Tagged: Seroxat

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

Paroxetine Guinea Pig : The Curious Case Of Italia Sudano…


There was an interesting article, about Paroxetine and older adults, which appeared in the Guardian in 2003.

A woman called Italia Sudano (an Italian born/British resident) was apparently used as a Paroxetine (Paxil/Seroxat) guinea pig, by her GP (doctor) without her consent. Her doctor was (allegedly) paid by GSK too, and this was also all done without Sudano’s knowledge. The doctor in question, Dr Robert Adams, was struck off by the GMC (General Medical Counsel) after he was found guilty, of not just unethically pimping out his patients to GSK, but also for using several other patients as guinea pigs for various other drug companies and drugs too (not to mention making thousands of pounds in the process).

This case, is disturbing, and also remarkable, but what is stranger still is- how we heard nothing more about it, apart from the report in the Guardian at the time.

The reason why I bring this case up is, currently GSK are being sued in a court in the US by Wendy Dolin, for the death of her husband, Stewart Dolin, in a ‘Paxil Induced Suicide‘ case. The Dolin case centers on GSK’s dodgy Paroxetine trials, and in my opinion, Paroxetine should never have been licensed in the first place. GSK admit that Paroxetine is dangerous for under 18’s, however, many of us who have taken the drug, are highly aware that all ages can suffer from Paroxetine’s dangerous side effects. Side effects such as akathisia, de-personalization, volatility, suicidality etc are common among all age groups (GSK just don’t give us the full facts).

It would be interesting to find out- What data did GSK obtain from cases such as Sudano’s? Were the results of these (highly unethical) live human guinea pig trials ever seen by anyone outside of GSK? Will GSK present the findings in court, in cases such as Stewart Dolin’s? Were GSK receving data from any other GP’s in relation to Paroxetine testing on patients (with or without their consent) at the time, before it, or any time since? If so, what exactly was GSK trying to study by gleaning data from the case of a 72 year old Woman put on Paroxetine, without her consent, or knowledge , from her dodgy doctor? Did Italia Sudano take a legal case against her doctor? If so- did GSK provide information as to the significance of their Paroxetine testing on her?

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/09/health.nhs

Patients used as drug ‘guinea pigs’

Firms pay out millions to doctors to test medicines

When Italia Sudano went for a check-up with her GP, Dr Robert Adams, she was in good health. Her husband had died a few months earlier and her blood pressure was a little high.

Yet nothing could have prepared Sudano, 72, for the nightmare that was to follow and the discovery of a trail of greed and fraud that went right to the heart of the medical profession.

She was astonished to discover that her trusted GP had been using her as a guinea pig by giving her tablets which had not been medically approved. Worse still, he was being paid to do so by a pharmaceutical company.

An investigation by The Observer has revealed that many doctors are risking their patients’ health by subjecting them to medical trials without their knowledge.

Over the next few weeks Adams asked Sudano to return for more blood tests. By the end of the second month her arms were black and blue. Her son, Joe, said they looked as though they had been slammed in a door. She said: ‘At one point I asked if he was selling my blood.’

Little did Sudano know how close to the truth her comment was. On her last visit, Adams took a bottle of pills from the top drawer of his desk and suggested Sudano take one a day. While she thought it strange she wasn’t being given a prescription, she trusted her doctor.

But within hours of swallowing the pill, she could hardly walk because she was so dazed. Her face had swollen up badly and she was in considerable pain.

She stopped taking the tablets and complained to Hertfordshire Health Authority. This sparked an investigation that led to one of the largest cases of medical research fraud ever uncovered in Britain.

It emerged that over the previous five years Adams had earned more than £100,000 from drug companies, including the European giants AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline and Bayer. They were all paying him to test their new drugs on his patients. Like Sudano, many of his patients had never given their consent and had no knowledge they were being used as human guinea pigs in a medical trial. Patients with no symptoms were given drugs and others who needed proper medication were given placebos. Adams was receiving almost £1,000 for each patient.

Last month Adams was found guilty by the General Medical Council (GMC) of serious professional misconduct and suspended for 12 months. The GMC’s lawyer described it as ‘assault’ and Sudano is now looking to sue Adams.

GlaxoSmithKline was using Adams to study its anti-depressant Paroxetine, but had to cancel the trial at a cost of hundreds of thousands of pounds.

The drugs industry talks of bad apples and the odd errant doctor milking the system but insists that trials using GPs are essential for medical advances and that payment to doctors for the extra work involved is ethically correct.

But an investigation by The Observer suggests the problem of GPs using patients as guinea pigs without their consent is more widespread. Some 3,000 doctors each year are paid by drug firms to sign up their patients to tests and on average 15 patients are needed for each trial. With doctors picking up £1,000 per patient, drug companies are spending £45m on getting doctors onside. There is no suggestion the companies are implicated in moves to carry out the tests by doctors on patients secretly.

Medical fraud experts estimate that one per cent of all drug trials involve fraud, including failure to get proper consent from patients. This means hundreds of patients a year are being given unapproved and potentially dangerous drugs without their knowledge.

