SARAFEM (PROZAC) & ROBITUSSIN: Brittany Murphy Dies Suddenly: CA

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy
(
www.drugawareness.org): Brittany
Murphy died from the use of multiple serotonergic medications – meds that
increase serotonin. She may have had pneumonia, but pneumonia does not kill that
quickly. There were clearly other contributing factors when death is so sudden
and without much warning.

When Heidi Connelly published her information on Fen-Phen and Redux causing
heart valve problems (something Brittany already suffered from) she found that
it was the elevated levels of serotonin produced by the Fen-Phen and Redux that
caused a gummy gooey glossy substance to build up on the heart valves and keep
them from shutting properly. So if Brittany‘s heart valve already did not shut
properly and you raise her serotonin levels with two serotonergic drugs – Prozac(Sarafem) and Robitussin you build the level of gummy gooey glossy substance on
that heart valve and you are in trouble.

But beyond that the increase in serotonin constricts muscle tissue
restricting air into the lungs, blood flow throughout the body, etc. – all the
major organs are constricted by elevated serotonin. When the serotonin level
gets too high (as it does when you mix two meds that increase it) you produce
death via multiple organ failure. This is what killed Daniel, Anna Nicole
Smith’s young son. It is called Serotonin Syndrome.
So, in Brittany‘s case I firmly believe that the elevated serotonin
produced by these drugs put the nail in her coffin.
Paragraph four reads:  “Investigators found prescription
medication for depression, seizures, anxiety and pain. Monjack told Lauer his
late wife used Vicoprofen and Sarafem during her menstrual
cycle. ‘”Most of the medications are mine. I suffer from seizures,’
Monjack declared. The screenwriter began to stutter and added,  ‘I suffer
from, you know, heart… my heart stopped on December 3rd when we landed from
Puerto Rico’.”
SSRI Stories note:  Sarafem is, molecule for
molecule, the same exact drug as Prozac.  It goes by a different name
because it is registered with the FDA for use in PMS.

http://extratv.warnerbros.com/2010/01/brittany_murphys_family_continues_to_deny_drug_rumors.php

Brittany
Murphy‘s Family Continues to Deny Drug Rumors

Posted on January 21, 2010Brittany Murphy‘s
husband and mother sat down with Matt Lauer on the “Today” show to
discuss the actress’ sudden death.

Murphy

died Dec. 20, and the cause of death is still unknown; toxicology
results
are expected in a few weeks.

“Let’s set the record straight
once and for all — Brittany was not taking any medication for her mood, for
anorexia,” Murphy‘s husband Simon Monjack said. “It’s utterly ridiculous
that these rumors have perpetuated.”

Investigators found prescription
medication for depression, seizures, anxiety and pain. Monjack told Lauer his
late wife used Vicoprofen and Sarafem during her menstrual cycle. “Most of the
medications are mine. I suffer from seizures,” Monjack declared. The
screenwriter began to stutter and added, “I suffer from, you know, heart… my
heart stopped on December 3rd when we landed from Puerto Rico.”

See

Brittany‘s life in photos

Murphy‘s mother Sharon began to
shake her head when Lauer asked about Brittany‘s rumored cocaine use. “It’s just
so horrific. She was diagnosed with a heart murmur when she was a young teenager
and she was terrified of anything happening to her. She never did any drugs,
ever.” Sharon replied.

The two also denied Brittany had any type of
eating disorder. “You just need to go to her favorite restaurant, Chateau
Marmont, and speak to any waiter, who would tell you that she would happily
order four plates of food and eat them all,” Monjack stated.

Monjack
also claims Murphy‘s role in “Happy Feet 2” was pulled and it broke her heart.
He explained, “Hollywood is a village and once you upset the villagers they talk
and they gossip and they rumor. They have blood on their hands, and I hope they
wash them with very hot water because of the way they treated Brittany Murphy

while she was alive.”

The grieving husband and mother have established The Brittany Murphy
Foundation
in her memory.

825 total views, no views today

WELLBUTRIN & BUSPAR: Anna Nicole Smith’s Doctor on Meds Had Affair w/Her

Last sentence of paragraph two reads:  “Kapoor’s journal
also indicated he himself was abusing Ambien, BuSpar, and
Wellbutrin: ‘I have to get off the drugs,’ he wrote in
2002.

http://www.newser.com/story/72825/2nd-doc-hooked-up-with-anna.html

 

2nd Doc Hooked Up With Anna

 

Sandeep Kapoor wrote in diary about tryst with Anna Nicole
Smith

By Evann Gastaldo|

(Newser) – Just in case
anyone thought the Anna Nicole Smith hearing couldn’t get any kinkier: It can,
and it did. An investigator testified yesterday that Smith physician Sandeep
Kapoor­who is facing charges along with psychiatrist Khristine Eroshevich
and lawyer Howard K. Stern­had a less-than-professional relationship with
Smith, “making out” with her and providing her with drugs, E!

 

reports.

The investigator found a journal in which Kapoor wrote, in
2005, “I was making out with Anna, my patient, blurring the lines. I gave her
Methadone, Valium. Can she ruin me?” Eroshevich is also accused of having an
inappropriate relationship with Smith. Kapoor’s journal also indicated he
himself was abusing Ambien, BuSpar, and Wellbutrin: “I have to get off the
drugs,” he wrote in 2002.

945 total views, no views today

LEXAPRO: The Howard Stern’s Show’s Artie Lange Arrested for DUI: New York

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org): After specializing in antidepressant adverse reactions for 20

 lexapro

years I would say that Lexapro is one of the worst. Giving it, or any other antidepressant, to someone with previous substance abuse problems is criminal! These drugs produce OVERWHELMING CRAVINGS for alcohol and other drugs. They can take those who have never touched these substances before & turn them into addicts almost overnight. (www.drugawareness.org/book-excerpts/ssris-and-alcohol) Antidepressants are notorious for producing mania/bipolar. One of the forms of mania is described as uncontrollable cravings for alcohol.

Adverse reactions can be worse: the deaths of Brynn & Phil Hartman & Andrea Yates’ 5 children. Then there’s the man in Palm Beach who after years of a happy hetrosexual life ran off to NY for a sex change operation after starting an antidepressant. He returned to his wife extremely remorseful & with no idea why he did what he had done.

