too, and so have many others. GSK are proven liars, fraudsters, felons and criminals. Anyone who takes blood money from them- to defend their drugs in cases where their drugs have caused harm- does not have the public’s best interest at heart.

Furthermore, greedy doctors on a drug company’s pay-roll certainly don’t have their patients’ interests at heart.

Dr Rothschild (and those of his ilk) make an absolute mockery of the medical Hippocratic oath..

“First do no harm”..

See Fid’s post here for more

 

Final Post For The Foreseeable Future..


  • Emma Walmsley is set to become boss of drugs giant GlaxoSmithKline

  • She will be the first female chief executive of the £80 billion company

  • 47-year-old used to work for French beauty giant L’Oreal 

  • Lives with her family in a £3.7 million house in South-West London 


This will be my final post this year.

I’ve been blogging over 10 years, and It’s time I took a break. Blogging about a corrupt sociopathic drug company like GSK takes its toll. I’m tired.

GSK have a new CEO now, and I’m sure that the new CEO, Emma Walmsley, will continue in the vein of JP Garnier, and Andrew Witty. She will, no doubt, put profits before people, and her own self interest before the greater good. Emma will, most likely, like Andrew before her, earn tens of millions (possible even more) by the end of her stint as Glaxo CEO.

Let’s be honest, these jobs are primarily profit driven.

Emma Walmsley, or Andrew Witty, take the pressure and the heat of the CEO position because they are rewarded handsomely. They are hardly doing it for the sake of it.

The cash incentive is so high for these jobs because these pharmaceutical company positions require the CEO to literally delete their conscience (that’s if they have one in the first place).

The vast sums of money (the tens of millions GSK bestow upon the CEO) is the prize for selling their soul to the company, turning a blind eye to corrupt practices (such as the bribery scandal in China), believing the corporate bullshit they are spun, and the spin they croak themselves. They repeat the corporate mantras (such as: do more feel better, live longer) like some kind of brainwashed- incantation of a cult.

For the many tens of thousands of people prescribed Seroxat/Paxil who weren’t adequately warned of side effects, for the many people crippled from GSK’s Myodil dye, or for those prescribed many GSK drugs unethically off label (as detailed in Greg Thorpe’s Department of Justice complaint)- GSK’s mantra ‘do more, feel better, live longer is a surreal insult. It’s a disturbing catch phrase for those damaged by GSK products. Many of us cannot do more or feel better, because these GSK poisons have destroyed our lives, or stolen years from us- or our loved ones.

Andrew Witty is now gone, and Walmsley is in his place. Will she atone for GSK’s decades of corporate misconduct and harm to consumers and patients?

I doubt it..

Does she really give a damn?

Probably not..

Perhaps people like Witty and Walmsley believe that because GSK makes some meds that are helpful, and some products that are useful (such as toothpaste and painkillers), this balances out the dodgy drugs (such as Seroxat and Avandia) that cause harm? Perhaps this is how they square this off, morally, in their minds?

Personally, I cannot understand how they sleep at night, or how they can work for such a morally and ethically defunct company like GSK, but that’s for them to figure out, not me.

The Seroxat suicide controversy, particularly its horrific (often fatal) affect on teens and kids, and how GSK covered that- up would be enough for me to hand in my resignation, and run for the hills.

Would Emma Walmsley, or Andrew Witty, recommend Seroxat for their own kids? or their spouses? Would they take the risk?

I seriously doubt it.

Check out Emma Walmsley’s master class (in the vid below) in downplaying GSK’s many years of harm to patients over the years…

She’ll make a great CEO for GSK, they trained her well.

She’s a good candidate… she repeats the GSK corporate spin (almost) without even flinching…

She’ll be a good little robot..

She’ll do anything for the GSK blood money…

She’ll make a fortune..

Well done Emma..

Give yourself a pat on the back, and then go and salivate when you see your bank balance..

“Fitter Happier”: Radiohead


Some things to keep an eye on while I take my hiatus are :
The Stewart Dolin ‘Paxil Induced Suicide Trial’ (currently being covered by Bob Fiddaman, on his blog here)

I have no doubt that Paxil caused Stewart Dolin to commit suicide. His case is a classic case of ‘Paxil induced akathisia’. Akathisia is a hellish side effect from Paxil/Seroxat (all SSRI’s cause it). I had it many times on Seroxat and it literally pushes you over the edge. Suicide can be a welcome relief from the sheer torture of it. It is agonizing.

GSK did not warn properly of this side effect (and many other side effects) of Paxil, they should be held accountable- and I wish Stewart’s wife, Wendy, the best with this extremely important case.


Another Glaxo scandal emerging involves Tafenoquine (GSK’s ‘experimental’ anti-Malaria drug). Tafenoquine is of the same class of drugs as the controversial Lariam drug (which has been described as a ‘horror movie in a pill’ by some). It looks a bit dodgy to me, but no doubt GSK will be up to their usual shenanigans and they’ll push it on to the market anyway..

Check out some posts on Tafenoquine here:


Peter Humphrey is currently suing Glaxo for their devious behavior in China. That particular scandal cost GSK the guts of half a billion. I wish Peter the best with his lawsuit against them. There is no doubt in my mind that Glaxo scapegoated Peter and his wife, Yu. They have been treated appallingly by Glaxo. Keep an eye on Peter’s case in the media.

See here for more on Peter’s case


Another case to keep an eye out for involves GSK’s horrific Myodil dye.  Myodil has been maiming individuals, and destroying people’s lives, for decades. A landmark case (involving Myodil sufferer, and solicitor, Keith Lewin) just might blow the whole thing wide open again. Hopefully we will hear good news coverage of this case and the many victims of this horrible GSK product can have their voices heard. I wish Keith all the best with his important case.

