Tagged: Suicide

Stewart Dolin’s Doctor Says (about Paxil) : ““I don’t trust the labeling,” he said. “I don’t trust the company, to be honest.”…


And why would he?

Why would anybody trust GSK? Would you trust a felon?

The Dolin trial opened a can of worms about Paxil/Seroxat, suicidality and akathisia which GSK would rather remained tightly in the can. It’s too late now though, the worms are already out…

See Dr. David Healy’s excellent new post about wider implications of the Stewart Dolin Paxil induced suicide trial.


“……The regulatory history of Paxil and the other SSRI’s was almost Byzantine.   For years they carried no warnings of a risk for suicide.  In 2004, after thousands of troubling reports, a Black Box warning was finally issued for children and adolescents.  A number of medical experts felt the warning should apply with equal urgency to adults.

However, in 2007, the FDA decided on a uniform warning for all antidepressants, old and new.  This was the “24 and under” label attached to both brand-name and generic Paxil in 2010.  This suited GSK just fine.  The FDA invited the company to discuss whether additional warnings were needed for Paxil, but GSK never took them up on it.

More importantly, it never fully shared with the FDA—and still less with doctors in the community—what it knew about the real risks of its product.  In fact, GSK had known since 1989 that its drug could trigger akathisia, an agonizing combination of physical restlessness and emotional turmoil that could lead to suicide.  The risk applied to both teenagers and adults; at least twenty suicides had occurred in patients on Paxil in clinical trials, the majority of them in people over age thirty…..”


https://davidhealy.org/change-in-chicago-dr-welby-on-the-witness-stand/

Change in Chicago:  Dr. Welby on the Witness Stand

May, 15, 2017 | 8 Comments

Chris Cornell’s Wife Issues Statement, Blames Anxiety Medicine for Suicide


Interesting article about the death of Soundgarden lead singer, Chris Cornell. I loved Soundgarden when I was a teenager. RIP Chris,

http://www.rollingstone.com/music/news/chris-cornells-wife-issues-statement-w483179

 

Statement, Blames Anxiety Medicine for Suicide

“When we spoke after the show, I noticed he was slurring his words,” Vicky Cornell says. “He was different”

Vicky Cornell, the wife of Soundgarden singer Chris Cornell, issued a statement Friday morning where she remembered her late husband, who died Thursday morning at the age of 52, and speculated whether his suicide was the result of taking too much of his anxiety medication.

“Chris’s death is a loss that escapes words and has created an emptiness in my heart that will never be filled. As everyone who knew him commented, Chris was a devoted father and husband. He was my best friend,” Vicky wrote.

“His world revolved around his family first and, of course, his music second. He flew home for Mother’s Day to spend time with our family. He flew out mid-day Wednesday, the day of the show, after spending time with the children. When we spoke before the show, we discussed plans for a vacation over Memorial Day and other things we wanted to do.”

However, following Soundgarden’s concert Wednesday night, Vicky noticed a change in her husband’s demeanor when they talked on the phone after the show.

“When we spoke after the show, I noticed he was slurring his words; he was different. When he told me he may have taken an extra Ativan or two, I contacted security and asked that they check on him,” she continued. “What happened is inexplicable and I am hopeful that further medical reports will provide additional details. I know that he loved our children and he would not hurt them by intentionally taking his own life.”

An attorney for the Cornell family, Kirk Pasich, reiterated Vicky’s belief that an extra dosage of Ativan, an anxiety medication often employed by recovering addicts, altered Chris Cornell’s mental faculties after the Detroit show. Pasich added that the Cornell family is “disturbed at inferences that Chris knowingly and intentionally took his life.”

“Without the results of toxicology tests, we do not know what was going on with Chris — or if any substances contributed to his demise,” Pasich said. “Chris, a recovering addict, had a prescription for Ativan and may have taken more Ativan than recommended dosages. The family believes that if Chris took his life, he did not know what he was doing, and that drugs or other substances may have affected his actions.”

Pasich added that side effects of Ativan include “paranoid or suicidal thoughts, slurred speech and impaired judgment”; Vicky Cornell noted her husband’s slurred speech following the Detroit concert in her statement.