Paragraphs 2 & 3 read:  “ Artie Lange was noticeably quieter than usual on Monday morning’s broadcast, only peppering the on-air conversations with an occasional joke or cutting remark.  About two hours into the broadcast,Artie Lange finally broke his silence about Friday’s DUI.  After stating that: “for once I’m actually doing something sensible and listening to my lawyer and not talking about it,”  Artie Lange went on to tease the audience with a few details of the incident that catapulted him to the top of Google Trends on Friday, despite The HowardStern Show having been off air for a full two weeks.”

Artie Lange insists that he blew a 0.0 on the Breathalyzer test that he was given at the scene of the accident. Artie Lange also reported that he was also given a urine test at the police station.  Artie Lange states that there were no illicit drugs in his system, and that all the analysts will find that could possibly explain his erratic driving is the antidepressant Lexapro.”

http://www.examiner.com/x-11279-Howard-Stern-Examiner~y2009m7d13-Is-Lexapro-to-blame-forArtie-Langes-DUI

Is Lexapro to blame for Artie Lange‘s DUI?

July 13, 9:05 AM

At long last, The Howard Stern Show returned to the air live this Monday morning.  With the abundance of celebrity news to catch up on and current box office topper “Bruno” in the studio, Howard Stern Show fans really only wanted to hear about one thing: Artie Lange’s DUI.  After proclaiming that he had been clean and sober for months, ArtieLange was arrested on suspicion of DUI on Friday after a fender bender in Tom’s River, New Jersey.

Artie Lange was noticeably quieter than usual on Monday morning’s broadcast, only peppering the on-air conversations with an occasional joke or cutting remark.  About two hours into the broadcast, Artie Lange finally broke his silence about Friday’s DUI.  After stating that: “for once I’m actually doing something sensible and listening to my lawyer and not talking about it,”  Artie Lange went on to tease the audience with a few details of theincident that catapulted him to the top of Google Trends on Friday, despite The Howard Stern Show having been off air for a full two weeks.

Artie Lange insists that he blew a 0.0 on the Breathalyzer test that he was given at the scene of the accident.  ArtieLange also reported that he was also given a urine test at the police station.  Artie Lange states that there were no illicit drugs in his system, and that all the analysts will find that could possibly explain his erratic driving is theantidepressant Lexapro.

Artie Lange spoke openly about his struggles with depression in his recent bestselling book “ Too Fat to Fish.”  Inthe past, the comedian has rejected the idea of taking antidepressants to treat his mood, despite his willingness to dabble in the spectrum of illegal substances.

But could Lexapro really be to blame for Artie Lange’s DUI?  Fans, friends and family members of Artie Lange are all thinking the same thing: the whole story sounds too fat to fishy.  In Artie Lange’s defense, the official website forLexapro lists among the drug’s safety precautions: “Patients should be cautioned about operating hazardous machinery, including automobiles, until they are reasonably certain that Lexapro does not affect their ability to engage in such activities.”  Although Artie Lange did not state how long he has been taking Lexapro, he did report that he started it “recently.”

Artie Lange has stated that he has “a lot to say” about Friday’s DUI arrest, and that he is looking forward to talking openly on the subject once his lawyer approves it.  Artie Lange is scheduled to appear in court on Friday, July 17th.

Author: Liz Brown

697 total views, no views today

What Killed Anna Nicole Smith’s Son Daniel?

anna_nicole_smith2annanicolebabyandsonDan-Anna Nicole smith

 

ANNA NICOLE SMITH, HER SON DANIEL, & NEW BABY

First of all the hypothesis behind antidepressants and atypical antipsychotics is backwards. Serotonin is not low in depression, anxiety, etc. What is low in those conditions is the ability to break down or metabolize serotonin with the end result being elevated serotonin levels.

What “Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitor” (SSRI or SNRI) means is that these antidepressants inhibit the reuptake or metabolism of serotonin, thus causing the serotonin to rise even higher, and thereby compounding the initial problem. Then when serotonin levels become too high the end result is Serotonin Syndrome – a condition which can cause death by multiple organ failure. It can be caused by only one drug that increases serotonin, but Daniel was on four medications that increase serotonin.

After Dr. Cyril Wecht, the famous forensic pathologist who is most often called in on the celebrity cases, and I were interviewed by the Associated Press on this case we had some long talks about the serious problem nationwide of so many having their serotonin levels increased and doctors prescribing so many of these serotonergic medications in combination with little to no knowledge of what negative impact and deadly consequences that can pose for so many. We both concluded that Serotonin Syndrome was indeed the cause of the death of Anna Nicole Smith’s 20 year old son, Daniel.

Ann Blake Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
drugawareness.org & SSRIstories.NET
Author: ”Prozac: Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare! – The Complete Truth of the Full Impact of Antidepressants Upon Us & Our World” & Withdrawal CD “Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!”
WITHDRAWAL WARNING: In sharing this information about adverse reactions to antidepressants I always recommend that you also give reference to my CD on safe withdrawal, Help! I Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant!, so that we do not have more people dropping off these drugs too quickly – a move which I have warned from the beginning can be even more dangerous than staying on the drugs!
WITHDRAWAL HELP: You can find the hour and a half long CD on safe and effective withdrawal helps here:http://store.drugawareness.org/ And if you need additional consultations with Ann Blake-Tracy, you can book one atwww.drugawareness.org or sign up for one of the memberships in the International Coalition for Drug Awareness which includes free consultations as one of the benefits of that particular membership plan. For only a $30 membership for one month you can even get 30 days of access to the withdrawal CD with tips on rebuilding after the meds, all six of my DVDs, hundreds of radio interviews, lectures, TV interviews I have done over the years PLUS access to my book on antidepressants (500 plus pages) with more information than you will find anywhere else (that is only $5 more than the book alone would cost) atwww.drugawareness.org. (Definitely the best option to save outrageous postage charges for those out of the country!)

3,423 total views, no views today

ANTIDEPRESSANT: Psychiatrist Goes Nuts: Diagnosed Bipolar as They All Are!

Paragraphs 6 through 9 read: “Munn lost his license to practice psychiatry in Montana in 2003, after having an ongoing sexual relationship with one of his patients. His marriage dissolved around the same time. Already being treated for depression, Munn’s condition was rediagnosed, and with the help of counseling and medicine, he rebuilt his life into one where he’s succeeding while living with a mental illness.”

“Anti-depressants didn’t help the manic side of Munn’s bipolar disorder. At times his thoughts raced. He didn’t sleep. He had grandiose ideas ­ like how to fix the entire mental health system in the state of Montana.”