The Observer has discovered that in the last five years the GMC has taken action in a dozen cases involving GPs undertaking fraudulent research. Examples include:

· Dr Vasu Agrawal from Chigwell, Essex, removed samples of womb from menopausal women as part of a trial into a new hormone replacement drug called Divina Nova. Agrawal failed to tell the women they were testing a drug that could have serious side-effects. Agrawal, who forged signatures on consent forms, received almost £6,000 from Orion Pharma International.

· Dr Paul Chima from Edinburgh is estimated to have received more than £200,000 from a range of pharmaceutical companies for testing their new drugs for angina, asthma, high blood pressure and depression. He failed to warn patients of possible side-effects and offered one a £2,000 bribe not to give evidence against him.

· Dr James Boschler from south London was given £22,500 from Bayer and Solvay Healthcare. He claimed to have signed up 36 patients, but 25 of the consent forms were discovered to be forgeries.

The country’s foremost investigator of medical research fraud is Peter Jay, the former Metropolitan Police detective chief inspector who arrested serial killer Dennis Nilsen. Since 1996 Jay has run MedicoLegal Investigations, an independent body, and has taken 12 doctors to the GMC.

Jay is investigating six further cases, including one involving a GP in Manchester. Dr Mark Northfield is alleged not to have obtained consent from patients for entering them into trials to test drugs manufactured by Bayer and Roche to treat high blood pressure and heart problems. Northfield is contesting the allegations before the GMC professional conduct committee.

Jay said: ‘While the industry has become more alert to the problems over the last decade there is still clearly a worrying and persistent problem in research fraud involving doctors. This is not just an issue of patient safety, but a problem that might lead to bad drugs being approved or good drugs failing to be approved.’

The Observer’s revelations of the continuing problem of research fraud have sparked calls for industry guidelines to be toughened up. David Hinchcliffe, the Labour chair of the House of Commons Health Select Committee, described the situation as bordering on ‘scandalous’ and said his committee would look into the issue.

He said: ‘The relationship between the drug firms and the medical profession is one that needs to be thoroughly investigated. It is extremely worrying that patients’ trust is being abused by doctors who are more interested in making money from the pharmaceutical industry.’

Dr Evan Harris, health spokesman for the Liberal Democrats, suggested that doctors involved in trials should be subject to on-the-spot inspections and that a patient’s consent to take part in a drug trial should be given outside the GP’s surgery, for example to a research officer acting for the firm.

Additional research by Charlotte Coulon

antony.barnett@observer.co.uk

The Fiddaman Blog…


http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/03/glaxo-dont-want-jury-to-see-paxils.html

Glaxo Don’t Want Jury To See Paxil’s “illegitimate” Suicide Figures

http://www.facebook.com/plugins/like.php?href=http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2017/03/glaxo-dont-want-jury-to-see-paxils.html&layout=button_count&show_faces=false&width=100&%20action=like&font=arial&colorscheme=light

Yet another objection by GlaxoSmithKline in the eagerly awaited Dolin Vs GlaxoSmithKline Paxil induced suicide trial, set to begin next Tuesday in Chicago.

GSK, it appears, are now bitchin’ about evidence submitted by Wendy Dolin, the widow of Stewart Dolin, that shows how (in a previous trial) the testimony of former FDA employee Dr. Martin Brecher showed that stopping or discontinuing Paxil led to undesirable side effects. (In re Paxil, Case No. CV-01 07937 MRP (C.D. Cal.))

GSK’s objection states…

“Permitting Plaintiff Wendy Dolin to introduce Dr. Brecher’s testimony would be highly and unfairly prejudicial because the jury would be left with the incorrect impression that FDA determined that GSK’s reporting of suicides and suicide attempts in the Paxil NDA was “scientifically illegitimate.”

During Brecher’s original deposition, taken almost 14 years ago, it was learned that Brecher, whilst employed at the FDA, told Glaxo (then SmithKline Beecham) officials that “Paxil was dangerously addictive.” (1)

Glaxo are also objecting to this evidence being submitted in the Dolin trial because, “…the prior case involved a different subject matter than this case.”

Brecher, whilst under oath was also questioned about the suicide figures relating to patients taking Paxil. Here’s part of that deposition. Keyword here is “illegitimate.”

You’ll note that GSK’s attorney’s cite the same thing when Brecher is being asked questions that forms part of their objection in the Dolin case, ergo “It has absolutely nothing to do with this litigation.”

Q (by Mr. Farber): Now, you had the NDA that was submitted in November of ’89 and you took over the job in January of ’90, correct. So you had had – this is prior to the Teicher article now in January by month at least and the NDA had been submitted two months earlier. That NDA had suicide tables and data; did it not?

A: Yes.

Q: And did you through a matter of course in your regular routine review that suicide data?

A: I believe I did.

[Objection and colloquy omitted]

Q: So the data on suicide that you had when the NDA – let’s basically — That will be Exhibit 15.
[Colloquy omitted]

Q: Take a look at that for a minute. Ready?

A: Uh-humm.

