Supreme Court Asked To Review Zoloft Case
This is one case Pfizer, and several other drugmakers, wanted to go away. But instead, attorneys from the University of Texas law school are asking the US Supreme Court to hear the case of a teenager who was sentenced to 30 years in prison for killing his grandparents when he was 12 years old. Their argument is that the sentence is cruel and unusual punishment.
Of course, the court has to agree to hear the case. But should that come to pass, another aspect is likely to get attention - Christopher Pittman was taking Zoloft at the time he used a shotgun to shoot his grandparents, and then set fire to their home in 2001. During his trial four years later, his attorneys argued, unsuccessfully, that the rampage was heavily influenced by the antidepressant, which Pfizer has always denied.
The pill isn’t the central issue, though. In a brief submitted to the court this week, the law school attorneys argued that the 30-year sentence violates Pittman’s Eighth Amendment protection. The lengthy sentence is “unconstitutionally disproportionate as applied to a 12-year-old child,” they wrote. Pittman “is the nation’s only inmate serving such a harsh sentence for an offense committed at such a young age…Punishing young children with excessive sentences violates international norms of human rights and juvenile justice law.” (Here is the brief and these are appendix documents).
“The reasons justifying the Supreme Court’s rejection of the death penalty for children also call into question the imposition of harsh non-capital sentences on youthful offenders,” law school professor Lynn Blais, who helped draft the brief, says in a statement.
Meanwhile, on Sunday night, a Fox News program, Hannity’s America, ran a segment linking recent mass shootings by teenagers with antidepressants. The episode had its flaws - the reporter failed to include comment from anyone in pharma or at the FDA, and suggested a connection to the recent shooting at the Omaha shopping mall without offering any evidence. Nonetheless, these two items suggest the debate over the proper use of antidepressants won’t go away and, in fact, is likely to remain polarized for the foreseeable future. Here’s the Fox episode…
Lisa Van S
Will Pfizer submit this Document to the U.S. Supreme Court… They will be upfront and center, like they were during the original Trial.
See Defense Manual:
http://www.courttv.com/trials/pittman/docs/zoloftmanual.html
Donna
Yes it is a shame that no one from Pharma or the FDA was able to comment..I myself would be very interested to hear what they would of said and how it would change the “FACT’S” that were presented…Hmmmmm
Lisa Van S
Donna,
During the FDA Hearings in 2004, many members of the PDAC expressed concerns over the violence issue. Dr. Robert Temple stated publicly that FDA would investigate. To date, they have not done so.
Why not?.. is a question, Id like to have a response to.
Donna
Sound’s like Dr.Robert Temple would be the perfect guest on Mr. Hannity’s show, give him the spotlight….
Matthew Arnold
How do people watch this stuff? Okay, whatever the worthiness of the reporting, I don’t believe a word of it because right from the get go, they’re blasting the menace music under the reporter’s voiceover. Doesn’t that just scream to viewers, “The following is a B- horror movie, not a news segment?” Fox’s motto ought to be: “We manipulate the crap out of your emotions, and maybe do a little reporting on the side. Or maybe not. Who knows? You decide!” Someone throw these buffoons a Hilton/Spears/Lohan oopsie du jour and keep ‘em away from topics of actual import like children’s psychiatric health.
pharma giles
Fox News. “We Distort. You Deride”. Nah, not a good reference…
Hank
Agree with Mathew Arnold. What is genuinely important about the issues is submerged by Fox’s Chainsaw Massacre reporting.
Still, as for other networks, a large hunk of Fox’s advertising dollars must come from pharma. My bet would be that Hannity will bring forth “another perspetive” in the near future. Stay tuned.
TOdd
ED,
THANK YOU!! Very nice job not coming across one way or the other! I do think the sight still slants a little heavy on the antidepressant front but this was a very well written piece.
TOdd
Hank,
Let’s see those ad numbers. If you actually look at the numbers you will see a much different story than the one you have laid out with respect to ad revenue.