She added, “The outpouring of love and support from his fans, friends and family means so much more to us than anyone can know. Thank you for that, and for understanding how difficult this is for us.”

Hours after Cornell’s death at a Detroit hotel, a medical examiner’s report confirmed that the singer had died by suicide.

Chris Cornell, lead singer for Soundgarden, has died at age 52. Watch here.

Paxil-Aropax-Seroxat And Other SSRI’s Caused Suicidal Thoughts In Children..


The same in adults..

same in all ages..

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4431472/Anti-depressants-caused-suicidal-thoughts-children.html

 

EXCLUSIVE: ‘Daddy, please kill me I can’t do this any more’: Meet the CHILDREN prescribed anti-depressants for anxiety that ‘made them suicidal’ – as scores of parents join in a class action

  •  Two mothers have spoken out about their children’s adverse reactions to the anti-depressant drugs
  •  Sydney mother Donna’s son Seth went on anti-depressants when he was five and he is now 10 years of age
  •  Mel’s daughter Maiya, from Brisbane went on anti-depressants seven years ago, when she was six years old
  • The concerned mothers claimed their young children suffered from suicidal symptoms  

A mother who watched as her 10-year-old son rocked in a corner of his room begging for someone to kill him to end his misery has revealed how anti-depressants turned her ‘gentle, loving’ son into angry and suicidal young boy.

Sydney mother Donna is one of dozens of people involved in a class action over the use of ‘adult’ antidepressants in children in Australia.

The concerned mother spoke to Daily Mail Australia from beside her son Seth’s hospital bed on Friday after he was admitted for psychiatric care following multiple attempts to end his own life while being weaned off the antidepressant Aropax.

‘One day I came outside and he had a pair of scissors to his chest – he kept saying he was going to do it, so I had to call an ambulance,’ Donna said.

‘He was cuffed by paramedics and at the hospital I had to watch as he was held down by doctors, three security guards, nurses, and his father so he could be sedated.

Seth, pictured with mother Donna, has suffered from side effects of his antidepressants which include suicidal thoughts

Seth, pictured with mother Donna, has suffered from side effects of his antidepressants which include suicidal thoughts

The ten-year-old is now being weened off the drug is a Sydney psych ward

The ten-year-old is now being weened off the drug is a Sydney psych ward

Maiya, 13, has been on Zoloft since she was six, after she had some tantrums at school

Maiya, 13, has been on Zoloft since she was six, after she had some tantrums at school

‘He looked at me and said ‘please don’t let them do it mummy I will be good’ I will never forget that look on his face.’

Now, aged 10, he is in a psych ward of a Sydney hospital after a devastating few months where he would go from ‘rocking and crying in the corner asking his parents to kill him’, to trying to jump out of his mother’s moving car.

Brisbane mother Mel, 34, also revealed the devastating effect antidepressants had on her daughter Maiya, now 13. The child, who after taking the drugs at just six years old, started ‘fantasising about death’.

‘I will never forget the moment she looked up to me and said ‘mummy, I want to go with the angels now’, it was just after an episode which saw her crying for days,’ Mel said.

The despairing mothers said they both ‘feel like it is their fault’ for making their young children take the doctor-prescribed pills.

But the lawyer running the proposed class action, Tony Nikolic, told Daily Mail Australia he had heard the stories of up to 60 children who suffered severely after taking antidepressants.

This picture was taken two weeks ago while Seth was being weened off the drugs

This picture was taken two weeks ago while Seth was being weened off the drugs

'I will never forget the moment she looked up to me and said 'mummy, I want to go with the angels now',' her mother Mel said

‘I will never forget the moment she looked up to me and said ‘mummy, I want to go with the angels now’,’ her mother Mel said

Maiya, pictured here with her younger sisters 6 months after being off the drug is now a happier person 

Maiya, pictured here with her younger sisters 6 months after being off the drug is now a happier person

The young girl, pictured here with her mother Mel, used to cut at her hair when she got angry

The young girl, pictured here with her mother Mel, used to cut at her hair when she got angry

‘A bad night’:  Seth’s anxiety got the better of him at his brother’s birthday and he had to leave the crowd shortly after this photo was taken

‘A bad night’:  Seth’s anxiety got the better of him at his brother’s birthday and he had to leave the crowd shortly after this photo was taken

‘The complaints range from people who were given it from as young as five – to teenagers who were put on them,’ he said.