Q: Now this table Roman numeral 11.21 talks about attempted suicides and overdoses, Worldwide Data. And at the bottom it indicates the Par safety summary of 10 November of 1989. And you’ll notice up in the right-hand corner of the Worldwide Data that it has all the population that we talked about earlier that you believed I was telling you the truth and I am, the one that says 2,963 under Paroxetine, 1,151 and 554 respectively for placebo; do you see that?

A: Uh-humm.

Q: Okay. Now, here we have attempted suicides on the top line that are further broken down into drug overdose and I’ll save you the time by figuring this out and it’s to their benefit anyway, so the drug overdose category is within the top category, it’s not – it’s not in addition to, it’s a subset of attempted suicides. And my question is the asterisk of two overdoses during the placebo run-in, you see the asterisk on the side, and of the overdoses, attempted suicide, two were – occurred during the run-in period. Let me ask you this: Based on your procedures at FDA – first of all, let – let me back up a minute. Based on your procedures at the FDA, what is a run-in period?

A: Prior to randomization subjects are discontinued from their old medication and given placebo usually for about a week, sometimes shorter.

Q: And how about wash-out, same?

A: That — that period also washes out their previous medication.

Q: So the terms are effectively synonymous for the purposes of …

A: (No verbal response.)

Q: Okay, now, based on FDA procedure and I’ll even elevate that to scientific procedure that you understood scientific procedure to be when you were at the FDA, is it scientifically legitimate to count a suicidal act occurring during wash-out and run-in to the placebo count?

[GSK COUNSEL]: Object to the form of the question. It has absolutely nothing to do with this litigation.

MR. FARBER: You’re going to see a connection if you’re patient here.

A: No, because everybody got placebo.

Q: So it’s scientifically illegitimate way to count, correct?

A: Yeah.

So, it appears that the current crop of Glaxo attorneys involved in defending Paxil in a suicide trial don’t want this evidence seen by a jury, just as the old crop of Glaxo attorneys didn’t want the jury in a Paxil addiction case to see evidence of Paxil induced suicide.

Begs the question; what exactly do Glaxo want the jury to see, just their evidence? A case of having their cake and eating it, perhaps?

The Paxil addiction lawsuit was settled out of court, over 3,000 plaintiffs received a compensatory award (figure unknown)

In the UK, consumers of Paxil (known as Seroxat) have been waiting almost 10 years to find out if they can press ahead and sue GlaxoSmithKline with regard to severe adverse reactions caused by Seroxat. In a recent pre-trial judgment the UK Plaintiffs were told that the outcome of the class action in the USA has no relevance to the UK cases. Glaxo had previously objected that the UK Courts did not need to know this. (2)

A strange judgment given that the relevance is in the word ‘Withdrawal’. Nonetheless, the UK consumers still battle on.

Opening arguments in the Dolin trial commence Tues, March 14 in Chicago. I’ll be writing daily reports on the events.

Bob Fiddaman.

(1) “Paxil was dangerously addictive.”
(2) SANDRA BAILEY & OTHERS Vs GLAXOSMITHKLINE (UK) LIMITED 01/03/2017

Doin v GSK back stories.

Hello To The World Health Organization (WHO)…


I get views regularly from organizations as diverse as the WHO (World Health Organization) and the MHRA, to the US government and the European Medicines Authority. It’s interesting that the WHO were viewing today, because it was back in 2002, that the WHO reported that Paroxetine (Seroxat/Paxil) topped the list of withdrawal symptoms for SSRI drugs.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/1382551.stm

 

“Dr Healy told BBC News Online, of the 100m people world-wide who were on Seroxat, one in 1,000 could have a suicidal reaction.”

Withdrawal problems

A World Health Organization report which ranked antidepressants in order of withdrawal problems found Seroxat was the hardest to come off.

 

Stat: New rule on clinical trial reporting doesn’t go far enough


The clinical trial industry, which I work in, is in crisis.

Roughly half of clinical trials go unreported. Industry-sponsored trials are four times more likely to produce positive results than non-industry trials. And even when trials are reported, the investigators usually fail to share their study results: nearly 90 percent of trials on ClinicalTrials.gov lack results.

Failure to report clinical trial results puts patients in danger. Here’s one example of that: GlaxoSmithKline, the maker of the antidepressant Paxil, recently paid $3 billion for failing to disclose trial data showing that Paxil was not only no more effective than placebo but was also linked to increased suicide attempts among teenagers. The effectiveness of statins, the Tamiflu anti-flu medicine, antipsychotics, and other drugs have come under question due to improperly reported data. Without complete disclosure of trial results, physicians can’t make informed decisions for their patients.

A recently passed final rule from the Department of Health and Human Services now requires that all NIH-sponsored clinical trials be reported on ClinicalTrials.gov. A complementary policy from the National Institutes of Health covers registering and submitting summary results information to ClinicalTrials.gov for all NIH-funded trials, including those not covered by the final rule.

Unreported trials are subject to daily fines of $11,833. Researchers have 90 days after the rule is enacted on January 18, 2017 to comply with it. Excellent summaries of the rule have been published by the NIH and in the New England Journal of Medicine.

The final rule should help address some of the troubling trends in the clinical trial industry. It clears up ambiguous reporting requirements and explicitly requires investigators to submit clinical trial results, adverse events, and statistical methods. These are steps in the right direction that could limit the unscientific practices plaguing the trial industry.