Ed Silverman
Hi Todd,
Thanks. Compliments are always appreciated. And I only offer my own view when I think I have something to contribute, or perhaps a topic cries out for commentary. But I don’t see the need to do that very often.
As for those antidepressants, it’s been a controversial issue for awhile and I’m simply interested in following such tales. Provenge is another. And so is preemption, which isn’t about any particular type of drug.
Anyway, nice of you to say what you did. Cheers,
ed at Pharmalot
John Grohol
I love a witch hunt as much as the next guy, but c’mon.
There’s exactly zero empirical published studies linking sertraline to violence. So while it might be fun to say, “Hey, lookee here, so-and-so was on some Drug X while committing some random act of violence,” there’s nothing in the research literature that backs up a causal relationship. We all know Research 101, right? Correlation does not equal causation.
Oh, and the little fact that something on the order of 99.99% of people on these drugs don’t commit acts of violence against others.
This is sloppy reporting on Fox’s part (nothing new there), but also on the part of Pharmalot.
Ed Silverman
Hi John,
With all due respect, I think you may have missed my point. Please go back and read closely - I referred to the controversy surrounding antidepressants and violence. I didn’t write anything specifically, one way or the other, concerning the to-ing and fro-ing over side effects, the studies, the black boxes or the accusations. (That’s been done here, and elsewhere, many times over).
What I wrote is that a case that may go before the Supreme Court is likely to refocus the public on the issue all over again, even though Zoloft isn’t the reason the lawyers filed their brief (which I assume you’ve read, courtesy of the link). This item comes out the same week that a major network takes a whack at the overarching topic (and as I also pointed out, didn’t do a very good job).
But as a result, the controversy may remain on the public’s radar screen. In this particular post, I offered nothing more than that observation. The issue is out there and it doesn’t seem to be going away. That’s what I see from my perch. You’re free to disagree, but to say it’s sloppy reporting is, in my opinion, incorrect.
Regards
ed at Pharmalot
Laurie
Well, considering that John Grohol’s site is all about psych drugs, online mental health tests and full of Pharma advertising, I’m not surprised with his post. I’ll take the high road and leave it alone!
John Grohol
Ed, I guess if you want to be accurate in your own reporting, you might have titled the entry, “Supreme Court Asked to Review the Christopher Pittman Case.” By singling out Zoloft and repeating the unsubstantiated claims put forward by one side, one might see that as a subtle bias. Exactly the kind of subtle bias we ask everyone to be on the lookout for in drug-sponsored content and such.
Because it’s not the “Zoloft case,” it’s a case about a horrible incident of violence. The fact that antidepressants were prescribed to the person who committed this act of violence is really a side issue. The linked petition only mentions the drug 4 times, and it’s really not the central issue of the petition whatsoever.
Which you acknowledge, Ed, but not until the third paragraph into this entry about the “Zoloft case.”
So given the lack of empirical evidence connecting the dots, I see this as another example of the media (in this case, your blog) sensationalizing an issue to draw attention to something, while leaving the facts in the dust. I’m all for drawing attention to this case, but not at the expense of the facts.
And no, anyone who has been a reader of my own blog since 1999 knows I’m no pharmaceutical apologist. But I believe in accurate science, legal and advocacy reporting (or “reporting on reporting,” if you will), that’s all.
PS - Thanks Laurie for the quick looksee over our site, its 10,000+ articles and 12 years worth of content dismissed in one sentence. A perfect example of the drive-by pot-shots taken by anonymity online.
Laurie
Oh, John, I’m hardly anonymous, LOL!
Lisa Van S
Grohol
Your site 10,000,.. plus articles in 12 years. HMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Interesting, Laurie’s Paxil Progress has you beat by 1 million,..Significant dont you think.
Ed Silverman
Dear John,
The reality is that the case is just as well known if not better known as the Zoloft case than as the Pittman case, except by those who have devotedly followed its travails, whatever their reason, or who lived near the boy and his relatives, where it garnered substantial publicity. The vast majority, however, is unfamiliar with the name Pittman.