See here for more:


I’ll leave the last comment to GSK whistle-blower, Greg Thorpe. Greg blew the whistle on GSK’s corrupt practices and this led to GSK’s 3 Billion fine for fraud in 2012 in the US.

https://truthman30.wordpress.com/2016/05/19/how-did-gsk-market-the-horrible-death-drug-seroxat-to-unsuspecting-doctors/

“…I have seen and witnessed first hand, worse marketing in the US…although the DOJ did not seem to interested in digging very deep with Paxil fraud.
Why, because they were protecting the executives, including the infamous JP Garnier, Bob Ingram, and others. This would include the criminal Witty, who had to know about Paxil. He was in the antidepressant marketing arm after the merger, the then “commoner”-Andrew Witty.

His transgressions and crimes were ignored by prosecutors…I believe so it would not interfere with his ungodly ” knighting”…He was there in the period after the merger, a main player in the Wellbutrin scams. Paxil and Wellbutrin were marketed in a way, so that business from one did not cannibalize the other one.

This was also another elaborate scheme, that I brought forward…in addition to my main concern, not only marketing both to children under 18….but for very young children also.

What can be said about a company that does this, with the knowledge hidden from physicians and patients ..resulting in unnecessary suicides-side effects (including horrible withdrawal symptoms),
and conning the gov’t and insurance companies into paying.

Now we see a couple minor players in the industry indicted and facing trial, for much less than the deadly “three amigos”, listed above. Smoke and mirrors, diversion from the worst of the worst.
So now all 3 living the good life on blood money, murder money or at the very least manslaughter.

It sickens me that I spent 12 years plus, shining some light on these cockroaches for nothing, not even a fine or any punishment worth a damn, end of story.

SIR Witty, can spin it all he wants. He along with all the others are truly pathological liars. If what I say is not true, the bastards have hundreds of GSK and other outside attorneys to sue me. I believe they spend more on attorneys to save themselves, rather than do any significant Research and Development…Judicial Watch, here in the US …has been informed of some of this, but has declined to investigate anything?

Who paid them off ?

The inside information is in the bowels of the DOJ, if they have not destroyed evidence already. Why they did not go all the way back to the year 1996, when they could have on Paxil and Wellbutrin is no mystery to me..Filing in Jan 2003, they had every right to, but again the whole illegally sealed case stinks and I am holding my nose trying to put my life back together…

It was all a sick joke, and they all are above the law, “to big to prosecute”. Now as I predicted with the non-penalty here, they have gone global, with Witty at the helm.
Everything else gets older every day, but there is no Statute of Limitations on criminal acts…and Witty, Garnier, Ingram, Viebacher, Stout, Rajaratnum and their foot soldiers, who orchestrated all these scams resulting in morbidity and mortality
should still be investigated….and not by a Crook like Eric Holder, once a GSK defender always a GSK defender and highly paid…both in govt. and by his cronies at the revolving door law firm…Covington Burling, a den of sociopaths in its own right. Justice it seems will never happen, at least on earth.

Keep plugging Truthman, I admire your tenacity…seemingly everyone else has clocked out and left. GSK is still there however, and as bad as ever…”

-G. Thorpe.

 

Bob Fiddaman Reports On The Glaxo Criminals…


http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/03/dolin-vs-gsk-day-8-get-to-point-todd.html?spref=tw

Tuesday, March 28, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK – Day 8 – Get to the Point, Todd!

The Todd Stance
 
Oh Todd, oh Todd, oh Todd,
you make us feel so weary.
Your questioning of Stewart’s doctor
really is quite dreary.
So, GSK’s warning letter
is the crux of your defence?
It’s not logical or rational;
it simply makes no sense.
You say you warned the doctors
of Paxil’s suicide risk.
Yet Andy Bayman denies this claim,
like a repeating compact disc.
Adults are perfectly safe, he states:
It’s just kids who should be warned.
But your former CEO confirms
it’s your duty to inform.
You can keep your fancy haircut, Todd,
and expensive Armani suit.
You can keep your sense of what’s right and wrong
in this wrongful death lawsuit.
You can keep your lack of due care
and misleading words of warning.
We know Paxil causes death, you see,
and leaves families deep in mourning.
Bob Fiddaman ~ 2017
Day 8 of the Dolin Vs GSK Paxil-induced suicide trial saw Stewart Dolin’s physician and long-time friend, Dr. Marty Sachman, take the stand.
Sachman was first questioned by David Rappaport, one of the attorneys representing Wendy Dolin (Stewart’s widow).
The jury heard more about Stewart Dolin, the man, and less about the fact that GlaxoSmithKline concealed Paxil’s propensity to induce suicidality. Sachman told the jury, “Stew was a very reserved, quiet, intelligent, loving man. I never heard him raise his voice over our 25-year relationship. We were like brothers. We spent weekends together, travel together. He was my closest friend. A loving person and a loving family man.” 
Sachman was also questioned about Stewart Dolin’s anxiety, which, according to the doctor, was a result of work-related issues. He told the jury that he never thought Stewart was depressed and that Stewart always responded to the treatment he gave him from 2005-2010. On each occasion, after Sachman prescribed Stewart drugs, he would warn him of the side effects and, once Stewart felt better, would wean him off the prescription.
Two days before Stewart’s Paxil-induced death, Sachman and Stewart attended a memorial service for the father of their mutual friend. Later that evening Sachman, Stewart and Wendy went to dinner together. Sachman was asked to describe what he remembered about Stewart that night. He answered, “His demeanor was, as usual, our conversation was as usual. He was calm.”
Sachman then recounted his “absolute shock” upon hearing the news of Stewart’s death. He told the jury, “I just think that we depend on honesty in reporting research and data. How can we treat people effectively and safely if we can’t depend on that?”
Rappaport then asked Sachman about the communication between pharmaceutical companies and doctors regarding drug labeling. Sachman’s answer, which King & Spalding objected to and was struck by the judge, highlighted Dr. Sachman’s feelings about being deceived:
 