But the final rule doesn’t go far enough, mainly because FDA lacks the staff and the political will to adequately enforce it. As STAT reported in December 2015, the FDA had never levied a single fine for clinical trial reporting violations. Representatives from the FDA cite legal complexities and lack of employees, yet critics have also pointed out the FDA is effectively on the pharmaceutical industry’s payroll. Under the Prescription Drug User Fee Act, the FDA supplements its budget by charging pharmaceutical companies drug application fees that totaled $855 million in fiscal year 2015.

The current FDA commissioner, Dr. Robert Califf, has said that the FDA will not be adding staff to enforce the final rule. That’s a mistake. How else can we expect the rule to be enforced? I work in a research group that conducts more than a dozen clinical trials and know firsthand that researchers don’t have the impetus to report their trials unless there are strong incentives to do so — like enforcement and the threat of fines.

In a perfect world, the FDA would receive more funding to hire employees so it could independently enforce this policy. In the meantime, researchers can check the reporting practices of their own institutions or sign a petition to support the Alltrials campaign. Another project called OpenTrials, a collaboration between Open Knowledge International and the University of Oxford Data Lab, aims to “locate, match, and share all publicly accessible data and documents, on all trials conducted, on all medicines and other treatments, globally.” It is seeking volunteers to contribute clinical trial data.

I know from personal experience that clinical trial reporting can be tedious and seemingly unrewarding work. But the transparent exchange of scientific data is integral to evidence-based medicine and public health. While the new final rule is a step in the right direction, the public and the research community also need to support efforts like AllTrials and OpenTrials.

Chris Cai is a clinical research coordinator at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.

Courtney Dunkin… Prescribed Paxil (Seroxat/Aropax/Paroxetine) When She Was 14…


Interesting case of another Paxil (Seroxat) induced homicide. How many vulnerable teens (and young people) were prescribed Paxil and then subsequently went on to commit Paxil induced crimes, and how many lost their lives?

Does GSK keep track?…


https://ssristories.org/15-year-old-girl-kills-grandmother-13-years-ago-life-sentence/

Ask TX Governor to pardon Courtney Dunkin, 15 y.o. convicted as adult while taking Paxil.

Courtney Dunkin was a mere 15 years old when she fatally shot her adopted mother, Betty Dunkin, while she was under the influence, and suffering from involuntary intoxication, due to the harmful anti-depressant Paxil (Paroxetine).  She was tried as an adult and wrongfully sentenced, due to lack of evidence, to Life in prison in the TX. Dept. of Criminal Justice.

It wouldn’t be until 2003 when the evidence she needed to prove her innocence would arise.  Courtney had been hospitalized in 1994 for depression and prescribed the drug Paxil, which had unknown side effects at that time.  A later study conducted by the FDA in 2003 proved that Paxil must NEVER be prescribed to children under the age of 18, as it was proven to increase the risk of suicidal ideation and behavior in children, as well as many other dangerous/harmful side-effects. This drug, which was supposed to save Courtney’s life as it helped her past fragile teenage years, became the main cause of destroying her life.  By 2003 it would be far too late to bring this evidence to the Court in Courtney’s defense.

After the FDA declared their study about the medicine which would prove that Courtney was not responsible for her own actions nor in a lucid state of mind, she faced another harsh twist in the story of her life: her appeals had been exhausted and only the trial officials (Judge, Sherriff, District Attorney, and State Governor) can grant her relief regarding this new evidence.

Courtney was a typical teenager who was living in a state of emotional disturbance because of a troubled family life.  He father was an alcoholic and having been abandoned by her mother, she was adopted by her paternal grandparents, John and Betty Dunkin, at the age of 5.  Then shortly afterwards, at the age of 11, she suffered the loss of her grandfather – the only father she had ever known – to cancer, and her life shattered.

In a downward spiral of suicidal despair, she shot her mother, and then sought to run away and commit suicide.  Never once did she realize that the very medication she was taking is what caused those destructive thoughts.

Upon her arrest she was lost and confused with no guardian, no parental guidance, nor any knowledge of her rights or the juvenile legal system.  Police and investigators used this naiveté to their advantage despite Courtney’s pleas that she didn’t know why she had done what she did and that she was obviously mentally disturbed and suicidal.  Instead they painted a picture of her as a remorseless, cold-hearted monster and created a motive that they knew would garner a conviction.  Instead of helping a mentally ill little girl, they only served to hurt her further.

Heartbroken and remorseful for her actions as a child and, 20 yrs. later, armed with the knowledge of the harmful side-effects of the medication she was taking, Courtney has managed to make sense of how such a horrible tragedy could occur.  Courtney doesn’t want the dangerous effects of this drug to go un-noticed or for any other children to be subjected to the awful experiences she has.

Courtney’s mental state and the influence of this poisonous drug should be brought to the attention of the Courts.  Had this evidence been available during her trial in 1995, the outcome would likely have been very different.  Please sign her petition today, ask friends, family, co-workers to sign also to help Courtney get the attention she needs from officials to grant her the freedom and second chance that she deserves.