“And he believed he could do anything he wanted.”

“’I felt rules didn’t apply to me. That would be grandiosity,’ he said. ‘But they do. And that’s accepting that you have a mental illness’.”

http://www.helenair.com/articles/2009/08/02/top/55lo_090802_mh2.txt

Psychiatrist brings himself back from the brink of suicide

By JOHN HARRINGTON – Independent Record – 08/02/09

Eliza Wiley Independent Record – Nathan Munn has fought back from some very low places. Rather than ending his life, the psychiatrist chose to seek treatment for his bipolar disorder and began a new career teaching psychology courses and developing a mental health direct care program at University of Montana-Helena.
In 2003, with his career and home in very public shambles, Nathan Munn nearly committed suicide.

But rather than end his life, the psychiatrist chose not to pull the trigger one fateful night. He subsequently got treatment, including psychotherapy and medications, for his bipolar mood disorder.

Now, Munn is an instructor at the University of Montana-Helena, teaching psychology courses and developing a mental health direct care program that trains students how to be direct caregivers, counselors and other types of mental health professionals.

“I’m really thankful for my job at UM-Helena,” said Munn, 49, in a candid interview last week. “And I hope that my story can be of some inspiration along with my teaching. It’s my intention that I’m still helping in the community, but now with education as opposed to direct providing of psychiatric care.”

Munn admits somewhat nervously that his past is still “hard to talk about.” He chooses his words carefully, often pausing between sentences. He’s told his humbling story before, and maybe it’s getting a little easier ­ but not much. Remorse hangs deep in his eyes.

Munn lost his license to practice psychiatry in Montana in 2003, after having an ongoing sexual relationship with one of his patients. His marriage dissolved around the same time. Already being treated for depression, Munn’s condition was rediagnosed, and with the help of counseling and medicine, he rebuilt his life into one where he’s succeeding while living with a mental illness.

Anti-depressants didn’t help the manic side of Munn’s bipolar disorder. At times his thoughts raced. He didn’t sleep. He had grandiose ideas ­ like how to fix the entire mental health system in the state of Montana.

And he believed he could do anything he wanted.

“I felt rules didn’t apply to me. That would be grandiosity,” he said. “But they do. And that’s accepting that you have a mental illness.”

Mental illnesses are by no means limited to those on the fringes of society. Millions of Americans of all walks of life ­ blue collar and white, laborers and professionals ­ live daily with schizophrenia, depression, bipolar mood disorder and other diagnosable and treatable conditions.

Mike Larson of Dillon is director of the State Bar of Montana’s Lawyer Assistance Program, which was created in 2006 after several attorneys committed suicide in Missoula.

“Lawyers, from the first call in the morning to the last e-mail at night, are busy dealing with everyone else’s problems,” Larson said. “So what do they do when their own problems kick in?”

Larson said that from a population of 2,800 members of the bar in Montana, he takes calls from eight to 10 new clients a month, around a third of which are related to mental illness, with another third dealing with chemical dependency. He said many lawyers are reticent to call the program, either out of fear that others will learn of their treatment and their careers will suffer, or from simple denial.

“There are a lot of stereotypes out there about what mental illness is, and there’s that whole component of not wanting to be under the stigma of mental illness,” Larson said.

For Munn, day-to-day life means a regimen of a mood-stabilizing drug and an anti-depressant, acknowledgement of and taking responsibility for the mistakes he made and a resolve to move forward knowing the illness will likely be with him for the rest of his life.

“It’s not like there’s one day that you no longer have a mental illness,” he said. “On appropriate treatment, it can be in remission. And you stay on your meds and you do the psychological work necessary, and you move forward.

“I hate to say it because it sounds like it’s bragging, but it takes courage. You have to face this, you face what you did, you face having a mental illness, and you accept other aspects of your life.”

Munn doesn’t hide from his condition, and hopes that sharing his story will comfort others who find themselves in similar positions.

“One of the main things I want to say is when you have a mental illness, you have to acknowledge that that’s there, and that you have it,” he said. “I have a bipolar disorder, I am not bipolar. It is something that I have, it is not something that I am. A lot of people say, ‘I am bipolar.’ Well, what does that mean? You don’t say, ‘I am congestive heart failure. I am sinusitis.’ It’s not who you are, it’s what you have.”

Just as there are ways to characterize people living with mental illness, there are productive ways to discuss the illnesses themselves, Munn said.

“(People) talked about the dark recesses of the mind. That’s not the way to talk about it,” he said. “The term ‘dark recess’ has such a negative connotation, Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde, that’s not it. They’re not dark recesses. It’s neuropathology. It’s limbic system disregulation. And it’s the cognitions, the thinking that goes along with it.

“That’s a tough thing for people to get, but I think it’s crucial for people to get that as they’re recovering from a mental illness, that our brains and our minds are the same thing. So when I have negative cognitions, when I’m thinking that people would be better off without me, that’s the psychological part.

“And that’s a key point for people, is that what you’re thinking psychologically and what your brain is doing physically, we don’t know how it’s the same function, but it is the same function. The subjective psychology that you’re feeling as a person with a mental illness, is the psychological aspect of the biological process, and yes, it is a real illness. The idea that a psychological illness is somehow not real is just absurd. That’s crazy.”

Many mental illnesses can be directly traced to chemical imbalances or other physical abnormalities in the brain. But having a mental illness can’t by itself be an excuse for any actions, good bad or otherwise.

“You don’t want to use it as an excuse to justify behaviors. You have to take accountability. Personal accountability is necessary for recovery, it just is,” he said. “It takes humility, it takes a lot of work, it takes compliance.

“I made huge mistakes. My choices were horrible. Despicable, really, is the term to use. I hurt a lot of people. I hurt patients that I had, the person herself and her family, and of course my family. I feel sorry and apologetic about that every day. Especially for my children, I feel horrible and always will.

“One of the points I would like to make is, yes, I have this bipolar disorder. To deny I do would be to deny I have a mental illness. But I also completely accept responsibility and accountability for my actions. And that’s a very important point: recovery requires personal accountability. Yes, I have a major mental illness, and yes, I am responsible for my actions. Those aren’t mutually exclusive.”

Treating a mental illness isn’t a guarantee of happiness. Life still presents challenges, and treatment gives those suffering from mental illness a better chance at facing those challenges head-on and coming out ahead.