“Well, you know, physicians, myself and millions of other physicians, every day try to protect people, try to help people and protect them. We rely on truth and honesty from pharmaceutical companies and to falsify information or hold back information is totally criminal. It affects the lives of our patients.”
It’s appropriate Sachman used the word ‘criminal’ given that GlaxoSmithKline have previously pled guilty to criminal charges. Therefore, GlaxoSmithKline are criminals.
Concluding his examining of the witness, David Rappaport asked Sachman about the tie and belt he was wearing. Sachman started to weep, sharing that they belonged to Stewart. Dr. Sachman wore them to “remember him today.”
Cross-examination by King & Spalding’s Todd Davis.
The cross-examination by Davis centered around GlaxoSmithKline’s “Dear Doctor Letters” sent out whenever GSK decides to share a problem with their products. Davis went over and over a series of these letters sent to Sachman. Sachman told Davis that he had, indeed, received these letters. Once again, King & Spalding tried to catch a witness by asking the same questions that were asked years ago during deposition. GSK’s attorneys futilely tried this tactic with Dr. David Healy and Dr. David Cross earlier in the trial.
Davis droned on about the “Dear Doctor Letters” and whether Sachman read them. Finally, an understandably frustrated Judge Hart interjected and admonished Davis, “You’re covering the same ground…over and over again now, Mr. Davis…Let’s not go over the same thing over and over again.”
Davis, however, continued to go over the “Dear Doctor Letters,” and the judge again interjected, “Mr. Davis, the document speaks for itself, and the doctor has accepted it. I don’t see any reason to read the document to him and ask him whether he agrees or disagrees.” 
 
King & Spalding’s “finest” then switched gears, inquiring about Sachman’s prescription of Levaquin (an antibiotic) to Stewart Dolin. Davis asked Sachman if he had read the Levaquin warnings regarding the drug’s propensity to cause adverse effects including suicidal acts or thoughts.
It’s good to see Levaquin manufacturers use the appropriate suicidal acts in their warning label. This term is surely more understandable than the intentionally ambiguous “emotional lability” term GSK prefers. I can’t help but wonder whether Davis would be equally concerned if his spouse consumed a product that states it can cause “emotional labilty” as he would if the warning listed “suicidal acts?”
Bizarrely, Davis next asked Sachman if he was aware Stewart’s widow and children had taken trips in and out of the US since Stewart’s death? Davis likely knows this is irrelevant, but shamelessly asked anyway in a lame attempt to imply Stewart’s widow and children couldn’t possibly be mourning Stewart’s Paxil-induced death if the family has traveled in the last six years. An appropriate question on my mind is “Does Davis take trips in and outside the US after settling cases for GSK in which innocent consumers have died?”
Davis finished his cross-examination, and I presume the jury and judge were glad to have a break from Davis’ tedious repetition. Davis is largely ineffective; GSK might want to reexamine their legal fund investment in Davis when GSK is, no doubt, embroiled in future wrongful death lawsuits.
David Rappaport – Re-direct
I won’t go into too much detail regarding the re-direct because the following question and answer seemed to undue Davis’ performance:
Q. Have you seen in any of the labels that you’ve ever seen from GSK about Paxil any reference to the fact that they had a suicide signal from attempts and suicides in the initial clinical trials that was of the magnitude of 7 to 8 times greater risk than similarly-depressed people on placebo?
A. I certainly have not.
Before leaving the stand, Dr. Marty Sachman told the jury, “I’d like to say that in the midst of all of this attempted confusion of the real issue here, if it was clear that this drug had a higher risk of causing suicide in the age group Stewart Dolin was in, I would have never prescribed it.”
Three doctors have now taken the stand:  All have stated if they had known about the increase in suicidality and behavior in adults taking Paxil they would have never prescribed it.
Your move, Todd!
The trial continues today with a series of video depositions that, sadly, I won’t have access to unless they are made public.
Bob Fiddaman.

Bob Fiddaman’s Latest Post From The Dolin Trial…


http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/03/dolin-vs-gsk-day-6-ass-kicking-semantics.html?spref=tw

Thursday, March 23, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK – Day 6 – Ass Kicking Semantics

ass kicking

To be beaten senseless because you definitely deserve it.

semantics
the branch of linguistics and logic concerned with meaning.


The plaintiff examination of former FDA Medical Advisor, Dr. David Cross, finished today. Cross, who was examined by Brent Wisner of Baum Hedlund, read from a document shown on the screen to the jury. The paper was published in J Clin Psychiatry and authored by, amongst others, John E. Kraus, an employee of GlaxoSmithKline. The published article, ‘Meta-analysis of efficacy and treatment-emergent suicidality in adults by psychiatric indication and age subgroup following initiation of paroxetine,’ tries to play down the risk of Paxil-induced adult suicide. Further, the paper claimed that there was no difference in suicidality among patients who took paroxetine and those who took a placebo.

Finalizing his questions to Dr. Ross, Brent Wisner informed the jury that the article was actually written in 2008. Bayman, King & Spalding’s resident jack-in-the-box retorted that it was 2011, a year after Stewart Dolin died. Bayman seemed confident and had a smug look on his face at the thought of getting one over a prosecuting attorney. The smug look was wiped from his face by Wisner when Wisner informed Bayman–and the jury–that the paper was submitted to the journal in 2008 and published in 2011. This was two years before Stewart Dolin’s Paxil-induced death. Bayman’s jack-in-the-box spring lost its bounce as he slumped back down in his chair licking his wounds like a scolded schoolboy.