Mailing Address
Office of the Governor
P.O. Box 12428
Austin, Texas 78711-2428

Mailing Address
Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles
P. O. Box 13401
Austin, Texas 78711-3401
Email: bpp-pio@tdcj.texas.gov


https://ssristories.org/15-year-old-girl-kills-grandmother-13-years-ago-life-sentence/

Grapevine woman: Emotional distress caused her to kill grandmother — (Star-Telegram)

Original article no longer available

Star-Telegram

May 26, 2008

By DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR., Star-Telegram Staff Writer

S-T/KELLEY CHINN

Courtney Dunkin, 29, speaks to a Star-Telegram reporter at the Hobby Unit in Marlin. She is serving a life sentence for killing her grandmother in 1994 when she was 15.

MARLIN — The young woman sat talking in a soft voice, her long, dark brown hair on her shoulders at the prison unit where she’s serving a life sentence. Tears came as Courtney Dunkin talked about her grandmother — the 63-year-old woman Dunkin was convicted of fatally shooting in the head in 1994 at their home in Grapevine.

She’s been in custody for 14 years. She will be eligible for parole on May 26, 2034.

“I’d give anything to turn back time,” she said. “I just wish it hadn’t happened.”

Dunkin leaned forward as she held the telephone tighter in the interview room where glass separates visitors and inmates.

“I wasn’t angry at her,” she said. “I don’t know why it happened.”

Of the 1,293 female inmates at the Texas Department of Criminal Justice’s Hobby Unit, Dunkin is one of the youngest killers. She was 15 when she shot the woman who raised her and whom she called Mom. She’s now 29 and spoke out for the first time one recent morning about the events leading up to the killing of Betty Dunkin. She declined to talk about details of the slaying.

Childhood

Courtney Dunkin went to live with her paternal grandparents, John and Betty Dunkin, when she was 5. Her parents had divorced; her father was an alcoholic, and relatives didn’t talk about her mother.

Shortly after moving to Grapevine, she began attending Dove Elementary and was diagnosed with attention-deficit (hyperactivity) disorder. School friends would occasionally spend the night, but she spent many hours with her grandfather, who owned a construction company and had a flexible schedule allowing time for her. Her grandmother worked days at General Motors and prepared dinner when she got home.

In 1989, John Dunkin died of cancer, leaving Courtney Dunkin, then 11, shattered.

“I knew he was sick, but no one told me he might die,” she said. “I didn’t have anyone to talk to about it. I would try to talk to Mom about it, but she would just cry.”

Teenage problems

As her grief lingered, Courtney Dunkin entered Grapevine Middle School. She started to wear black clothing and decorated her room in black. Troubles — sassing, tardiness and detention — at school started to mount. Arguments with her grandmother increased, and Courtney Dunkin became known to police.

“It seems that when we would be questioning some suspects at an apartment or at a house, there was Courtney,” recently retired Grapevine police Detective Bob Murphy said. “We got to know her name.”

Betty Dunkin’s answer to her granddaughter’s problems was counseling: at school, at hospitals and with family therapists, Courtney Dunkin said. Betty Dunkin also joined ToughLove, a support group that helps parents with out-of-control children.

About that time, Courtney Dunkin said, she was prescribed Paxil, an antidepressant on which she would intentionally overdose on a few occasions. In 2004, the Food and Drug Administration began requiring its strongest label warning for Paxil and other antidepressants because they increase the risk of suicidal thinking and behavior in children.

Dunkin says she was suicidal at the time of her grandmother’s death and irrational because of the medication and the death of her grandfather.

Before the shooting

Police reports indicate that the teen ran away several times in the weeks before the shooting; Dunkin says it was only once.

“I’d miss my curfew, and Mom called the police,” Dunkin said. “Many times I’d be home in an hour, but police still listed me as a runaway.”

Two months before the slaying, Dunkin was arrested for theft after stealing jewelry from her grandmother, she said. She was sentenced to a year’s probation. A few weeks later, authorities fitted her with an ankle monitor after she was driving illegally and became involved in a traffic accident.

The shooting

On the night of May 26, 1994, Dunkin and Jamie Hatfield, 16, who was her best friend, talked on the telephone about killing Hatfield’s boyfriend, police said.

But the focus shifted to Dunkin’s grandmother and how they could get her car so they could run away, according to court records. Dunkin got off the phone and took two gas credit cards and all the money in her grandmother’s purse. Then she took a key to her grandfather’s gun case, removed a .38-caliber pistol and took it to her room.

Dunkin phoned Hatfield, who suggested chopping up pills and putting them in her grandmother’s food so she would go to sleep and they could take the car.

Dunkin hung up and walked into her grandmother’s bedroom, according to court records.

She gave this statement to Murphy: “I hid the gun behind my back and walked into my mom’s room, and we talked for a minute, and I shot her. When I shot the gun, I saw sparks, and it was so loud that my ears were ringing, and I felt deaf. The smell was really bad and followed me into the car, and it made me sick.”