So yes, as someone who writes headlines, I try to use language that will make sense to - and easily identified by - the largest number of people. Like it or not, it’s accurate to say its the Zoloft case - because Zoloft was turned into a key issue in his trial.
Meanwhile, please go back and carefully read what I wrote - I already noted the Zoloft angle was an argument put forth by his attorneys, that Pfizer denied the charges and that the pill isn’t the central issue in the brief filed with the Supreme Court.
That’s not bias; that’s summing up the situation.
ed at Pharmalot
Lisa Van S
Grohol,
Leaving the facts in the dust…That’s pfizer’s job isnt it?…
Christopher’s case is not a mere violent act,.. but an act of behavioural toxicity due to Zoloft.
Fact: Christopher never displayed any acts of violence…Prior to Paxil, and then Zoloft.
Fact: Christoppher never experimented with ellicit drugs..
fact: Christopher never harmed or abused animals….
Did Zoloft cause the Death of Joe and Joy Pittman,….ABSOLUTELY!!!!!!!!!!!……..
TOdd
Fact : People in hospitals die at a greater rate than people at home.
So using that logic we can conclude:
Fact: Hospitals kill people
Fact : Most murders have never killed anyone before their first victim. And according to their neighbors, there was never a problem or reason to believe they were capable of doing that act.
Fact : If you are on a psych med, there is a psych issue. People with psych problems are more likely to commit acts of violence — either against themselves or others.
I am just glad to see this is a case of proper punishment of minors, not a rehashing of subjective data from each side. I will admit — the drugs aren’t perfect, but they are the best we have.
Kind of like the oral polio vaccine. Stopped millions of cases of polio, but did actually cause about 5 cases/year. Yes it sucks for those 5 kids, but we as a society are better off.
TOdd
So Ed, as someone who did think at times your articles and headlines were sometimes sensationalistic and slanted — I am siding with you on this one. I think it was properly titled and a great summary of the facts of the case.
Lisa Van S
TOdd & ED,
Do I believe Christopher Pittman’s actions were caused by Zoloft,..ABSOLUTELY.
Would I post his $250,000.00 bond again… ABSOLUTELY.
TOdd. I put my money were my mouth is,..How about you!..
Nathan
Lisa,
You personally posted Pittmann’s $250k bail? You are either dilusional or even crazier that I thought possible!
But you are correct- you put your money where your mouth is
You seem to forget that TOdd and I make a living in this industry. We have more than $250k on the line. We have our livelyhoods and the future of our families on the line. Comments from kooks like you give me great distress over the future of our industry.
Bob
Hey Lisa, where did you get your MD? How about your degree?
That’s what I thought.
Sam
I heard that Remicade has also been responsible for someone murdering their friend. One of my friends told me. Anybody know anything more about this?
Melody
Nathan states:
You seem to forget that TOdd and I make a living in this industry. We have more than $250k on the line. We have our livelyhoods and the future of our families on the line. Comments from kooks like you give me great distress over the future of our industry.
And with your ‘livelyhoods’ [sic] on the line, you somehow offer a more unbiased view of the industry?
Nathan
Melody,
I never claimed to offer an unbiased view. I’m claiming to offer the view of a scientist who is involved in the development of drugs. Nothing more. Lisa has yet to state any credentials what-so-ever for her opinions. If she really did post the $250,000 bail as she claims, then her “credentials” simply involve having lots of money to throw around at silly causes.
Brian
No evidence that a drug caused him to kill..His actions are the sum total of his daily experience. Trying to help people with mental illness means you are dealing with crazy people. Don’t expect them to act rationally but continue to try and help. We don’t want a society that just steps away from the patient and says “”First do no harm”. That is irresponsible. Give the scientists who worked on zoloft credit for succeeding in the vast number of patients and support further effort for treatment resistant depression.
TOdd
Hey, has anyone heard on prospective randomized trials here (Nathan, Bob excluded). That is the only way to PROVE CAUSALITY. Lisa, as much as I am impressed with your expert opinion — you can’t quite make that claim. And as you saw, it didn’t hold up in a court of law.