I do love to see Brent Wisner in action, and it is even more fun to see Wisner kicking GSK’s ass.

King & Spalding’s cross-examination of Wendy Dolin’s expert witness, Dr. David Cross, commenced today. It was merely a game of semantics, blame shifting and one person (Bayman) trying futilely to catch another in contradiction.

Andrew Bayman once again was in charge of the calvary, his sole mission being to undo all the data Dr. Cross previously shared with the jury.
Did Bayman succeed?

Hardly. It seemed a junior-league attempt to try and trip up Dr. Cross regarding a deposition he gave more than two years ago. It was also an effort to try to show the jury that, despite all the evidence showing Paxil has a 9-fold increase in inducing suicidality in adults, GSK is not responsible for clearly communicating this life-threatening information to healthcare professionals and the public.

Bayman kicked off by trying to discredit the credentials of Dr. Cross.

“Are you a pharmacologist?”, Bayman asked.

“No.” Dr. Cross replied.

“Are you an epidemiologist?” Bayman asked.

“No.” Dr. Cross replied.

Bayman, whose team can’t seem to defend the statistics previously shown at trial regarding the number of adults endangered by Paxil, was trying to convince the jury that Dr. Cross wasn’t qualified to provide evidence regarding FDA rules and label regulations.

It left me wondering if Glaxo’s former CEO, JP Garnier, would ever be asked if he were a criminologist. To my knowledge, the Monty Burns look-a-like holds no Ph.D. in criminology, yet, under his guidance, GSK committed various crimes which they have already plead guilty to committing.

Indeed, Bayman himself has defended GSK’s nefarious activities on countless occasions, as have the law firm for whom he works. Does this make Bayman and his fellow co-workers qualified experts in septal heart defects, homicide, and addiction, all of which have previously been the subject of King & Spalding trials regarding Paxil use?

Bayman also went down the tired road of ‘It wasn’t Paxil, it was the underlying condition.’ A line we hear on a daily basis from pharmaceutical companies defending the latest prescription drug-induced lawsuits.

Yesterday the jury were shown that Paxil labeling does not mention the suicide risk in adults. They were also shown that there is little or no explanation of the word ‘Akathisia’ that accompanies the patient information leaflet for Paxil.

Bayman argued that the word ‘Akathisia’ is in the labeling. Maybe so, but who, exactly, knows what akathisia means, particularly when the medical term remains ambiguously undefined, as GSK wants it. There is no mention on the label that Akathisia often creates suicidal thoughts and actions. Instead, the SSRI class labeling states akathisia is ‘motor restlessness’ – a vague description for a prescription-drug induced condition that often causes suicide!

Despite there being a 9-fold increase of suicidality in adults taking Paxil, and that GSK has known this for 25 years, there is no mention of this in today’s Paxil label. Bayman glossed over this by deflecting the blame to the FDA. He claimed the FDA have responsibility for the language on the labeling, ergo, it’s not GSK’s fault, it’s the FDA’s fault. In any event, Bayman claims that GSK tried to change the labeling. Perhaps this might be true, yet, oddly Bayman has shown the jury no proof that GSK ever attempted to petition the FDA to communicate the real suicidality risks Paxil causes. Even if GSK did petition the FDA to correct the Paxil label, GSK apparently then sat back and did nothing after the FDA did not amend the label despite having a legal, moral and ethical duty warn consumers of the real Paxil-created risks. Even GSK’s former CEO, JP Garnier, admitted this moral responsibility in a video deposition shown the jury last week.

Garnier said under oath, and I quote, “…there is a legal right for us to go directly to the public.”

Evidence here.

So, Bayman trying to convince the jury the suicide warning was down to the FDA contradicts what the top boss at GlaxoSmithKline says.
A strange defence, unless of course Bayman thinks JP Garnier was lying under oath?
Garnier lying? Surely not!
The trial continues tomorrow.
From this point I’ll be giving periodic updates and not daily ones.

More Dolin Trial Bombshells: Former FDA Offical Testifies That Paxil Is Not Safe And Doesn’t Work!…


“…David Ross. The former FDA Medical Advisor was asked if he prescribed Paxil to his patients.

Amid the objections from King & Spalding’s Andrew Bayman, he answered,

“No. I don’t believe that it works and I don’t believe that it’s safe.”….


Well, well, it seems that as the days go by more and more shocking revelations come out from the Stewart Dolin ‘Paxil Induced Suicide’ Trial in the US…

GSK… you evil bastards…

See Bob Fiddaman’s new post for more:

http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/03/dolin-vs-gsk-89-suicide-increase-for.html


Wednesday, March 22, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK – 8.9 Suicide Increase For Adult Paxil Users

Day 5 – Dolin Vs GSK Paxil Induced Adult Suicide – Chicago.

There was a startling revelation today in the Dolin Vs. GSK trial: Attorneys representing widow Wendy Dolin showed the ratio of Paxil-induced suicidality in adults is a staggering 8.9.  It is not 6.7, as previously claimed and reported by Glaxo. The 6.7 figure is astoundingly high in itself, but the 8.9 ratio is flabbergasting!

Plaintiff witness, Dr. David Ross, said this figure is ‘astounding.’ What you should remember here is that GSK’s 1989 drug application for Paxil said the suicidality odds ratio was 2.6.

Over the years as GSK’s lies were uncovered and more bodies were buried because of Paxil, GSK later changed the Paxil-induced suicide rate to 6.7. But today the world knows the actual Paxil-induced suicidality figure for adults is 8.9. This number is almost a nine-fold increase in adult Paxil patients experiencing suicidal thoughts, suicidal thinking and completed suicide–thoughts that are created by akathisia and other adverse reactions to Paxil and not by any underlying pre-existing condition.