“Life has struggles, with or without a mental illness,” Munn said. “Having your mental illness treated doesn’t mean your life is wonderful. You’re still going to have the struggles that everyone has. But you’ll also have wonderful things. I’m a grandfather. And that’s wonderful. If I had killed myself, I wouldn’t have known this joy of having a granddaughter.

“You have to accept mental health care of various types, and you need to know that it’s worth it, that treatments are available, the science is there, people do recover, illnesses do go into remission. Of all chronic illnesses to have, having a mental illness is not bad. Treatments are available, and you can live a long, good life having your mental illness treated.”

Larson of the Lawyer Assistance Program acknowledged that people need to want to treat their illnesses.

“There are a lot of people out there that still need the help that haven’t come forward or recognized they need the help,” Larson said. “Not only are they in denial that they have a problem, they’re in denial that everyone knows they have a problem.”

And even if the disease goes into remission or becomes manageable, a person must be diligent, even when things are going well.

“It’s not something you mess around with. And that’s OK,” Munn said. “Mental illnesses are chronic illnesses. People have the idea that, ‘Oh no, I’m going to be on medications for life.’ Well yeah, you are. And that’s all right, you have a chronic illness. There are a lot of chronic illnesses, not just psychiatric ones. And people who have those, like type 1 diabetes, will be on insulin. It’s accepted. So it’s a chronic illness, you accept that.”

And the more acceptance there is, across a broader swath of Montana at large, the easier it will be for people to summon the strength to get the help they need, to confront the illness, and to assume the places so many of them deserve as productive members of society.

To view the complete series on mental health care services in Montana, click here.

John Harrington: 447-4080 or john.harrington@helenair.com.

525 total views, no views today

Report: Overdose of prescription drugs may have killed Michael Jackson

Thu, Jun. 25, 2009

Life & Style reports that Michael Jackson
was taking a cocktail of up to seven prescription drugs in the months
before his death.

The star had been taking prescription painkillers including
anti-anxiety drugs Xanax, Zoloft (SSRI Antidepressant) and painkiller Demerol in recent
months, sources close to Jackson told Life & Style. The insider
close to the star said he took a suspected overdose of drugs on
Thursday morning, which caused respiratory and cardiac arrest.

And a Jackson family lawyer told CNN he “feared” the drugs
could kill the pop star. CNN’s interview with the source follows the
jump.

Jackson
family lawyer Brian Oxman confirmed Jackson may have had trouble with
prescription drugs as he prepared for his London show.

“This was something which I feared and something which I warned about,”
Oxman said on CNN. “I can tell you for sure that this is something I
warned about. Where there is smoke there is fire.”

Mr Oxman compared Michael to Anna Nicole Smith, alleging that Michael had ‘enablers’ just like her.

CNN details Jackson’s long history of medical problems here.
At
a news conference, brother Jermaine Jackson said doctors and family
tried “for an hour” to resuscitate the performer. TMZ’s video of the
conference is here.

Meanwhile, Hollyscoop reports that doctors visited Jackson “daily.” THe site’s latest update:

While news of Michael Jackson’s death came as a shock to many, inside
sources tell Hollyscoop exclusively that the King of Pop “had doctors
visiting him daily.”

Michael went into cardiac arrest Thursday afternoon and was rushed to
UCLA Medical Center around 1pm. His personal physician was with him at
the time and accompanied him to the hospital.

At approximately 1:14pm when he arrived at the hospital, doctors and
emergency personnel performed CPR and tried to resuscitate him, but
were unsuccessful. He was pronounced dead at 2:26pm.

The cause of his death is still unknown, but an autopsy is scheduled
for this coming Friday afternoon. Michael was transferred from UCLA
Medical Center to the coroner’s office via a Los Angeles Sheriff’s
helicopter shortly after 6pm.

Posted on Thu, Jun. 25, 2009 08:41 PM

http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1282600.html

Jackson family spokesman Brian Oxman reacts to the news of
Michael Jackson’s death. He says he is “stunned” and adds that he
warned the family that prescription drug abuse might have contributed
to his death.

“If you think the case with Anna Nicole Smith was
an abuse, it’s nothing in comparison to what we have seen taking place
in Michael Jackson’s life.”

915 total views, no views today

UPDATE!! Michael Jackson Zoloft – Demerol Death

Content-Type: text/html; charset=”utf-8″

As suspected, and now co=
nfirmed, Michael Jackson dead at age 50 do to
Serotonin Syndrome as a result of 2 serotonergic medication Zoloft (antide=
pressant) and Demerol (pain killer)
Lisa Maire Presley has not only lost her father, but now also her Ex-husba=
nd, to the same combination of drugs:
antidepressants and pain killers.
Ann Blake-Tracy, Exec=
utive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & author of Prozac: Panacea
or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare & audio Help! I
Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant! ()
Phone: 801-209-1800
Email:
http://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1282600.html

The star had been taking=
prescription painkillers including
anti-anxiety drugs Xanax, Zoloft and painkiller Demerol in recent
months, sources close to Jackson told Life & Style

Life & Style reports that Michael Jackson was taking a cocktail
of up to seven prescription drugs in the months before his death.

The star had been taking prescription painkillers including
anti-anxiety drugs Xanax, Zoloft and painkiller Demerol in recent
months, sources close to Jackson told Life & Style. The insider
close to the star said he took a suspected overdose of drugs on
Thursday morning, which caused respiratory and cardiac arrest.
And a Jackson family lawyer told CNN he “feared” the drugs
could kill the pop star. CNN’s interview with the source follows the
jump.