The lawyer says the fact the two drugs are ‘not recommended for children’ is little known.

‘We know the 90 days coming on and 90 days coming off are the worst times for these families – as well as any time the dose is changed- that is when there is most likely to be trouble.’

The product information on both drugs says they are not recommended for children, but doctors continue to prescribe them.

Psychiatrist and Adelaide University research leader Doctor Jon Jureidini told Daily Mail Australia the drugs are widely used to treat anxiety in young children – but there is ‘no evidence supporting it’.

He claims doctors are given ‘contradictory information’ from the pharmaceutical companies – which ‘over the years have promoted the use of antidepressants in children’ despite the warnings on the drugs which say use for children isn’t recommended.

The young girl was at her most depressed when she was 11 and 12, pictured during that time here

The young girl was at her most depressed when she was 11 and 12, pictured during that time here

Seth was diagnosed with separation anxiety and ADHD in March 2012, when he was five, at the end of the year he was put on 20mg of Aropax

‘There is information which suggests tens of thousands of young people are on anti-depressants in Australia.

‘With these so-called anti-depressants a small number of children become suicidal and violent.

‘With any drug used in children it should be monitored very closely, and parents should get a second opinion,’ he said.

Seth’s mother Donna thought she was ‘doing the right thing’ by her son when she gave him the drugs because she ‘assumed the doctors knew what they were talking about’.

He was diagnosed with separation anxiety and ADHD in March 2012, when he was five, at the end of the year he was put on 20mg of Aropax.

According to the company’s product information ‘when AROPAX was tested in children under 18 years with major depressive disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder or social anxiety, there were additional unwanted effects to those seen in adults, such as suicidal thoughts, hostile and unfriendly behaviour and changing moods.

‘The use of AROPAX is not recommended to treat major depressive disorder in children under 18, as the drug has not been shown to be effective in this age group. The long-term safety effects of paroxetine in this age group have not yet been demonstrated.’

The drugs appeared to ‘fix’ the boy’s anxiety when he was first introduced to them.

This picture was taken just weeks before going on the drug

This picture was taken just weeks before going on the drug

Seth's mother Donna thought she was 'doing the right thing' by her son when she gave him the drugs because she 'assumed the doctors knew what they were talking about'

Seth’s mother Donna thought she was ‘doing the right thing’ by her son when she gave him the drugs because she ‘assumed the doctors knew what they were talking about’

‘For five days he was almost euphoric. He had no fear or inhibitions, he was busking, he was going to class, he was like a normal child. I thought it was working.

‘Then he started having fits laughter- even when he was in trouble. Not long after that things started going wrong.’

Then the angry bursts started, which meant he became a problem at school and could no longer attend.

‘The smallest things would set him off it could be something simple like asking him to have a bath or go brush his teeth.’

He became violent toward his mother and started hitting her and trying to rip out her hair.

When he was nine, and his behaviour was deteriorating the family decided he needed more help. Doctors doubled his dose of the drug.

‘He was euphoric again and I thought I must have been wrong to think it wasn’t working the way they said it would. But then he got way worse and I knew it was the medication. Seth’s suicidal tendencies got worse.

‘His father called me one day and told me Seth needed me, by the time I got to him he was in a ball, rocking in the corner yelling ”daddy please kill me I don’t want to do this anymore” it was absolutely heart-breaking, really hard to see your own child like that,’ she said.

‘I never knew it wasn’t for children, we were never told, if I had I wouldn’t have made him take it.’

She was ten, pictured left when her 2nd psychiatrist ‘upped her dose’

The family is happier now that Maiya has stopped having angry bursts and depressive thoughts

The family is happier now that Maiya has stopped having angry bursts and depressive thoughts

Mel’s daughter Maiya, 13, took Zoloft for seven years – her depression continued to spiral out of control so doctors gave her more of the drug – which her mother says just made her sicker.