Today at the trial, expert witness, Dr. David Ross, who worked for the FDA for ten years, testified extensively. While working at the FDA, Dr. Ross was responsible for reviewing new drug applications (NDA’s), i.e., he oversaw the statistics.

His evidence started with 6 points about GSK’s responsibilities (or lack of…)

1. Paxil is associated with an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults beyond the age of 24.

2. GSK was not upfront about Paxil’s suicidal behavior risk.

3. In 2010, GSK had the ultimate responsibility for the Paxil label. GSK was responsible for ensuring the Paxil label did not contain any false, misleading, or inaccurate information about safety.

4. Federal regulations required GSK to warn doctors that Paxil induces adult suicidal behavior, starting in 1992.

5. GSK could have warned doctors by changing the Paxil label. There is no evidence the FDA would have stopped GSK from issuing a Paxil-specific warning in the non-class labeling sections. In fact, the FDA specifically invited GSK to discuss such changes.

6. GSK did not warn doctors of the true Paxil-induced suicidal behavior risks for adults beyond the age of 24.

Dr. Ross further reiterated to the jury what David Healy previously stated: that the responsibility for accurate drug labeling lies with the product manufacturer and not with the FDA. Dr. Ross added, “…the FDA does not do drug trials, we only know what we are shown.” He added, “You have to rely on the drug company.” He also informed the jury that the FDA’s annual budget is $1.3 billion, most of which comes from drug companies.

Another striking statement Ross shared with the jury was, “The FDA is in charge of enforcing the law, and GSK is in charge of following the law.”

Today’s evidence clearly shows that GSK has not followed the letter of the law enforced by the FDA.

Attorney Brent Wisner from Baum Hedlund asked Dr. Ross if he thought GSK’s label regarding adult suicide was adequate. Dr. Ross answered, “No.” and further added, “It was false and misleading and remains so today.”

Ross also told the jury that if he saw a nearly 9-fold increase in suicide in a drug (any drug) that he “Would not prescribe the drug.” In fact, Ross would categorize a 9-fold increase of any drug as a “frequent adverse event on labeling.”

He also told the jury that the term “Emotional lability” that GSK used instead of suicidality, “conceals what is really going on.”

Remarkably, two GSK employees, along with a third author who received funding and/or similar perks from GSK, published a medical journal paper stating Paxil actually reduced suicide in adults. Ross told the jury that he believed this published paper which contains obvious statistical errors should be retracted. The published article, “Reduction of suicidal thoughts with paroxetine in comparison with reference antidepressants and placebo”, by Montgomery, Dunner, and Dunbar was then used by GSK reps to promote the safety of Paxil in adult patients to prescribing doctors, even though GSK knew it was the complete opposite!

Indeed, it was a very bad day for GSK. The standard “Objection!” was lamely shouted out by King & Spalding’s resident Jack-in-the-box, Andrew Bayman, more times than I care to recall. The majority of his objections were overruled by the Honorable Judge Hart.

I’ve long been a critic of both the British and American drug regulators (the MHRA and FDA). Despite ten years of successful blogging, I’m never too old to learn something new, even when the new information is quite tragic: Today I, and the jury learned that drug companies such as GSK hold medical regulators by the balls. Drug companies provide information (to include false data from faulty clinical trials) and medical regulators have to accept drug company information as the truth. GSK should expect ramifications from global regulators after today’s evidence. An almost 9-fold increase in suicidal behavior in adults taking Paxil is appalling, particularly when we know that, for years, GSK continues to claim there is no causal association between suicide and adults taking Paxil.

This lopsided relationship has terrible ramifications for mental health authorities and suicide nonprofits who unconcernedly take drug company hush money. For years both have claimed antidepressants are a safe and effective treatment for a variety of possible ailments (anxiety, OCD, adult depression, e.tc.) A nearly 9-fold increase in suicidality strongly suggests that both mental health and mental health nonprofits have been duped by the pharmaceutical industry, along with prescribing doctors, medical regulators, and an unsuspecting public.

Just think folks: GSK even tried to get a license for Paxil to be prescribed to children after they knew of the Paxil-induced suicide increases in adults!

Nice ethical company, huh?

I’ll leave the last words to today’s witness, David Ross. The former FDA Medical Advisor was asked if he prescribed Paxil to his patients. Amid the objections from King & Spalding’s Andrew Bayman, he answered, “No. I don’t believe that it works and I don’t believe that it’s safe.”

Trial continues tomorrow.

For now, it’s time for a Guinness, in honour of Stewart Dolin.

Bob Fiddaman.
In Chicago.

Dolin Vs GSK

Dolin v GSK – Opening Arguments

Dolin Vs GSK – Day Two – “Jack-In-The-Box”

Dolin vs GSK – Healy ‘Rocks Da House’

Dolin Vs GSK – JP Garnier Video Deposition

Dolin Vs GSK – The Dunbar Tape

Dolin Vs GSK – Day 4 – Slam Dunk

Dolin Vs GSK – The Dunbar Tape


http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/03/dolin-vs-gsk-dunbar-tape.html

Sunday, March 19, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK – The Dunbar Tape

As promised, here’s more evidence that surfaced last week at the Dolin Vs GSK Paxil Induced Suicide trial.

This video features Dr. Geoffrey Dunbar, an executive at GlaxoSmithKline between 1987-97. His job was to oversee all the Paxil clinical trial results. He also helped author drafts regarding Paxil suicides, these drafts were later passed on to the FDA.

The data showed a 9-fold increase in suicidality with patients taking Paxil. Remarkably, the report sent to the FDA showed the complete opposite, in fact, the report showed the FDA that Paxil actually prevented suicide!

In the 2005 video deposition, Dunbar admits his reports included improperly counted suicidal behavior events and that publications in which he participated writing had incorrectly conveyed Paxil reduced suicidal behavior.