<object width=3D”425″ height=3D”344″><param name=3D”movie” value=
=3D”http://www.youtube.com/v/ARi_uuit3Hg&hl=3Den&fs=3D1&”>&=
lt;/param><param name=3D”allowFullScreen” value=3D”true”></par=
am><param name=3D”allowscriptaccess” value=3D”always”></param&=
gt;<embed src=3D”http://www.youtube.com/v/ARi_uuit3Hg&hl=3Den&f=
s=3D1&” type=3D”application/x-shockwave-flash” allowscriptaccess=3D”al=
ways” allowfullscreen=3D”true” width=3D”425″ height=3D”344″></embed&=
gt;</object>

 

Jackson family lawyer Brian Oxman confirmed Jackson may have had
trouble with prescription drugs as he prepared for his London show.
“This was something which I feared and something which I warned about,”
Oxman said on CNN. “I can tell you for sure that this is something I
warned about. Where there is smoke there is fire.”
Mr Oxman compared Michael to Anna Nicole Smith, alleging that Michael had=
‘enablers’ just like her.
CNN details Jackson’s long history of medical problems he=
re.
At
a news conference, brother Jermaine Jackson said doctors and family
tried “for an hour” to resuscitate the performer. TMZ’s video of the
conference is here.
Meanwhile, Hollyscoop reports that doctors visited Jackson “daily.” THe si=
te’s latest update:
While news of Michael Jackson’s death came as a shock to many, inside
sources tell Hollyscoop exclusively that the King of Pop “had doctors
visiting him daily.”
Michael went into cardiac arrest Thursday afternoon and was rushed to
UCLA Medical Center around 1pm. His personal physician was with him at
the time and accompanied him to the hospital.
At approximately 1:14pm when he arrived at the hospital, doctors and
emergency personnel performed CPR and tried to resuscitate him, but
were unsuccessful. He was pronounced dead at 2:26pm.
The cause of his death is still unknown, but an autopsy is scheduled
for this coming Friday afternoon. Michael was transferred from UCLA
Medical Center to the coroner=E2=80=99s office via a Los Angeles Sheriff’s
helicopter shortly after 6pm.

Posted on Thu, Jun. 25, 2009 08:41 PMhttp://www.kansascity.com/stargazing/story/1282600.html

—–Original Message—–
From:
To: post@drugawareness.org; atracyphd1@aol.
com
Sent: Fri, Jun 26, 2009 8:57 am
Subject: Michael Jackson Loses Life to Serotonergic Medications Just as El=
vis Did

Thursday June 25, 2009 Michael Jackson lost his life due to the organ=
stopping effect of Serotonin=
Syndrome
thanks to a drug that should have been removed from the=
market decades ago – Demerol. A serotonergic medication similar in action to antidepressants, at=
ypical antipsychotics, and other pain killers.

Serotonin constricts smooth muscle tissue. The major organs of the body ar=
e composed of smooth muscle tissue. When serotonin levels increase too hig=
h the major organs constrict and shut down. Elevated serotonin, which all=
of these medications produce, causes death via multiple organ failur=
e. This is the same way Daniel Smith, Anna Nicole Smith’s young son lost=
his life to the combination of four serotonergic medications.

Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director,International Coalition for Drug Awareness

www.drugawarene=
ss.org & author of Prozac: Panacea

or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare & audio Help! I

Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant! ()

Are Drugs to Blame for Jackson’=
s Death?
PopEater
posted: 13 MINUTES AGO
comments: 1505
filed under: Music News
PrintShare

Text SizeAAA

Skip over this content=

Getty Images
As the world contin=
ues to try to grasp and make sense of the incredibly shocking death of Michael Jackson=
, several people close to the family and investigation are hinting=
that prescription drugs may have played a role in the King of Pop’s demis=
e.
TMZ is reporting that=
a Jackson family
members have confirmed that Michael received a shot of Demerol just before=
Noon on Thursday, and that the dosage was “too much.” They say Jackson ty=
pically recieved a shot of Demerol daily.
Britain’s The Sun, citing sources at the UCLA hosp=
ital where Jackson was treated, is reporting that Jackson stopped breathin=
g shortly after a shot of Demerol, a drug similar to morphine. “Shortly af=
ter taking the Demerol he started to experience slow shallow breathing. Hi=
s breathing gradually got slower and slower until it stopped,” the Sun sou=
rce said.
Save energy, paper and money –=
get the Green Toolba=
r
.
Save energy, paper and money — get the Green Toolbar.

1,593 total views, no views today

Michael Jackson Loses Life to Serotonergic Medications Just as Elvis Did

Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Type: text/html; charset=”us-ascii”

Thursday June 25, 2009 Michael Jackson lost his life due to the organ stopping effect of Serotonin Syndrome thanks to a drug that should have been removed from the market decades ago – Demerol. A serotonergic medication similar in action to antidepressants, atypical antipsychotics, and other pain killers.

Serotonin constricts smooth muscle tissue. The major organs of the body are composed of smooth muscle tissue. When serotonin levels increase too high the major organs constrict and shut down. Elevated serotonin, which all of these medications produce, causes death via multiple organ failure. This is the same way Daniel Smith, Anna Nicole Smith’s young son lost his life to the combination of four serotonergic medications.

Ann Blake-Tracy, Executive Director,
International Coalition for Drug Awareness
www.drugawareness.org & author of Prozac: Panacea
or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare & audio Help! I
Can’t Get Off My Antidepressant! ()

Are Drugs to Blame for Jackson’s Death?
PopEater
posted: 13 MINUTES AGO
comments: 1505
filed under: Music News

var addthis_pub = “aolnews”; var addthis_options = ’email, myspace, aim, delicious, facebook, google, digg, stumbleupon, twitter, more’; var addthis_exclude = ‘print’;

PrintBookmark and ShareShare
Text SizeAAA

switchFont(1,”smallText”);

Skip over this content

Michael Jackson

Getty Images
As the world continues to try to grasp and make sense of the incredibly shocking death of Michael Jackson, several people close to the family and investigation are hinting that prescription drugs may have played a role in the King of Pop’s demise.
TMZ is reporting that a Jackson family members have confirmed that Michael received a shot of Demerol just before Noon on Thursday, and that the dosage was “too much.” They say Jackson typically recieved a shot of Demerol daily.
Britain’s The Sun, citing sources at the UCLA hospital where Jackson was treated, is reporting that Jackson stopped breathing shortly after a shot of Demerol, a drug similar to morphine. “Shortly after taking the Demerol he started to experience slow shallow breathing. His breathing gradually got slower and slower until it stopped,” the Sun source said.

911 total views, no views today

Nguyen & Farber v SmithKline Beecham Corporation

Second Update: Paxil Lawsuit

Donald J. (“Don”) Farber Attorney at Law

Our objective in the lawsuit is to compel SmithKline to place an accurate warning label on Paxil regarding the drug’s addictive qualities. In 1992 Paxil’s watered down label was approved by the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), and has been remain unchanged ever since-this despite numerous medical articles published in the 1990’s outlining the seriousness of the problem.