The once bubbly little girl had her two sisters, Jazlyn, 12 and Gemirah, seven, ‘walking on eggshells every day’.

‘I thought I was doing the right thing for her, I was just doing what the doctors said, I thought I had lost my baby girl to depression. Finding out the drugs I told her she had to have were making her sad kills me,’ Mel said.

‘She would attack her sisters and scream and yell – but what is worse is when she would just cry.

‘She cried for hours and hours and hours at a time it is heart-breaking to see your baby do that and not know how to help.’

Then 12 months ago Mel stumbled across information on antidepressants which revealed Zoloft, the drug her daughter had been taking, was ‘not recommended for children and could cause suicidal thoughts’.

Pfizer, the maker of Zoloft has confirmed to Daily Mail Australia that it should only be used for children aged 6 to 18 years of age to treat obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD).

The teenager pictured weeks ago with her sister is excited to be able to 'be happy'

The teenager pictured weeks ago with her sister is excited to be able to ‘be happy’

The family used to 'walk on eggshells' to avoid an explosion of anger from the girl

The family used to ‘walk on eggshells’ to avoid an explosion of anger from the girl

Maiya pictured here a few weeks before she was first given anti depressants

Maiya pictured here a few weeks before she was first given anti depressants

‘I just burst into tears when I read it – I showed my mum I couldn’t believe it. We weened her off Zoloft, which was really tough but now she is a completely different kid.

‘She is not angry and there is no aggression. We don’t have unhappy days anymore,’ Mel said.

‘She will always have anxiety but we can cope with that – better then all those days of uncertainty, unhappiness and utter sadness. We never want to see that again.’

The young girl had ‘given up on life’ by the time her mother found the information on Zoloft and had stopped going to school and playing sport.

‘By the time she was 10 she was cutting her hair every time she got frustrated – when we went to see doctors they would put up her dose.

‘I am only speaking out because I never want any parent to go through what we have been through or to have their kids suffer like this.

The young girl had 'given up on life' by the time her mother found the information on Zoloft and had stopped going to school and playing sport

The young girl had ‘given up on life’ by the time her mother found the information on Zoloft and had stopped going to school and playing sport

‘I have seen a spark in her beautiful face that I though we lost a long time ago.’

Mr Nikolic has also looked into the possibility of a class action for adults – because they ‘are not told it is so hard to get off’ and has had about 1,400 people contact him for that.

‘This is a hard one as people don’t know how to complain because they are just one little person who have to try and prove their case against a multi-billion dollar corporation.

‘There is interest in both cases but I have a firm belief a case for children for Aropax and Zoloft has a reasonable prospect of success.’

The lawyer is looking for more people effected by antidepressants after being diagnosed the drugs as children.

‘We are looking for children who have demoniacal physical and psychological disabilities – Kids who took meds and are now in jail or took meds and jumped off a balcony and are now paraplegics.’

'I am only speaking out because I never want any parent to go through what we have been through or to have their kids suffer like this,' Mel said

‘I am only speaking out because I never want any parent to go through what we have been through or to have their kids suffer like this,’ Mel said

These cases could help move the proposed class action forward.

‘The Australian court is difficult, instead of the corporation having to prove they are right the little people have to prove the medication is dangerous and whatever has happened was caused by it.’

Pfizer the manufacturer of Zoloft and GSK the manufacturer of Aropax have both been approached for comment by Daily Mail Australia.

‘Pfizer takes the safety of our medicines very seriously and we are committed to ensuring the appropriate communication of important safety information to health care professionals and patients,’ a spokesperson said.

‘Zoloft (sertraline hydrochloride) is approved in Australia for use in children with obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD) aged 6 years or older.

‘Zoloft is not indicated for use in children and adolescents under the age of 18 years for the treatment of any medical condition other than OCD.’

GSK has not yet responded to our request.

 

 

Ed Silverman: Dear Scott Gottlieb: Add new warnings to Paxil labels. You may save a life…


A little too late for many, however good to see someone of Ed Silverman’s character speaking out about the scandal of Seroxat/Paxil.

https://www.statnews.com/pharmalot/2017/05/01/paxil-suicide-warning-fda/?s_campaign=fb&utm_content=buffer12cb5&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=buffer

 

D

ear Dr. Gottlieb,

As you inch closer to becoming the new head of the Food and Drug Administration, your list of challenges must be swelling. Here is one more item to add: Whether to insist on a stronger warning label for the antidepressant Paxil.