In essence, GlaxoSmithKline, along with the help of Dunbar, spun a 9-fold increase in suicide related events for patients taking Paxil to zero suicide related events.

For doctors and patients this meant that Paxil could hit the market with no concerns, and even if someone did kill themselves whilst taking Paxil, the event would be blamed on the person’s illness rather than the Paxil they were taking.

In the video below you will hear Dunbar say that it was “an error” that the suicide figures were wrong. That’s some error, right? On one hand the data shows a 9-fold increase in suicide related events for patients on Paxil, yet the complete opposite ended up in a draft to the FDA.

Furthermore, upon learning of his “error” he, to date (2005) had still not informed GlaxoSmithKline officials. He just ‘assumed’ that GSK had rectified a published article that he co-wrote, an article that he admitted, under oath, would have “presumably” influenced the people who read it.

So, there you go then. Paxil was promoted as being safe, when in actual fact GSK knew it was dangerous.

Nice company, huh?

Here’s the depo.

Bob Fiddaman
 
Dolin Vs GSK

GSK’s False Seroxat Suicide Statistics: Was Paroxetine A Misservice To Public Health Or Merely An Error?..


In this video, former GSK executive (and psychiatrist), Jeffrey Dunbar, gives his deposition, in a Paxil (Seroxat) induced suicide trial from 2006.

This is really astounding footage to watch.


Former GlaxoSmithKline executive Dr. Geoffrey Dunbar deposition in Paxil suicide case. In his testimony, Dr. Dunbar says that he helped author the drafts of the Paxil suicide report that the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) asked for in 1991. The calculations in this report showed and suggested that instead of Paxil increasing the suicide risk by nearly 9 times, the drug decreased suicidal behavior.

He admits in his deposition that his reports include improperly counted suicidal behavior events and that publications in which he participated writing had incorrectly conveyed Paxil reduced suicidal behavior.

This deposition was played for the jury in the trial of Dolin v. Smithkline Beecham Corp. (D/B/A GlaxoSmithKline-GSK). The case stems from the alleged paroxetine-induced death of Stewart Dolin, a partner at the law firm Reed Smith. Paroxetine is the brand name version of this medication is called Paxil which was researched, developed, manufactured and marketed by GlaxoSmithKline (“GSK”).

The lawsuit claims that GSK failed to adequately warn Mr. Dolin’s doctor about Paxil/paroxetine’s association with an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults of all ages. According to the lawsuit, when Mr. Dolin was prescribed paroxetine in 2010, the drug’s label did not accurately warn physicians of the drug’s association with an increased risk of suicidal behavior in adults, despite GSK’s 2006 analysis showing a statistically significant 6.7 times greater risk in adults of all ages, as well as comparable statistically significant suicidal behavior evidence as far back as 1989 in Paxil’s clinical trials performed for its initial marketing approval.

Incredible Footage Of Former GSK CEO – JP Garnier- Surfaces- On Fiddaman’s New Post -From The Stewart Dolin ‘Paxil Induced Suicide” Trial In The US…


Bob Fiddaman has been doing stellar reporting/blogging about the Stewart Dolin, “Paxil Induced Suicide” Trial in Chicago. He has just posted incredible footage of JP Garnier (the former GSK CEO – before Andrew Witty) discussing Paxil/Seroxat in a video deposition (May 2006). Garnier is his usual arrogant, creepy self, however, the deposition itself is incredible. It seems that GSK had a legal duty to warn about serious adverse affects, so why were they passing the buck to the FDA?

Paxil/Seroxat caused much harm, death and destruction to tens of thousands of people, however judging by Garnier’s attitude in this video deposition, he comes across like he couldn’t care less…

In fact, he looks bored..

I guess dead Paxil/Seroxat people are just boring issues to some pharma CEO’s..

What is the point in having a CEO, if they are never held accountable?

Disturbing…


Saturday, March 18, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK – JP Garnier Video Deposition

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/03/dolin-vs-gsk-jp-garnier-video-deposition.html&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=100&%20action=like&font=arial&colorscheme=light

I was going to take a break this weekend as I’m in Washington DC taking time out from a hectic week of traveling to and from the Chicago courthouse where GSK are claiming Paxil does not cause suicide in adults. Furthermore, GSK claims Paxil did not cause 57-year-old Stewart Dolin to end his life by jumping in front of a train. GSK’s argument is that Stewart Dolin had ‘work-related’ problems which caused him to jump. GSK claims the Paxil he was taking as prescribed had nothing to do with his akathisia-induced death.

Earlier this week three video depositions were aired to the jury, they featured former GSK CEO, JP Garnier, Former Glaxo Executive Jeffrey Dunbar and GSK biostatistician John Davies.

Much to my delight, the video depositions have now been released to the public – this is a unique move and one that makes me very happy indeed.

Today I’m going to focus on one of these three videos. It features former GSK CEO, JP Garnier. After watching the video you will hear audio that wasn’t aired in court. It, once again, features former Glaxo CEO, JP Garnier. It is audio that has been public for many years and, in the context of his video deposition, shows how Garnier had an opportunity to inform the public about Paxil’s suicide link but chose not to. He instead opted to hang-up the telephone live on air.

It’s important that you watch the video first then listen to the audio.

In the video, we hear JP Garnier answer questions about GSK’s responsibility to warn doctors and patients that Paxil can and does induce suicidality. In Dolin Vs GSK, King & Spalding (GSK’s defence team) have already told the jury during opening arguments that Paxil does not cause suicide in adults. Furthermore, they have claimed they told the FDA that, after reviewing Paxil data, they wished to change the drug labeling.  According to GSK, the FDA chose to use its own wording rather than using GSK’s. King & Spalding told the jury there was nothing else they could do regarding labeling. Garnier’s testimony, however, suggests that was a bold-faced lie.