Nguyen & Farber v SmithKline Beecham Corporation

2/24/2001

Second Update: Paxil Lawsuit

Donald J. (“Don”) Farber Attorney at Law

This is our 2nd update (“sitrep” or “situation report”) in our Paxil withdrawal lawsuit (“Nguyen & Farber v SmithKline Beecham Corporation”). We filed the case August 18, 2000 against SmithKline (now “GlaxoSmithKline) in Superior Court, Santa Clara County, San Jose, California. You are on our e-mail address group because of past communications on the Paxil issue. If you do not wish to be kept informed on the progress of the lawsuit-please advise, and you will be deleted from distribution.

Discussed below are:

(1) Chronological events in the lawsuit; (2) a review of the lawsuit and why it was necessary; (3) evidence now being sought in discovery; (4) settlement proposal of plaintiffs; (5) media interest in the lawsuit; (6) this lawsuit and FDA oversight; (7) solicitation of additional witnesses. (8) our expert consultant, Peter R. Breggin, MD.

1. CHRONOLOGICAL EVENTS IN THE LAWSUIT

August 18, 2000 Plaintiffs file “unfair competition” consumer lawsuit in San Jose, California October 4, 2000 Plaintiffs amend complaint (with “first amended complaint”) October 5, 2000 SmithKline answers original complaint with 26 affirmative defenses October 12, 2000: Plaintiffs submit Set One discovery demands to SmithKline November 16, 2000 SmithKline answers first amended complaint with 25 affirmative defenses November 22, 2000 Plaintiffs submit Set Two discovery demands to SmithKline December 18, 2000 SmithKline responds to Set One discovery demands January 2, 2001 Court’s first “case management conference” held in Department 2, Superior Court January 2, 2001 Plaintiffs make settlement demand on SmithKline February 2, 2001 SmithKline responds to Set Two discovery demands February 20, 2001 (expected) Plaintiffs file Motion to Compel discovery responses Next official event: April 10, 2001 Case Management Conference #2

2. A REVIEW OF THE LAWSUIT AND WHY IT WAS NECESSARY.

Our objective in the lawsuit is to compel SmithKline to place an accurate warning label on Paxil regarding the drug’s addictive qualities. In 1992 Paxil’s watered down label was approved by the Food & Drug Administration (“FDA”), and has been remain unchanged ever since-this despite numerous medical articles published in the 1990’s outlining the seriousness of the problem. The woefully inadequate label does not alert physicians and patients to the addiction problem and the serious and prolonged withdrawal it causes when Paxil dosage is reduced or stopped. Technically speaking, the whole of the FDA labeling is written for the physician, and not for a lay reader. This works its way into the doctor’s office by way of a medical publication called the “PDR” (Physicians’ Desk Reference). The lawsuit was the result of complaints from numerous Paxil victims. Over the past (8) years since Paxil has been on the market-as anti-depressant sales have soared-Paxil patients have been victimized to addiction in increasing numbers. More patients have started taking Paxil and more, for varying reasons, have attempted to wean off the drug. A significant number, however, have been unable to do so-and feel entrapped. Most patients we have talked to are angry, and feel they were deceived into taking the drug under false pretenses. Most do not hold their physicians responsible, and instead focus their ire on SmithKline. Let’s make one point clear. Antidepressant drugs are also controversial because some believe they cause manic stimulation in a certain category of patients, leading to suicide and other forms of violence. We believe that to be true-but this lawsuit is not about the suicide issue, nor other forms of adverse Paxil side effects that are frequently the subject of complaint. This lawsuit is narrowly tailored to the Paxil addiction and withdrawal issue. Paxil’s 24 hour half life, a half life much lower than the selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (“SSRI”) Prozac and Zoloft-is a special bio-chemical factor of the SmithKline drug that distinguishes it from the respective Eli Lilly and Pfizer drugs just mentioned and-according to many experts-is the reason Paxil is particularly troublesome on the addiction front. Since Paxil’s FDA approval on December 29, 1992, many patients initially prescribed Paxil were led to believe by their physicians that the drug had few if any side effects. Indeed, in an internal document dated June 19, 1991, the FDA’s Martin Brecher, MD, wrote “the sponsor (SmithKline) represents that paroxetine..(Paxil)causes fewer side effects than other available antidepressants.” It is noteworthy this comment was submitted notwithstanding 21% of all Paxil patients quit clinical trials because they could not tolerate the drug. In any case after the drug was on the open market, Paxil patients-weeks, months, or years later after beginning dosage—attempted to reduce or quit dosage, they found themselves in the throes of withdrawal beyond their comprehension. Ignorant of the hazard from the beginning, patients came on to this suffering through seemingly mysterious illnesses. “Electric zaps” and other adverse physical and psychological symptoms appeared out of the blue. Patients went to their physicians. Diagnostic medical tests were conducted—as doctors do in the course of isolating illness. In most cases neither physician nor patient suspected at the outset that Paxil withdrawal was the problem.

Notwithstanding our earlier comment that most patients are forgiving of their family physicians, unfortunately in too many of these cases, the physician turned out to be an obstacle in solving this problem. Often the patient or family member, mindful of when dosages were taken and stopped, was the creative one to deduce that the painful symptoms were associated with Paxil withdrawal. In other cases-while the mysterious illness was still a mystery—physicians became frustrated, telling patients they were imagining their symptoms. It goes without saying that this was very frustrating, and disheartening to the patient who knew what s/he was experiencing. But that was not the most serious problem. The greatest pitfall was misdiagnoses in the opposite direction. The diagnosis of relapse was such an example, and not an uncommon one. At a time when the patient desired to come off the drug because it was thought the underlying depression had improved, or perhaps because of an adverse side effect-and attempted to do so-the relapse diagnosis had exactly the opposite effect from what the patient desired. In one instance we were told by a patient that her physician thinking “relapse”—directed the patient to up the 10mg Paxil dosage to 60 mg daily. By that time the patient, fortunately, had enough sense to realize that her physician did not have the slightest notion of the problem, but was willing to pump his patient full of even a greater dosage of habit-forming drugs. The patient, fortunately, had the good sense to get a new physician. Another young lady, very frustrated by her physician’s reluctance to believe Paxil withdrawal was the problem after a reduction in dosage, challenged her physician that a return to full dosage would cure the bad symptoms. The physician agreed to the experiment. Within a day after return to full dosage, the patient’s bad symptoms disappeared. The physician was honorable enough to admit he had been wrong, that Paxil withdrawal had indeed been the problem. When gauging that there are hundreds and thousands of Paxil patients involved, one realizes there is tremendous pain and suffering because of Paxil’s mislabeling. One can only imagine the tragedies that have occurred because Paxil withdrawal was not anticipated, and thus not properly diagnosed when it appeared. In selecting these stories, we are not “picking” on the physicians. On the contrary-we think we are proving our point. If the physicians are unaware of Paxil’s addictive hazards, the responsibility for that problem lies squarely with SmithKline and the FDA. For that reason, corrective action must be initiated. If neither SmithKline nor the FDA is willing to step up to the plate and fulfill their responsibility to the American consumer-as is the case-Vince Nguyen, Skip Murgatroyd, and I as “persons” with standing under California “unfair competition” statutes will do so. Let justice begin in the Golden State-and with assistance of consumers throughout the nation-and indeed also in the UK, Canada, and Australia (as we have witness statements from citizens of those countries), let us commence the task-and let us complete it with resolve.