For the past decade, Paxil’s label has not carried any information indicating the drug poses a statistically significant risk of suicidal behavior for anyone over 25. Yet there is scientific evidence that such a risk is real (see table 16 on page 26). A jury in Chicago recently decided that that a label warning could have prevented the death of a 57-year-old man who killed himself while taking a generic version of Paxil.

For public health reasons, the FDA should pursue a warning.

“Even recognizing the limitations of the data (found in the relevant analysis), it’s hard to understand [why] the increased risk of suicidal behavior, or attempts, is not in the label,” said Dr. David Kessler, a former FDA commissioner and now a professor at the University of California, San Francisco, School of Medicine.

Here’s the backstory: Paxil is one of several antidepressants known as an SSRI, a group that includes Prozac and Zoloft. For many years, the drugs were mired in controversy over whether they increased the risk of suicidal behavior and thoughts. The FDA eventually ordered the companies to warn of such a risk for children and young adults.

But what about issuing a warning for adults older than 25? The opportunity was bungled.

Back in 2006, GlaxoSmithKline — which makes Paxil — actually offered to revise its label to indicate a risk existed for adults. But the FDA nixed that in favor of a class-wide warning, limited to children and young adults, for all SSRI drugs. This blunted the effect of the data Glaxo had submitted to the FDA — which showed that adults on Paxil faced a much higher risk than those on all but one other antidepressant.

Instead, the FDA suggested the company could submit a supplemental warning and schedule a meeting for review. This never happened because Glaxo did not follow up (see page 127). As a result, the Paxil labeling never included information about a risk to adults.

For its part, Glaxo does not deny that its studies showed an elevated risk for adults. But the company contends that it properly conveyed all the appropriate data to the FDA and says it was the agency’s call to create a common, class-wide label instead of developing a warning more specific to Paxil.

Now, let’s fast forward to a federal courtroom in Chicago, where documents detailing these developments have been filed.

A five-week trial recently took place over a legally complicated, but significant, question — whether consumers who suffer harm after taking a generic drug should be allowed to sue the company that makes the brand-name version of the medication. In this instance, the man who committed suicide took a generic version of Paxil, made by Mylan.

Glaxo was named in the lawsuit because Mylan had to use its label on the generic. Federal regulations do not allow generic companies to independently change labeling after learning of potential risks, unless a change has already been made to the corresponding brand-name drug. That regulation was upheld in 2011 by the Supreme Court.

As a result, consumers sometimes seek to hold brand-name drug makers responsible for injuries they suffer while taking generics, although more than 100 such cases have been tossed out by courts around the country. Only two survived and one is being appealed. This time, Glaxo was the loser and was ordered to pay $3 million to the man’s widow.

The company, however, plans to appeal, which raises the possibility that not much, if anything, will change. Meanwhile, countless adult Americans will continue to be prescribed a generic version of Paxil that does not contain a warning about the risk of suicidal behavior.

But this should not be the end of the story.

Sign up for our Pharmalot newsletter

Most consumers may not realize this, but drug makers legally own the right to the labeling on their medicines. Yes, the wording is developed during talks with the FDA, but a company can certainly consider adding an additional warning.

Glaxo “had the option to go further, but chose not to do so,” said Dr. David Healy, a Bangor University psychiatry professor who helped spearhead a campaign to upgrade suicide warnings on antidepressants, and who served as an expert witness on behalf of the widow in the recent trial.

Perhaps Glaxo bet it would not face lawsuits from consumers who took the generic. Nonetheless, the possibility of harm has existed all this time. And that is something the FDA should have realized. (An FDA spokeswoman told me the agency would not comment.)

So, Dr. Gottlieb, as you look over your to-do list, consider the lack of information in the Paxil labeling. And move to fix it. You might save a life.