The video deposition was taken in 2006.

“You can change your label without even getting approval from the FDA, there’s a law that allows you to do that, correct?”

Garnier answered, “Yes, but in practice, you don’t want to do that.”

He was then pressed, “Okay. But you can do it if you want, the law allows that to occur?”

Garnier replied, “Yes, but you do want the FDA to agree with the changes you are going to propose because they have the power to correct what you just said the day before. You know, let’s say we decide to inform physicians of some new event affecting our drug, well, the next day the FDA might come back and say, well, we didn’t like the way you did this, you have to redo it. So it’s considerably disrupting, that’s why most companies go through the FDA first, in practice, but you are right, there is a legal right for us to go directly to the public.”

So, Glaxo’s own CEO claimed in 2006 that there was a legal right to inform the public about any serious adverse event–including the most serious of them all, suicide.

Now, let’s listen to an interview from Garnier taken in May 2008, some two years after he admitted (under oath) that he and his company had a legal obligation to inform the public about serious adverse events and that they did not have to go through the FDA to get this news out.

Garnier was being interviewed by BBC correspondent, James Naughtie, about a vaccine. However, Naughtie deviated from the subject of vaccines and chose to ask Garnier about Seroxat (known as Paxil in the US).  Garnier, when pressed, chose not to discuss. Now, didn’t he have a legal right to do so, as he claimed in his 2006 video deposition? Instead, Garnier chose to hang up the phone and end the interview.

(Hmm, so much for having a legal duty to inform the public.)

I’ll leave it up to you, the reader/listener, to decide whether or not you think Glaxo’s former CEO had ample opportunity to inform the public about Paxil’s serious adverse events.

Here’s that classic audio… the discussion of Paxil starts at the 3.24 mark.

Garnier was given a public platform to inform consumers about Paxil’s serious adverse events, remember, as a CEO, he had a legal right. Why then did he choose to end the conversation abruptly?

Just sayin’.

Over to you, Todd.

**COMING UP TOMORROW**

The video testimonies of former Glaxo Executive Jeffrey Dunbar and GSK Biostatistician John Davies.

Bob Fiddaman.
 
Related
 

 

GSK’s Cervarix Vaccine…


http://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/593546/hpv-cervical-cancer-vaccine-teenager-dancer-paralysed-jab

Teen dancer left paralysed after HPV cervical cancer vaccine

A TEENAGE dancer has been left paralysed from the waist down after taking the HPV vaccine which helps to prevent cervical cancer.

Chloe Brookes-Holder and her mother SWNS

TRAGIC: A teen dancer has been left paralysed after taking the HPV vaccine

Chloe Brookes-Holder was once a healthy 12-year-old who danced six days a week when given the jab.

But now, six years on, the 18-year-old remains stranded in hospital, emaciated and paralysed.

Chloe, of Cheltenham, Gloucestershire, said: “At first, my family and I didn’t put two and two together.

Chloe Brookes-Holder on a hospital bed SWNS

PARALYSED: Chloe Brookes-Holder remains stranded in hospital

“Since getting sick from something the NHS gave me I don’t trust any medical professionals that I don’t know”

Chloe Brookes-Holder

“We thought the vaccine was safe because they give it in schools and on the letter the parents were given to sign consent I remember reading ‘it saves lives’.”

She said in the months that followed getting the injection at school, she fell ill with dizziness, headaches, fatigue and bone and joint pain – which left her muscles weakened.

She has now lost three stones, dropping to just 5st and is now being fed through a tube.

For years, doctors told Chloe the condition was in her head but now some believe the injection triggered an autoimmute response, causing her body to attack itself.

The teen said: “We trust our government to keep us safe but now, since getting sick from something the NHS gave me I don’t trust any medical professionals that I don’t know.

“Why? Because I’ve been treated in such a barbaric way. It’s been ill on earth.”

Chloe Brookes-Holder in hospital SWNS

STRANDED: The 18-year-old is left paralysed from the waist down

Shocking photos show her hooked to wires and drips, as she lies in a hospital – where she has been for the past 11 months.

Her mother, Sophie Brookes, 41, has been forced to give her job up as a hairdresser to become her full-time carer.

The 18-year-old is certain her symptoms are linked to the vaccine, which protects against the human papilloma virus and cause cervical caner – this kills around 900 women a year.

Chloe Brookes-Holder in hospital SWNS

VACCINE: She has now lost three stones and is being fed through a tube

She said: “I danced six days a week and loved to go to after-school sport and dance clubs every night. I was on the right road to getting A’s at GCSE.

“I wanted to have a dance career and my heart bleeds with the torture knowing I may never walk again and therefore ever dance again.”

Parents have called for more research into the jab, which has been a routine offered to 12 and 13-year-old girls since 2008.

Chloe became ill between her second and third injection of the Cervarix vaccine in late 2010 and the summer of 2011.

She came down with a string of viruses, started experiencing debilitating muscle pain and was diagnosed with fibromyalgia.

A gastrointestinal disorder left her in agony every time she ate or lost control of her bladder.

Chloe Brookes-Holder before she became paralysed SWNS

ONCE A UPON A TIME: Chloe was once a healthy 12-year-old

She was later diagnosed with Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome which causes abnormal heart rate.

A year after having the injection, Chloe also began experiencing paralytic episodes and collapsing at school, unable to control her lower body.

She said: “I’m not scaremongering, I just care about others. This is real. This is the pure ugly truth. I want to make people aware so they can make decisions for themselves.”

Chloe Brookes-Holder in hospital SWNS

SHOCKING: Photos show her hooked to wires and drips

Cervarix was given to 6 million girls and while it is no longer offered to girls at school by the NHS, a new HPV vaccine, Gardasil is.