Brian’s comment pretty much proves it — just because someone was taking a drug and something happened doesn’t establish causality.
If we simply “do no harm” we would do nothing to treat anything. PCN would have never been invented, vaccines never used — the plaugue or smallpox likely would have wiped us out. Yes “Do no harm” is a great goal — more realistic is “Do the best to treat your patient with the currently available information”
I actually feel like I do have an unbiased view — I am a clinician trying to help people. Simply as that, I don’t toe a company line, I give professional advice to those that need it. Happy to point out shortcoming in data, questions unaswered, etc — but in the end, when the benefits outweigh the risks our products are used.
Ken Thomas, RN
A person doesn’t have to do the research to have a credentialed viewpoint. It’s certainly logical to allow credentialed MDs, Research Scientists, and Whistleblowers who support your own personal observations to be the credentials for your viewpoint. Lisa and Laurie may not be credentialed individuals, but they can support and promote those viewpoints of others who DO HAVE THE CREDENTIALS on these issues. Many researchers site other credentialed researchers to support their theories. Why not here in the media?
Laurie
“Do the best to treat your patient with the currently available informationâ€
And this is what I want to see. But this is not what we see from most practitioners. Denial of a possible risk because they “haven’t seen a problem”, doesn’t mean that a problem doesn’t exist.
Full disclosure..that’s all I want.
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
Did I post Christopher’s Bail,…Absolutely.
Am I delusional,…Absolutely not.
Am I just a Mother defending an “Innocent Child”,…Yes I am!!!
Lisa Van S
Brian,
Give the “Scientists Who Worked On Zoloft Credit”.
I take it that you havent seen Pfizer’s Internal Documents!..
Lisa Van S
Merry Christmas Bob…
Lisa Van S
Nathan,
Just one more thought…
Joy and Joe Pittman’s livelyhood was taken from them due to the Homicidal side effect that their Grandson endured while on Zoloft.
Thank the good Lord,.. That your alive, and celebrating Christmas with Family and Friends.
That Luxary, is forever lost for the Pittman Family!!…
Bob
I still don’t know why a certain crusader won’t post her education credentials.
It’s not that difficult.
sid
It seems that person is quick to respond to some posts, but others that don’t look as good he/she is good at ignoring them. Just conjecture, I haven’t studied intently.
Lisa Van S
Sid,
That statement can pertain to just about everyone who posts on this site.
sid
Agreed - Ed should develop some sort of credential checking program so we can separate those with medical knowledge and those who think they have medical knowledge.
Again, what were your credentials?
Lisa Van S
Sid,
Always a two way street, and I could ask you the same, but I wont,.. Just doesnt interest me.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year..
Bob
Lisa-it doesn’t interest you because you have none. You have no education and no medical knowledge.
Why should anyone take you seriously? Oh wait, we don’t.
Hank
One reason I take Lisa seriously is because I’ve read her testimony before the Energy and Commerce Committe of the U.S. House of Representatives. It was excellent
Any of you guys also testify before Congress recently?
Lisa Van S
Hank,
Thank You for the kind words…It doesnt take being a “Rocket Scientist”, to be a loving Parent,..or even a Campassionate Huming Being. With that said, Id like to wish, You, and Your Family, a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year. Happy Holidays!!!
Lisa Van S
I meant to type “HUMAN”. Im sure Bob will point out my flaws,..again. Isnt it great to be “HUMAN”.
Hank
It doesn’t even take a rocket scientist to be a rocket scientist!
The reality is that this talking in a genuinely informed way about this topic would require an MBA, several JDs (regulation, torts, administrative), MD, MPH, Nursing, Pharm. D., and separate Ph.Ds in several subsdisciplines of Biology and Chemistry, Public Policy, Economics, Political Science, Sociology, Psychology, History….and that’s just for starters. Being an involved citizen and, yes, a human being doesn’t hurt either.
As far as I know, Ed is the only one who has all that.
The rest of us do the best we can.