3. EVIDENCE NOW BEING SOUGHT IN DISCOVERY.

Discovery has commenced in the lawsuit. Plaintiffs are seeking evidence: (a) that illustrates Paxil in fact causes the serious withdrawal problems we allege, and (b) that SmithKline is well aware of Paxil’s hazards. To avoid legalese, we will paraphrase and use ordinary English to convey some of the exchanges that have occurred in our discovery process to date. You will get an idea of how large corporate defendants stymie the discovery process, and effectively throw up a firewall to ward off plaintiffs. (“Q’s” are our (plaintiffs’) questions, “A’s” are SmithKline’s answers, and “notes” of ours that follow SmithKline’s answers.

Q: How many complaints on Paxil withdrawal have you received since January 1, 1993?

A: We object to the question. We don’t know what you mean by “complaint” and “withdrawal” but we’ll turnover over our adverse complaint file on Paxil. (note: they have not turned over the file yet)

Q: What efforts have you made since 1993 to find out about the Paxil withdrawal problem?

A: We object to the question. We have, however, performed numerous analyses of symptoms that were reported following cessation of Paxil therapy. We will provide you documents on these entries if you agree to keep them secret. (note: we have strong reason to believe the “analyses” SmithKline claims are not scientific in any manner, shape, or form-and what SmithKline is claiming is nothing more than a retrospective analysis of computer reports generated by the adverse event reporting system imposed by the FDA. There is nothing wrong with FDA adverse event reporting system, except that-after a drug is one the market—it is a voluntary reporting system for physicians and pharmacists. After an FDA approved drug is distributed into the general population, only a small percentage of adverse events ever get reported. Notwithstanding the limited sample, it is not the limited reporting that is the problem, but SmithKline’s reliance on it for scientific application. SmithKline’s misplaced reliance on the adverse event reporting system to discern addiction/withdrawal is a “garbage in garbage out” technique represented as scientific analysis. This is the same ploy used to justify the drug companies’ refusal to design a forward looking study on the SSRI suicide problem. We believe SmithKline refuses to conduct such studies because they are rightfully dubious of the unsatisfactory results that would ensue from the company’s perspective. As to SmithKline’s “secrecy” requirement, plaintiffs will not agree. That is yet another ploy to keep the public excluded from knowing the hazards of a particular product that is on the market. Plaintiffs will not agree to a secret process without compelling justification. To date, we have not seen anything justifying such secrecy.

Q: What were the symptoms of the 18 Yugoslav patients you claim were suffering “relapse” (and we claim may have been suffering withdrawal)?

A: We object to the question, but we will turn over the case report forms on those patients if you agree to keep them secret. (note: we have refused to agree to secrecy on the forms, but out of respect for the privacy of the patients, we have agreed that SmithKline can delete all identifying data on the patients involved (name, address, etc.) This issue is still unresolved).

Q: Identify by names the physicians who administered the Yugoslav trial.

A: We object, but will turn over the names of all officials authorized to make medical entries on that trial if you agree to secrecy. (note: Here is where pharmaceutical companies conducting clinical trials often skew the results. We do not know SmithKline has cheated, but we cannot presume they have not. As President Reagan once said: “Trust, but verify.” Yes, we must verify. What frequently happens during a clinical trial is that the physician on the scene is perfectly candid, and writes down accurate information. However when this information gets to company headquarters, e.g., a higher up will modify the finding to make the results appear more favorable. Rarely does a “smoking gun” appear to prove out and out cheating, but through massaging data “here” and “there,” statistics can often be molded to portray a much more favorable result than otherwise warranted. It appears in this instance that SmithKline is attempting to keep a lid on the identity of the particular Yugoslav physicians who ran the trials at the clinics. Company executives simply do not leave to chance the details of clinical data collection at the various test sites. We are also naturally skeptical on the Yugoslav venue. With the difficulty of regulatory agencies in the U.S. and U.K. to effectively monitor medical personnel in a country where political instability has been present, the results of such a trial must be viewed with even greater skepticism. We will scrutinize this carefully, and persist until we are confident of how “PAR 08-03” (the Yugoslav trial) was conducted and how the results were tabulated and reported.

Q: (we cited a known source who telephonically called in a withdrawal complaint to SmithKline, and, with the authorization from the patient, asked SmithKline to see all the paperwork that was generated on the patient. We then asked for the identity of the senior SmithKline official who acted on the complaint. Our reason for doing so was our suspicion that SmithKline has been downplaying customer complaints on withdrawal for years. In the next few weeks we will selectively verify known withdrawal complaints to determine if SmithKline was forthright in accepting the patients’ complaints and forwarding the complaints accurately to the FDA.)

A: (SmithKline again objected, but said they would provide the package they prepared on the complaining patient. Large entities, government or private, often have low level people sign reports, even though senior officials review the reports and effectively make the decision on disposition (i.e. the concept of “plausible denial”). In this interrogatory, SmithKline said their “clinical safety physician” regularly reviews adverse reports. This is a typically evasive answer, offering generalities but avoiding the requested specifics.

Q: (we asked whether SmithKline “systematically assessed” the withdrawal issue in the Yugoslav trial?