Dunkin spent the rest of the night at Hatfield’s home, but the next morning Hatfield’s mother sensed that something was wrong, police said.The three of them went to the Dunkin home and found the body, police said. The girls were arrested hours later.

“It all happened so fast,” Courtney Dunkin said of the shooting. “I didn’t realize what I’d done. They [police] wanted a motive, and I didn’t know why. I didn’t want to tell them that I was suicidal.”

After the slaying

Hatfield was convicted of aggravated robbery in July 1996 and sentenced to five years in prison. She was released July 16, 1999, according to prison records.

She has also been involved in a prison program for at-risk kids who spend a day at the prison in hopes that they will be discouraged from crime.

Old school friends still visit Dunkin; her father hasn’t been there in years. Her mother, whom she almost never saw as a child, stopped writing to her a few years ago when Dunkin learned that she had half-siblings and wanted to get in touch with them.

For parents with troubled children, Dunkin offered one bit of advice.

“Even if they roll their eyes, communicate with them,” she said. “Just don’t listen and then walk away. Talk to them.”
DOMINGO RAMIREZ JR. 817-685-3822  ramirez@star-telegram.com

Brilliant New Post From Bob Fiddaman: “GSK China Bought Patient’s Silence for $9,000″…


As usual, Mr. Fiddaman hits the nail on the head…


 

http://fiddaman.blogspot.ie/2016/11/gsk-china-bought-patients-silence-for.html

Wednesday, November 09, 2016

GSK China Bought Patient’s Silence for $9,000

A truly fascinating read regarding the corruption in China, all committed by the hand of British based pharmaceutical giant, GlaxoSmithKline.

The New York Times (NYT) recently ran a superb article regarding GSK’s nefarious activities in China, activities that saw them plead guilty, a result of which saw them being handed down a $500 million dollar fine.

The article by David Barboza, although brilliant, is tantalizing, in as much that The Times claims to have in its possession emails and documents, none of which they have provided, at least in their entirety.

The China scandal is a story of greed, corruption, cover-ups, bribery and pay-offs, all combined with a sex scandal video and a company burying it’s head in the sand over its China practices – preferring instead to go after the person who blew the whistle on the whole sordid affair.

It’s a subject I covered many times on this blog (Links at the foot of this post) and one that seems to be rehashed with additions on a regular basis.

The Times article throws out some very interesting facts about the case that were previously kept under wraps – one such fact being that they (The Times) have evidence that “Glaxo “almost killed one patient by illegally marketing its drug Lamictal,” said the email, which was obtained by The Times. “GSK China bought the patient’s silence for $9,000.””

Glaxo buying a patient’s silence? Surely not?

There was me thinking they only did that in litigation, Paxil withdrawal (Over 3,000 patients ‘paid off’) – Paxil Birth defects (Over 800 patients ‘paid off’)

So, who was the patient in receipt of Glaxo’s $9,000, moreover, what did this patient have that GSK didn’t want others to see?

According to the NYT…

The email was one of nearly two dozen that the whistle-blower sent over the course of 17 months to Chinese regulators, Glaxo executives and the company’s auditor, PricewaterhouseCoopers.

In 2012 Glaxo plead guilty to a whole host of violations throughout America, the guilty plea resulted in a record breaking fine of $3 billion. At the time, Glaxo Chief, Andrew Witty, pledged, “We’re determined this is never going to happen again.”

Witty, who had been made aware of the unfolding stench in China shortly after the 2012 guilty plea in the US, is stepping down from his CEO position in April next year – It’s quite a legacy he has left behind, one which he took over from former Chief, JP Garnier who, in essence, oversaw the corruption in America and left Witty to suck up the fallout.

What an abhorrent company this is. Corruption, bribery (of officials and patients) and the manufacturer of prescription meds that have either killed people or disfigured them in such a way that they need to continue having surgery for the rest of their lives. Let’s not forget those that have suffered as a result of becoming addicted to GSK’s medications either.

The Times article also digs deeper into the involvement of Mark Reilly, who, at the time, was Head of GSK’s China operations. They claim…

An email alleged that Mr. Reilly, a British national who had helped manage the company’s China operation for four years, was complicit in a bribery scheme tied to a travel agency called China Comfort Travel, or C.C.T. According to the email, Glaxo funneled money through the travel agency to pay off doctors. The travel agency also supplied Mr. Reilly with women, as a way to secure that business.

“In order to acquire more business, C.C.T. bribed Mark Reilly, the general manager of GSK (China) with sex,” the email said. “Mark Reilly accepted this bribery and made C.C.T. get the maximized benefits in return.”

That’s some perk to have!  China Comfort Travel bring a whole new meaning to the word ‘comfort’.

Any jobs going whereby the employer offers a bonus of playing hide the salami?

I’m sure red-blooded males would have been first in-line for such a job working for a company complicit in fraudulent activities. Sadly, for those red-blooded males at least, Reilly was offered (and took) the perk – I wonder if he claimed for the 15 minutes of overtime too? (Assuming that Reilly could last that long in the sack)

When faced with over 17 months of emails from the whistleblower Glaxo decided to seek help, they did so by hiring a private investigator, Peter Humphrey and his wife, Yu Yingzeng.