BMJ: US drug regulators should consider adding adults to SSRI suicide warning, says campaigner


http://www.bmj.com/content/357/bmj.j2050
News

US drug regulators should consider adding adults to SSRI suicide warning, says campaigner

BMJ 2017; 357 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.j2050 (Published 25 April 2017) Cite this as: BMJ 2017;357:j2050

  1. Ed Silverman

Author affiliations

A British doctor who campaigned for the public to be warned about increased suicide risk in young people taking antidepressants has said that US drug regulators should consider including adults in warnings.

David Healy, a psychiatry professor at Bangor University, called for the warnings after GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) was ordered to pay $3m (£2.34m; €2.75m) to the widow of a US man who killed himself shortly after starting generic paroxetine.

The jury in the case of Stewart Dolin, a 57 year old attorney, concluded that GSK had failed to properly warn the public about the increased risk of suicide when taking paroxetine. The jury reached its verdict after lawyers for Dolin’s widow, Wendy, presented evidence in the Chicago federal court suggesting that GSK knew that paroxetine posed a risk to adults but had concealed or manipulated data.

Dolin stepped in front of a train in July 2010 shortly after starting a generic version of paroxetine that was sold by Mylan Pharmaceuticals. Mylan was originally named in the lawsuit but was later dismissed because of regulations and a Supreme Court ruling that a generic company cannot be sued if the brand name company does not first change product labelling.

Warnings about the increased risk of suicidal thoughts and behaviour in children and young adults were added to the labels of antidepressants in the US and Europe more than a decade ago.1 In the US, however, labels do not warn of these risks for anyone over 24 years old.

Many consumers have tried to hold drug makers responsible for suicides in adults without success. But the legal team representing Wendy Dolin argued that GSK had artificially inflated the number of suicides and suicide attempts that occurred among people who were given a placebo during clinical trials of paroxetine. They said that this alleged move made the antidepressant look better by comparison, since it appeared to minimise the risk of suicide associated with the drug.

The lawyers also argued that GSK had used averages for all selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs) to demonstrate that paroxetine did not raise the risk of suicide in adults aged over 24. Court documents also indicated that paroxetine displayed a much higher risk than all but one of the SSRI drugs.

Wendy Dolin declared the verdict “a great day for consumers.” After the verdict she told the Chicago Tribune, “This for me has not just been about the money. This has always been about awareness [of] a health issue, and the public has to be aware of this.”

Healy, who spearheaded the campaign to upgrade suicide warnings on antidepressants and testified as an expert witness on behalf of Wendy Dolin, said that the findings in the case should prompt the US drug regulator to review the evidence on SSRIs and suicide risk in adults.

“When it becomes so clear cut that a jury finds there is a problem, it suggests the evidence is strong enough to look at the issue,” Healy told The BMJ. “If it’s that clear to the average man on the street, and the FDA [the US Food and Drug Administration] doesn’t do something about it, we have an odd situation.”

GSK, which markets paroxetine under the brand name Paxil in the US, has said that it will appeal the verdict. “GSK maintains that because it did not manufacture or market the medicine ingested by Mr Dolin, it should not be liable,” it said in a statement. “Additionally, the Paxil label provided complete and adequate warnings during the time period relevant to this lawsuit.”

GSK added, “The scientific evidence does not establish that paroxetine causes suicide, suicide attempts, self-harm, or suicidal thinking in adult patients. In 2007, FDA revised the labelling for the entire class of SSRI drugs (including generic paroxetine and Paxil). The label includes statements that studies did not show an increased risk of suicidality (attempts or ideation) in adults over the age of 24, and that there appeared to be a protective effect in adults over 64.”

References

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

 

The Dolin Trial… Glenmullen Enters The Fray..


Thursday, March 30, 2017

Dolin Vs GSK – Glenmullen Nails It!

On Tuesday a series of video depositions were aired to the jury. Sadly, I have no access to the videos and cannot directly report on them. Thankfully, GSK’s lawyer, Todd Davis, has provided fabulous entertainment akin to a desperately sad clown. Yesterday Davis ineffectively cross-examined the plaintiff’s next expert witness, Dr. Joseph Glenmullen.

