Care in Wales

Most Seroxat clients dropped because they were taking other drugs in conjunction with their paroxetine

2009-12-11T17:44:00.001Z

SEROXAT SUFFERERS - STAND UP AND BE COUNTED: Most Seroxat clients dropped because they were taking other drugs in conjunction with their paroxetine

The reason why there are only 600 or so claimaints left in the UK Seroxat class action against GSK is because many cases were dropped because of doctors prescribing other drugs in conjunction with Seroxat. I know personally of many people who have been dropped from the class action because of this and other factors...

Oh and by the way, Janice Simmons of the seroxatusersgroup met with UK prime minister Gordon Brown at downing street a few days ago. Bear in mind that there is currently a 4 year long investigation into the conduct of GSK regarding Seroxat prescribing to children/suppression of negative clinical data etc..

http://fiddaman.blogspot.com/2007/11/honourable-members.html

But bear in mind also that JP Garnier( GSK CEO) is also on "Gordon Browns Business Council"...
Also worthy of thought is what GSK means to the UK economy..
It is virtually an English institution with its roots firmly cemented in UK research/developement/sponsorship/employment etc..
It is the UK's Major Pharma Cash Cow..
And it is prized very much as being such...

Will be interesting when more info on this meeting begins to bear fruit...
But i have a feeling that the UK seroxat scandal is a can of worms which has been eating its way right through the core of UK politics for quite some time now...
And when something has become that rotten..
Most people won't touch it...

Posted by truthman30 at December 2, 2007 04:24 PM

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache:17IP6JGo25kJ:www.furiousseasons.com/movabletype/mt-comments.cgi%3Fentry_id%3D1151+seroxat+group+litigation&cd=10&hl=en&ct=clnk
Posted by FID at 10:00

Withdrawal from paroxetine can be severe, warns FDA -- Tonks 324 (7332): 260 -- BMJ

2009-11-29T17:09:00.001Z

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

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

2009-11-29T16:36:00.001Z

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 !!

2009-11-29T14:49:00.000Z

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 ***"

Did West Mids Police Advise MH Drug Blogger On Blog Tactics ?

2009-11-11T09:03:00.004Z

http://bobfiddaman.blogspot.com/2009/11/blog-post_11.html

He said J Bryce is a GSK quisling - we say Mark Harvey of Hugh James is a liar

2009-11-10T08:47:00.002Z

He said J Bryce is a GSK quisling - we say Mark Harvey of Hugh James is a liar

Paxil Seroxat (birth defect) trial due to start today - "settled out of court last week"

2009-10-13T15:57:00.000+01:00

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

Seroxat law firm Hugh James of Cardiff - faced Parliamentary FRAUD probe

2009-10-06T23:11:00.001+01:00

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.

Corrupt law firm Hugh James of Cardiff sets up new blog - "Care in Wales"

2009-10-05T12:29:00.001+01:00

Corrupt law firm Hugh James of Cardiff sets up new blog - "Care in Wales"

Seroxat withdrawal – Court set deadline for compensation claims

http://bobfiddaman.blogspot.com/2009/10/corrupt-law-firm-hugh-james-of-cardiff.html

http://careinwales.wordpress.com/2009/09/24/seroxat-withdrawal-court-set-deadline-for-compensation-claims/

September 24, 2009 — careinwales

Have you had difficulties withdrawing from the anti-depressant drug Seroxat? Have you found it impossible to withdraw from it? Are you having difficulties in withdrawing from Seroxat now?

The High Court made a Group Litigation Order in relation to the Group Action brought by around 500 individuals alleging harm from problems withdrawing from Seroxat.

On 19 May 2009 the High Court ordered that any individual who wishes to pursue a compensation claim must join the Group Action before 15 January 2010.

All individuals must have their claim investigated before they can join the action and so they need to come forward ASAP.

Register your interest now, call the Seroxat team at Hugh James, designated as lead solicitors for the purposes of the Group Litigation order, on 029 20 785 971 or go to www.hughjames.com/seroxat

The Group Register will close on 15 January 2010 and any individuals who have not joined at that date may lose their opportunity to be part of the litigation.

You should not stop taking medication without consulting your doctor.

For more information go to www.hughjames.com/seroxat

uksurvivors : Message: Re: Paxil evidence was blatent hearsay

2009-09-24T22:29:00.000+01:00

uksurvivors : Message: Re: Paxil evidence was blatent hearsay: "I will start by saying what I have repeatedly said when posting on this and other lists - I have no problem with anyone taking legal action and have never spoken out against the litigation. It would appear from this post that although concern is expressed about 'babies born with heart defects' - it's only babies affected by Seroxat / Paxil that seem to matter, when you consider what has already been posted in regard the Efexor heart defect baby deaths!! Now that's pretty sad too.So what about the babies born with birth defects who's mothers were and are still taking one of the other drugs in the class – mothers blissfully unaware of the risk they are taking? And why is that?Is it possibly due to the extreme adverse publicity afforded to the one particular drug - Seroxat?"