Comments on: Glaxo Loses Preemption Ruling In Paxil Suicide

By: Allison Anderson

Allison Anderson — Sat, 21 Nov 2009 08:46:32 +0000

I do not agree with all comments sent to the fight against the claim of preferences, which now has more than 300 signatures, including David Graham, Howard Brody, Tom Lamb, Doug Bremner, and other powerful people on this site.

Clearly, however, that these comments are a very small drop in the ocean of public anger. If and when the wave breaks, the “image problem” that the industry is worried about now seems insignificant in comparison.

There is no “warning” that carries the preference.

If you really support the preference continues to believe, when the most serious concern is the right policy should adhere to its principles. If not, is much at stake right.

By: Paxil Side Effects

Paxil Side Effects — Thu, 27 Nov 2008 06:48:29 +0000

My name is Michael Smith and i would like to show you my personal experience with Paxil.

I am 40 years old. Have been on Paxil for 5 years now. Please be careful if coming off, i started to wean myself with out doctors help couldnt afford it. I went from 20 mgs to 10 mgs for a month, then 10 mgs to 5 mgs for a month. Because the 20 mgs were way to strong took 20 for 5 years and was always on edge. After about 1 month on 10 felt a little better. I stopped for 7 days completly and man did I feel like shit man I didn’t want to leave the house , shop! I just started back on 5 mgs to get it back in my system. Who know what is the right amount you have to be the test subject on yourself!

I have experienced some of these side effects-
Headaches, tremors, emotional wreck, just the blah’s when I 1st started takin wasnt bad, cause I also way taken klonopin.

I hope this information will be useful to others,
Michael Smith

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:32:50 +0000

David S

Fishing?

By: David S

David S — Fri, 12 Sep 2008 16:28:06 +0000

Oh - I’m sorry - it was you that said, “a patient’s right to privacy”. Is “a patient” not “an individual”-? Perhaps you were referring to the corporation as individual? And it’s “right to privacy”? (high whistle)

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 17:12:48 +0000

David S,

patients’ rights to privacy/329????

I wasnt refering to an individual in the clinical trial.

By: David S

David S — Wed, 10 Sep 2008 16:58:31 +0000

LVS, citing the protection of patients’ rights to privacy with regard to 329 is laughable at best; as anyone knows, specific people aren’t even cited in medical studies - only data. And that Bushco initiated an “investigation” into paxil in 2002 - well; it would be funny if it were funny, but it isn’t. The Federal gov knew about serious adverse paxil side effects as early as 1993 through 1995 - Bushes, Clintons, Gores, McCains, Obamas - they’re ALL pushing this stuff, and they’re all trying to lawyer themselves out of any accountability. It’s 2008, folks. You’re late.

By: Lisa Van S

Lisa Van S — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 17:30:40 +0000

“In a free democratic society there is no place for such secrecy”
LIKE PAXIL STUDY 329?

Secrecy?…. No, Just protecting a patient’s right to privacy.

By: John Greaves

John Greaves — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 16:26:01 +0000

Comment and question to Lisa - why can’t you disclose what you know about White House involvement in the investigation of GSK? You seem to think that the secrecy of the White House’s official actions is OK? In a free democratic society there is no place for such secrecy. Please respond.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 03:41:13 +0000

T’man - The court’s decision, linked in Ed’s post that begins this thread, summarizes the history pretty well. You and others here probably know all of it in mujch greater detail, but it is a pretty good overview of what Glaxo did and did not make known to FDA at various points.

As far as preemption in general, there is no question that this has been a project pushed by the current administration. They have made no secret about that; it is, indeed, a point of pride for them. While there were a scattering of preempiton stirrings earlier, Dan Troy’s era marked a turning point - what has become famously known as the “180 degree change” in policy. Comments by earlier FDA Chief Counsels also make clear how profound the change was.

By: truthman30

truthman30 — Tue, 02 Sep 2008 02:50:24 +0000

As far as I am aware (but I could be wrong) , it seems that GSK “bamboozled” the FDA and the UK MHRA (UK medicines regulator), apparently (according to Peter Breggin) , GSK distorted the original clinical trial data which indicated Paxil (Seroxat) had an effect of increasing suicidal thoughts more than a placebo.
If this is true, then I think the regulators surely cannot be held accountable? …
Either way..
The whole things stinks to high heaven, and the FDA and the MHRA should have acted sooner..
I wonder what’s going on with the current US probes of GSK and Paxil by the department of Justice in the US? .. anyone any clue?
I would be surprised if GSK are ever held accountable for the Paxil mess though, Those whom yield wealth and power also seem to be able to miraculously rise high above common law..
Are pharmaceutical companies untouchables? ..
It seems so..