Humphrey did some digging and, at the time, provided information to Glaxo that pointed to the possible whistleblower. Vivian Shi, was a 47-year-old executive handling government affairs in Glaxo’s Shanghai office, I say former because she was previously fired by GSK for their belief (Before Humphrey was hired) that she was behind the whistleblowing allegations. The ‘official’ line of her dismissal was that she had been falsifying travel expenses.

Humphrey, it appears, was merely suggesting that Shi may have been involved – he, at no time, ever provided GSK with any evidence that their former executive was the one who was whistleblowing. Shi, who remember had already left GSK, denied any part in the whole Chinagate scandal.

During his investigations Humphrey obtained information that was deemed to be by false means according to Chinese officials. Both he and his wife were later arrested, charged then sent to prison. Meantime, Reilly, who was the mastermind of the whole scam, was sent back home to the UK – No jail time. It’s unknown what Reilly is doing today, presumably he doesn’t work for GSK in any capacity, although I wouldn’t put it past them to re-hire him, just as they did with Vivian Shi, the very person they had fired because they thought she was the one blowing the whistle on its Chinese operations.

Remarkably, GSK re-hired Shi last year, although it is unclear in what capacity. (See Glaxo and Former Whistleblower Suspect Reunite)

GSK must be a truly great company to work for, not only do they offer, by proxy, free blowjobs to heads of operations but they re-hire you after previously sacking you for, ahem, “falsifying travel expenses.”

The Times article is a must read and once again highlights how GSK prefer to target people who bring the company’s misdemeanors to their attention rather than target the person carrying out the misdemeanors.

GSK Corporate motto claims, “We are dedicated to improving the quality of human life by enabling people to do more, feel better, live longer.” – I just never knew this included blowjobs via complicit bribery deals – the re-hiring after breaking rules – and buying patients silence.

Nice job (blow) Glaxo!

Bob Fiddaman

Back Stories

Glaxo – The Sex Tape Scandal

GSK’s Mark Reilly Accused of Running a “massive bribery network”

I’m Just a Blogger – Here’s GSK Served on Prawn Crackers

GSK Hiked Product Prices to Fund Bribery Scam

GSK’s Sales Reps Want Their Money Back

GSK’s Private Investigator [The Video]

Peter Humphrey’s 2012 Presentation – Pharma Bribery

GSK’s Chinese Whispers and David Cameron

“GSK were really cagey”, Claims Whitehall Official.

Glaxo Hire Ropes & Gray to Delve Into its Chinese Operations.

GSK CHINA – Bribery was Rife 13 Years Ago

Witty Plays Down China Scandal

Witty Witty Bang Wang. The Glaxo Gangbang…Allegedly

Book Your Holidays With GSK Travel

Andrew Witty… I know narrrrrrrrthing

The Penny Drops for GSK’s Private Investigator.

Seroxat, Alcohol And Violence…


Seroxat and alcohol are a dangerous combination…


http://www.chroniclelive.co.uk/news/north-east-news/lucky-alive-teenager-stabbed-choked-12096607

 

“The combination of alcohol and Seroxat resulted in him behaving in this totally uncharacteristic fashion. He has no recollection of it.”

 

Lucky to be alive: Teenager was stabbed, choked, battered and pushed in bath water by partner

The 18-year-old was dealing with the tragic loss of her unborn baby when her boyfriend launched a ferocious attack after they had been to a funeral

  • 549 shares

Aiden O'Brien, jailed for seven years for wounding with intent on his girlfriend
Aiden O’Brien, jailed for seven years for wounding with intent on his girlfriend

Stabbed, choked, battered and pushed into bath water, a teenager is lucky to be alive after a savage attack at the hands of her boyfriend.

Chloe Hogarth was mourning the tragic loss of her unborn baby along with partner, Aiden O’Brien, and they had been to a funeral on the day of the attack.

After drinking vodka despite being on strong medication, O’Brien suddenly turned nasty when they returned home and launched a ferocious, unprovoked attack.

A court heard he grabbed Chloe’s throat so hard she couldn’t breathe, banged her head off the floor and walls, pushed her under water in the bath, punched and kicked her, stotted her head off hard objects, swiped across her throat with a knife then stuck it into her abdomen as he strangled her and said “You are going to die”.

The petrified 18-year-old suffered multiple injuries, had to be resuscitated and needed emergency surgery to remove her gallbladder and a doctor said if the blade had been just 1cm away from where it was, or had been at a slightly different angle, there would have been a significant risk of death.

Such was the severity of the attack, O’Brien’s own dog went for him during the onslaught.

Now the 25-year-old has been jailed for seven years at Newcastle Crown Court after he admitted wounding with intent.

Mr Recorder Wheeler told him: “This was an extremely violent and nasty assault.

“The injuries could easily have been life-threatening, if not life-ending.

“It was more by good luck than anything that the knife stopped where it did rather than somewhere else where it would have resulted in the end of her life.

“In my view there was no doubt in her mind she thought she was going to die that day.”

The court heard the attack happened on March 23 this year.

Prosecutor David Crook said: “There had been a funeral and the defendant was with his 18-year-old partner, who was equally grieving.”

