Withdrawal from paroxetine can be severe, warns FDA -- Tonks 324 (7332): 260 -- BMJ
Alison Tonks, Bristol The first 150 words of the full text of this article appear below.
http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/324/7332/260
GlaxoSmithKline, a leading drugs manufacturer, was last week forced to admit that paroxetine, a widely prescribed antidepressant and the company's best selling drug, can cause severe withdrawal symptoms when stopped.
The Food and Drug Administration in the United States published a new product warning about the drug, and in the same week the International Federation of Pharmaceutical Manufacturers Associations declared the company guilty of misleading the public about paroxetine on US television a year ago.
"This drug has been promoted for years as safe and easy to discontinue," said Charles Medawar, head of Social Audit, a consumer research group specialising in medicines policy. "The fact that it can cause intolerable withdrawal symptoms of the kind that could lead to dependence is enormously important to patients, doctors, investors, and the company.
"GlaxoSmithKline has evaded the issue since
Sunday, 29 November 2009
SEROXAT SUFFERERS - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED: *** Exclusive - what it was really like for Fiddaman during cold turkey from Seroxat - here we bring you day 8
SEROXAT SUFFERERS - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED: Day 8 and Fiddaman is clearly finding it a laugh !!
SEROXAT SUFFERERS - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED: Day 8 and Fiddaman is clearly finding it a laugh !!: "Day 8 and Fiddaman is clearly finding it a laugh !!
click on link below to personally verify this Bob Fiddaman Blogspot Exclusive ***"
click on link below to personally verify this Bob Fiddaman Blogspot Exclusive ***"
Wednesday, 11 November 2009
Tuesday, 10 November 2009
Tuesday, 13 October 2009
Paxil Seroxat (birth defect) trial due to start today - "settled out of court last week"
Paxil Seroxat (birth defect) trial due to start today - "settled out of court last week"
Paxil (birth defect) trial due to start today - "settled out of court last week"
http://truthman30.blogspot.com/2009/10/paxil-seroxat-birth-defect-trial-due-to.html
http://www.network54.com/Forum/281849/message/1255423909/Paxil+%28birth+defect%29+trial+due+to+start+today+-+%26quot%3Bsettled+out+of+court+last+week%26quot%3B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second Paxil case, expected to begin next Tuesday, was settled out of court last weekend. The next is not scheduled to begin in mid-November.
source - full report read on -
http://thestar.blogs.com/ethics/2009/10/first-paxil-trial-goes-to-the-jury.html
date - October 09, 2009
Paxil (birth defect) trial due to start today - "settled out of court last week"
http://truthman30.blogspot.com/2009/10/paxil-seroxat-birth-defect-trial-due-to.html
http://www.network54.com/Forum/281849/message/1255423909/Paxil+%28birth+defect%29+trial+due+to+start+today+-+%26quot%3Bsettled+out+of+court+last+week%26quot%3B
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A second Paxil case, expected to begin next Tuesday, was settled out of court last weekend. The next is not scheduled to begin in mid-November.
source - full report read on -
http://thestar.blogs.com/ethics/2009/10/first-paxil-trial-goes-to-the-jury.html
date - October 09, 2009
Tuesday, 6 October 2009
Seroxat law firm Hugh James of Cardiff - faced Parliamentary FRAUD probe
Corrupt law firm Hugh James of Cardiff - faced Parliamentary FRAUD probe
Question 90 (Mr Austin Mitchell): Indications of fraud in the case of Mrs Ann Elizabeth Evans
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/350/7102210.htm
The Committee requested a note explaining the case of Mrs Evans. The Department has reviewed the history of the issues raised by Mrs Evans.
Complaints made by Mrs Evans In 2001 Mrs Evans made multiple complaints to the Law Society against the solicitors (Hugh James in Merther Tydfil) who handled her compensation claim for respiratory disease in respect of her late father William John Thomas. The various documents attached to Mrs Evans' letter outline the complaints made. In particular Mrs Evans alleged that her solicitors had:
— delayed in "registering" Mrs Thomas' claim until May 1998;
— failed to make a timely application for an interim payment;
— failed to respond to individual letters and telephone calls;
— delayed in providing costs and client care information;
— provided advice and information that was confusing;
— failed to apply appropriate supervision to junior staff; and
— altered the claims form (claim questionnaire) without her knowledge or consent, in a way that artificially inflated the value of the claim.
Appeal to Law Society
Mrs Evans appealed the Law Society's original decision and this was reviewed by the Adjudication Panel and their ruling was handed down on 22 June 2005. The upshot being that Mrs Evans' appeal was upheld and two partners at Hugh James each received a severe personal reprimand from the Law Society in respect of their failure to properly supervise their staff. Additionally, it is clear from the Law Society's findings that the only reason a finding of misconduct had not been made is that (by reason of the poor supervision) it was not possible to identify the individual at Hugh James guilty of the misconduct. The Adjudication Panel raised Mrs Evans' compensation from £1,250-£5,000. Hugh James challenged the decision by way of Judicial Review Throughout the dispute Mrs Evans kept the Department (through its external lawyers Nabarro) appraised of her case and she also sent copies of the Law Society's report and findings to Sir Michael Turner, the Judge then overseeing the COPD scheme.