Dr. Glenmullen is yet another thorn in the side of GSK. He has previously served as expert witness in many Paxil lawsuits, and, just like Dr. David Healy, is disliked by GSK and their King &  Spalding attorneys. Both Glenmullen and Healy were subjected to GSK’s pre-trial circus in which GSK filed motion after motion arguing that these renowned doctors should not give evidence at this trial. GSK’s attempts were denied.

After yesterday, I can vividly see why GSK opposed Glenmullen as an expert. In short, Glenmullen ran circles around Davis. More on this further on down this blog post.

Glenmullen detailed Stewart Dolin’s medical notes and told the jury the akathisia Stewart experienced occurred the last time he was prescribed Paxil. This was six days before Stewart’s Paxil-induced death. During these six days, Stewart showed increased signs of agitation, just as he did when he was previously prescribed Zoloft years ago. In fact, when the Zoloft dose was increased, Stewart’s adverse drug reaction (akathisia) worsened. When Stewart stopped taking Zoloft, his agitation subsided. Sadly for Stewart and his survivors, when he last took Paxil his adverse drug reaction ended in death. Akathisia, as Glenmullen stated yesterday, is “a drug-induced reaction, a compulsion to kill yourself.” Glenmullen added that a death such as this is referred to “as a paroxetine-induced accident, not a suicide. It’s paroxetine. It’s the label that didn’t warn that is the cause.”

Regarding GSK’s supposed adult suicide warning on the Paxil labeling, Glenmullen clearly nailed it. Referring to the 2010 Black Box warning displayed in court, Glenmullen told the jury how there was explicit language that short-term studies did not show an increase in the risk of suicidality with antidepressants compared to sugar pills in adults beyond age 24. He also pointed out the sentence, “Depression and certain other psychiatric disorders are themselves associated with increases in risk of suicide.” He explained to the jury, “…What that tells me as a practicing psychiatrist is that if I’m treating a 57-year old patient and I put them on Paxil, Paxil couldn’t make them worse. Paxil couldn’t make them suicidal. It would be, and it says explicitly, their depression or other psychiatric condition.”

Glenmullen further noted the black box warning is “really bad” because it implies the suicide warning is just for children, ergo a doctor treating an adult could not warn about a potential risk of suicide because the labeling suggests there is only a suicidality risk among children taking Paxil.

The jury was informed that the labeling was written in such a way so that doctors would not only NOT know about the adult suicide risk, doctors would actually increase the dose because they would assume worsening of depression and/or new disturbing behaviors had nothing to do with Paxil.

Glenmullen added, “And here’s another dimension to it. If the patient gets worse and it might be the drug, what do you do? You take them off the drug to see. If they get worse and it couldn’t be the drug but it’s the depression, what do you do? You increase the drug, which is going to worsen the risk. So it’s very dangerous. And that’s why, in my opinion, it’s really this lack of a warning that’s responsible for his (Stewart Dolin’s) death.”

Glenmullen told the jury he is “100% certain” that “Mr. Dolin’s was a “paroxetine-induced, Paxil-label-induced death.”


Cross-examination by King & Spalding’s Resident Clown

As per his norm, Davis repeatedly tried but failed to discredit the witness. He attempted to catch out Glenmullen with answers Glenmullen provided in various testimonies, including testimony that was more than 11 years ago!

A spectator in the court told me, “You should have seen the spectacle created by GSK when it came time to do their cross.  They were so unorganized with their multiple binders that the jury started to laugh.”

Davis also went down the route of asking Glenmullen how much he was paid to give expert opinions in previous Paxil litigation. Leaves me wondering how much Todd Davis has been paid to defend one of the most controversial drugs in history. Further, I wonder whether he and his law team view their thousands of “settlements”as victory.

In what world is it viewed as a success to place gagging orders on families of Paxil victims so that the truth about the dangerous product is hidden?

Thus far, Davis has done a fine job of entertaining both spectators and jurors alike. Today’s Davis looks more like a sad clown than the smug clown who skipped into court three weeks ago. So, there you have it: King & Spalding attorneys seem to work well together if one considers their joint performance mere entertainment. Sad clown Davis and his jack-in-the-box sidekick, Andrew Bayman, will continue their lame cross-examination of Glenmullen today.

Bob Fiddaman

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