They returned to the home in Bedlington, Northumberland, where they were living, along with O’Brien’s mother.

After having a bath, O’Brien then began making unpleasant remarks about Chloe’s family and she told him to stop being nasty.

Mr Crook said: “That brought about an attack by the defendant.

“He grabbed her by the throat and began to choke her to the point she couldn’t breathe and he banged her head off the floor and walls.

“He dragged her to the bathroom and the bath water was still in there. He pushed her into that bath and tried to push her under the water and she was struggling to keep her head out of the water.

“He then hit her head against the toilet and sink.”

The attack then moved to the kitchen, where it continued.

Mr Crook said: “He punched and kicked her and hit her head off the bench in the kitchen.

“At one point the defendant’s dog was so distressed, the dog went for the defendant.”

Chloe managed to run out of the house but he chased her down and continued the attack in the garden, repeatedly banging her head off the concrete.

She grabbed him between the legs in a valiant attempt to get away and ran towards a local church.

Mr Crook said: “He caught up and grabbed her round the throat, then held a knife to her throat and swiped it back and forward across her throat.

“He then stabbed her to the abdomen and began to strangle her again, said ‘You are going to die’, and threatened to blind her with ammonia and make her drink it.”

By now badly injured and bloodied, Chloe bravely managed to grab him between the legs again and got away.

She collapsed and was taken to hospital, where she was resuscitated and found to have various injuries, the most serious being a perforated gallbladder, which had to be removed.

Mr Crook said: “The doctor said it was 1cm away from a significant risk of mortality.

“This could easily have been a fatal injury had it been more forceful or at a slighly different angle.”

O’Brien, of King’s Road, Bedlington, pleaded guilty to wounding with intent and an unrelated affray from January.

He was jailed for seven years and given an indefinite restraining order banning him from contacting Chloe.

Tom Finch, defending, said the pair had enjoyed a good relationship before the attack and told how Chloe had to have a termination on Boxing Day last year.

Mr Finch said: “That was a termination that both parents agreed should take place, not least because of the significant problems with the pregnancy and the fact the child, were it to have gone full term, would have been very very seriously disabled.

“The fact that within weeks of the termination, this man tried to take his own life with an overdose, puts very much into the picture the vulnerable state he was in.

At this time the defendant was on two forms of medication.

“After the funeral he and his girlfriend were both drinking and had drank to excess and that resulted in him behaving in a wholly uncharacteristic manner.

“The combination of alcohol and Seroxat resulted in him behaving in this totally uncharacteristic fashion. He has no recollection of it.”

 

The Paxil/Seroxat Study 329 Story In 2016: Project Censored : Downplayed stories illuminate larger patterns in inequality, spying, the environment and corporate influence ..


http://www.sfreporter.com/santafe/article-12640-project-censored.html

Crisis in Evidence-Based Medicine

The role of science in improving human health has been one of humanity’s greatest achievements, but the profit-oriented influence of the pharmaceutical industry has created a crisis situation. That research simply cannot be trusted. Burying truth for profit is a recurrent theme for Project Censored. The top story in 1981 concerned fraudulent testing from a single lab responsible for one-third of the toxicity and cancer testing of chemicals in America. But this problem is much more profound.

“Something has gone fundamentally wrong,” said Richard Horton, editor of The Lancet, commenting on a UK symposium on the reproducibility and reliability of biomedical research: “Much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue. Afflicted by studies with small sample sizes, tiny effects, invalid exploratory analyses and flagrant conflicts of interest, together with an obsession for pursuing fashionable trends of dubious importance, science has taken a turn towards darkness. … The apparent endemicity of bad research behavior is alarming.”

Horton’s conclusion echoed that of Marcia Angell, a former editor of the New England Journal of Medicine, who went public in 2009.

A classic case was Study 329 in 2001, which reported that paroxetine (Paxil in the United States and Seroxat in the United Kingdom) was safe and effective for treating depressed children and adolescents, leading doctors to prescribe Paxil to more than 2 million US children and adolescents by the end of 2002 before being called into question. The company responsible (now GlaxoSmithKline) agreed to pay $3 billion in 2012, the “largest healthcare fraud settlement in US history,” according to the US Department of Justice.

Nonetheless, the study has not been retracted or corrected, and “none of the authors have been disciplined,” Project Censored points out. This, despite a major reanalysis which “‘starkly’ contradicted the original report’s claims.” The reanalysis was seen as the first major success of a new open data initiative known as Restoring Invisible and Abandoned Trials.

While Project Censored noted one Washington Post story on the reanalysis, there was only passing mention of the open data movement. “Otherwise, the corporate press ignored the reassessment of the paroxetine study,” and beyond that, “Richard Horton’s Lancet editorial received no coverage in the US corporate press.”

Source: The Lancet 385, no. 9976, 2015; Cooper, Charlie, “Anti-Depressant was Given to Millions of Young People ‘After Trials Showed It was Dangerous,’” The Independent, 2015; Boseley, Sarah, “Seroxat Study Under-Reported Harmful Effects on Young People, Say Scientists,” The Guardian, 2015.