Department's consideration of the position
The Department carefully considered the issues raised, especially in terms of potential impact on the wider administration of the schemes. The main issue being the Law Society's finding that Hugh James Solicitors had altered Mrs Evans' claim questionnaire form. Furthermore, the nature of the supervisory failures by Hugh James Solicitors ("...monitoring individual files by computer screen and monitoring DTI statistics...") raised concern that these failures were not limited to Mrs Evans' case alone. It was also apparent that the two partners were two out of five members of the Co-ordinating Group (CG) of solicitors representing the claimants under the scheme.
A range of actions were undertaken:
— Nabarro (the Department's legal advisers) held a full meeting with Mrs Evans on 29 June 2004;
— a request was put to Capita's Security Investigation Department (SID) to filter out similar type cases intimated via Hugh James Solicitors for analysis;
— a letter dated 7 September 2005 was sent to the Senior Partner at Hugh James Solicitors requesting a full written explanation and detailing the organisational failures which have led to the findings against them, together with details of what changes have been made, in light of those findings; and
— a copy of the letter to Hugh James Solicitors was copied to a member of the Claimant's Group, suggesting that the CG should raise the issue at the next Review Hearing and address the issue in its written report to the Court.
Current position
As far as the Department is aware the case remains subject to ongoing review by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). In these circumstances the Department is not currently in a position to take further action.
Question 90 (Mr Austin Mitchell): Indications of fraud in the case of Mrs Ann Elizabeth Evans
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmpubacc/350/7102210.htm
The Committee requested a note explaining the case of Mrs Evans. The Department has reviewed the history of the issues raised by Mrs Evans.
Complaints made by Mrs Evans In 2001 Mrs Evans made multiple complaints to the Law Society against the solicitors (Hugh James in Merther Tydfil) who handled her compensation claim for respiratory disease in respect of her late father William John Thomas. The various documents attached to Mrs Evans' letter outline the complaints made. In particular Mrs Evans alleged that her solicitors had:
— delayed in "registering" Mrs Thomas' claim until May 1998;
— failed to make a timely application for an interim payment;
— failed to respond to individual letters and telephone calls;
— delayed in providing costs and client care information;
— provided advice and information that was confusing;
— failed to apply appropriate supervision to junior staff; and
— altered the claims form (claim questionnaire) without her knowledge or consent, in a way that artificially inflated the value of the claim.
Appeal to Law Society
Mrs Evans appealed the Law Society's original decision and this was reviewed by the Adjudication Panel and their ruling was handed down on 22 June 2005. The upshot being that Mrs Evans' appeal was upheld and two partners at Hugh James each received a severe personal reprimand from the Law Society in respect of their failure to properly supervise their staff. Additionally, it is clear from the Law Society's findings that the only reason a finding of misconduct had not been made is that (by reason of the poor supervision) it was not possible to identify the individual at Hugh James guilty of the misconduct. The Adjudication Panel raised Mrs Evans' compensation from £1,250-£5,000. Hugh James challenged the decision by way of Judicial Review Throughout the dispute Mrs Evans kept the Department (through its external lawyers Nabarro) appraised of her case and she also sent copies of the Law Society's report and findings to Sir Michael Turner, the Judge then overseeing the COPD scheme.
Department's consideration of the position
The Department carefully considered the issues raised, especially in terms of potential impact on the wider administration of the schemes. The main issue being the Law Society's finding that Hugh James Solicitors had altered Mrs Evans' claim questionnaire form. Furthermore, the nature of the supervisory failures by Hugh James Solicitors ("...monitoring individual files by computer screen and monitoring DTI statistics...") raised concern that these failures were not limited to Mrs Evans' case alone. It was also apparent that the two partners were two out of five members of the Co-ordinating Group (CG) of solicitors representing the claimants under the scheme.
A range of actions were undertaken:
— Nabarro (the Department's legal advisers) held a full meeting with Mrs Evans on 29 June 2004;
— a request was put to Capita's Security Investigation Department (SID) to filter out similar type cases intimated via Hugh James Solicitors for analysis;
— a letter dated 7 September 2005 was sent to the Senior Partner at Hugh James Solicitors requesting a full written explanation and detailing the organisational failures which have led to the findings against them, together with details of what changes have been made, in light of those findings; and
— a copy of the letter to Hugh James Solicitors was copied to a member of the Claimant's Group, suggesting that the CG should raise the issue at the next Review Hearing and address the issue in its written report to the Court.
Current position
As far as the Department is aware the case remains subject to ongoing review by the Solicitors Regulation Authority (SRA). In these circumstances the Department is not currently in a position to take further action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