European Medicines Agency statistics show that up to January 2017, 3,683 reactions to Cervarix were reported and 11,802 to Gardasil.

Some 380 families, represented by the UK Association for Vaccine Injured Daughters, have called for more information in schools and research into potential side effects.

Medics have dismissed their concerns and NHS England insists that the jab is not dangerous, writing on its website that it is a “safe vaccine”.

Freda Burrell, of the UK Association for Vaccine Injured Daughters, said: “Many medical professionals will not link the vaccine to the girls’ health problems.

“Yet common sense should speak loudly if their medical records were excellent prior to the vaccine and their health changed dramatically after they had the jab.”

Chloe Brookes-Holder with her mother Sophie SWNS

LOVE: Her mum has been forced to give up her job to become her full-time carer

Public Health England and the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency issued a joint statement in response to the claims.

They said: “As with all vaccines, the safety of the HPV vaccine is under constant review. Every report of a suspected side effect is taken seriously.”

“That there is no credible evidence of a link between the HPV vaccine and a range of chronic illnesses.”

They concluded: “The European Medicines Agency has also rued out a link to Postural Orthostatic Tachycardia Syndrome.”

2 Comments
2 Comments

11 days ago
SteveHinks
In 2008 the UK Government, assuming that the HPV vaccine to be capable of preventing cervical cancer (without any evidence to support it can prevent a single case of cancer), did an Impact Assessment using £1.7 billion as the cost of using HPV vaccine for the next 100 years. They also failed to consider any cost of adverse reactions! even though there were huge numbers during the clinical trials.

11 days ago
SteveHinks

There is ZERO evidence that Cervarix and Gardasil will ever prevent a single case of cancer. The manufacturers, GSK and Merck, only ever state they are ‘intended to’ or ‘expected to’ but it will be 20 years before we find out.

Cervarix is expected to prevent 2 strains of HPV, Gardasil 4 strains and Gardasil9 9 strains but there are over 170 strains of HPV with at least 40 involved in cancers but scientists expect other strains, potentially more lethal, to take the place of those which might be prevented by the vaccines.

The World Health Organisation has a database of adverse drug reports at vigiaccess.org. There are over 72,000 reports of adverse events with this vaccine, including 280 deaths, WHO also acknowledges only 10% get reported.

What is worse there have been several reports of VACCINATED girls as young as 18 developing cervical cancer.

Thank you Chloe for being so brave and helping to out the truth about this awful vaccine which is costing taxpayers hundreds of millions of pounds and filling our hospitals with severely disabled patients.

If you suspect your daughter, or son, have developed serious autoimmune diseases following vaccination please contact the UK Association of HPV Vaccine Injured Daughters (AHVID) for help


http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2017/02/13/national/crime-legal/suit-opens-tokyo-court-cervical-cancer-vaccine-side-effects/

/

Suit opens in Tokyo court over cervical cancer vaccine side effects

by

Staff Writer

Twenty-eight girls and women suffering what they say are side effects from cervical cancer vaccines that were recommended by the government demanded compensation from the state and drugmakers Monday as their trial opened at the Tokyo District Court.

The plaintiffs, ranging in age from 15 to 22, said they have experienced a wide range of health problems, including pain all over their bodies and impaired mobility, after receiving the human papillomavirus (HPV) vaccines between 2010 and 2013.

Each is demanding ¥15 million in damages.

Erina Sonoda, a 20-year-old college student, said she started to suffer strong menstrual pain after receiving the second of three recommended shots of the Cervarix vaccine, and the pain spread to other parts of her body after the third vaccination.

Due to agonizing pain, Sonoda said she has difficulty walking without a cane and often must use a wheelchair.

“I felt acute pain as if someone was squashing my internal organs. … Such conditions have only gotten worse,” Sonoda told the court while sitting in a wheelchair.

“I received the shots because the government recommended it,” she said. “I want the government to take seriously its responsibility for causing us (to suffer from) such symptoms.”

Since last July, a total of 119 plaintiffs have filed similar suits with courts in Tokyo, Nagoya, Osaka and Fukuoka, according to Masumi Minaguchi, a lawyer representing the women.

The government and the drugmakers — GlaxoSmithKline PLC and Merck Sharp & Dohme Corp., who make the HPV vaccines Cervarix and Gardasil, respectively — sought Monday to dismiss the compensation claims.

Representatives of the drugmakers said the safety and effectiveness of the medicines against cervical cancer have been scientifically confirmed and denied there is any link between the alleged side effects and the vaccines.

The Health, Labor and Welfare Ministry began recommending in April 2013 that girls between 12 and 16 be vaccinated for cervical cancer. But the ministry halted the recommendation two months later following reports of side effects.

According to the ministry, 2,945 people out of the 3.39 million women who had received the shots by the end of last April have reported side effects.

A causal link between the HPV vaccines and reported symptoms remains unclear, and no scientific proof has been submitted.

A nationwide survey conducted by a health ministry research team between July and December 2015 found symptoms claimed as side effects of cervical cancer vaccines in both vaccinated and unvaccinated populations.

The team is conducting further detailed analysis of the data.

Cervical cancer is the second most common cause of cancer deaths in women under 40. Each year about 10,000 women develop the disease in Japan and around 2,900 die annually, according to the National Cancer Center.

The primary cause of cervical cancer is human papillomavirus, a common infection transmitted through sexual intercourse. The cervical cancer vaccines are believed to help prevent HPV.

In December 2015, the World Health Organization issued a statement criticizing the government’s decision to cease recommending the vaccine, saying that “policy decisions based on weak evidence, leading to lack of use of safe and effective vaccines, can result in real harm.”