A: (Interestingly, SmithKline admitted they did not systematically assess withdrawal in the Yugoslav trial. We actually knew that they had not. However plaintiffs maintain SmithKline misrepresented that issue during the FDA’s committee hearing on October 5, 1992. The misrepresentation occurred just before committee members voted on Paxil’s market approval. Page 98 of the committee’s transcript recorded the FDA representative, David Wheadon, MD, saying “As you can see here, few numbers of patients experienced any adverse event after being randomized off(Paxil)into the placebo group and the percentages are certainly very small. But these were the common adverse events seen in that small population IN OUR ATTEMPT TO SYSTEMATICALLY ASSESS A DISCONTINUATION SYNDROME.” ) (Note: As one learns, no SmithKline person publicly utters the word “withdrawal.” Company spokespeople order SmithKline employees to say “discontinuation.” This is quite silly, but propagandists always operate with rigidity of the spoken and written word. In any event, it is readily discernible that exaggeration and stretching of the truth transpires to get a drug approved before FDA committees. The above quote is manifestly clear that SmithKline conveyed the idea they “systematically” assessed withdrawal in the Yugoslav study. They subsequently got caught in a false representation, and now are attempting to recast their deception. We did note their word “attempt” in the above quote-so, to be technically and rhetorically fair, we further asked SmithKline if they “attempted” to systematically study the withdrawal issue, but somehow failed in their objective. We felt we knew the answer to that question, but wanted to hear it from SmithKline nonetheless. The answer was “no” to both. Despite being forced to acknowledge there was nothing “systematic” at all about their withdrawal inquiry, SmithKline continues to be evasive on the issue).

Q: In Paxil’s labeling, why did you warn patients that those with a “history of drug abuse” should worry about tolerance for the drug when other patients were not so warned?

A: We object to the definition of “history of drug abuse” and weren’t responsible for the warning anyway, but we’ll produce paperwork showing the background of the labeling process if you agree to secrecy. (note: here’s another case where SmithKline is trying to evade their responsibility. Plaintiffs are aware that certain “class” warnings were developed for SSRI’s as a class of drug. This phrase (“history of drug abuse”) was one of them, and SmithKline simply adopted it. The problem, however, is that the warning is very deceptive in the case of Paxil. The wording implies that regular patients do not have to worry about developing tolerance of Paxil; only patients with a “history of drug abuse” do. SmithKline is trying to hide behind the FDA’s class warning while at the same time they are aware that Paxil has a 24 hour half life and is much worse on that front than the other SSRI’s. Interestingly, SmithKline did admit in discovery that they have no scientific basis to claim that those with a “history of drug abuse” are at a greater risk to suffer withdrawal (or as they say “discontinuation syndrome”) than other patients.

We have demanded that SmithKline produce the following documents for plaintiffs’ review: (a) documents on withdrawal sent to SmithKline from the FDA; (b) documents on withdrawal sent to the FDA from SmithKline; (c) document establishing the rules for the Yugoslav clinical trial; (d) documents on the 18 patients who suffered “relapse” during the Yugoslav clinical trial; (e) documents explaining the FDA imposed “post marketing” label for Paxil that ordered SmithKline to print on the label: “There have been spontaneous reports that abrupt discontinuation may lead to symptoms such as dizziness, sensory disturbances, agitation or anxiety, nausea and sweating: these events are generally self-limiting.” (f) documents addressing any medical author’s writings on the possible relationship between Paxil and withdrawal; (g) documents that came into your possession depicting new information on Paxil withdrawal that you were not previously aware of;

Document response: In virtually every document request, SmithKline has conditioned their willingness to turn over the documents on the issuance of a “protective order.” As stated, plaintiffs will not agree to secrecy.

All of the above discovery disputes are being worked as this sitrep is written. It is very likely that the judge will have to resolve most of them.

4. PLAINTIFFS’ SETTLEMENT PROPOSAL.

On the occasion of the “case management conference” January 2, 2001, upon invitation by SmithKline, plaintiffs made a written settlement demand. Essentially, plaintiffs demanded that the Paxil withdrawal problem be fully acknowledged, and that SmithKline take steps to divulge what they know about the problem and commit to modifying the deficient Paxil warning. The proposal did not specify the exact wording on any revised Paxil warning, but merely put forward a framework by which settlement could occur. No response has been forthcoming. It must be borne in mind that lawsuits do not, except in rare instances, dictate a company’s policy. The “bottom line” profit factor is usually the decisive factor in corporate conduct. Only if SmithKline deems their “bottom line” at risk do we expect action to resolve this dispute. We have a feeling that the high corporate executives at SmithKline have limited their agenda to sales-which have been very successful—and have a tin ear on the withdrawal subject. Given the public interest nature of this lawsuit, we have made it clear to SmithKline there will be no “secret” settlement of this lawsuit. The final result-settlement or trial-will be a matter of public record.

5. MEDIA INTEREST IN THE LAWSUIT.

Since we filed the lawsuit, several national media organizations, print and TV/radio, have requested that we keep them abreast of developments. The media has followed and reported on the SSRI suicide issue since Prozac first entered the market a dozen years ago. The addition/withdrawal issue, however, has only recently taken hold in the press. ABC’s “20/20,” with Connie Chung and Nancy Snyderman, did an excellent show on Paxil withdrawal on August 25, 2000. Very recently I got a call from another major network producer. That major network executive was of the same mind as we are, that there’s several people in the bowels of the pharmaceutical industry who are probably aware of the “smoking gun” on anti-depressants. With the tobacco industry, it took 30 years for the “smoking gun” to come to the surface. But SSRI’s and antidepressants as an issue are infinitely more complicated than tobacco-and that of course is exactly why the clinical data surrounding such clinical trials can be manipulated, massaged, and juggled to make it appear the drugs are safe and efficacious.

6. THIS LAWSUIT AND FDA OVERSIGHT.

If the FDA were doing its job properly, would this lawsuit be necessary? No! In reviewing records and events, we are utterly astounded by the lack of mission focus at FDA. When we look where former FDA officials are employed and/or where they’re doing their high price consulting, the big picture becomes pretty clear. The average FDA official is not about burn bridges with the pharmaceutical companies when s/he is on the job-and risk future career harm. However in the case of the FDA, the issue is slightly more complicated than with other government agencies. Bureaucracies get their marching orders, and once established, procedures are virtually on autopilot. Plaintiffs call attention to what we believe is the most outstanding journalistic reporting we have seen on the issue. On December 20, 2000, the Los Angeles Times devoted half their front page section to the problem at FDA. David Willman of the Times, and two assistants, did Pulitzer quality investigative reporting on how the FDA got off track in the 1990’s. Early in the Clinton administration, the FDA was directed to cooperate with private industry in developing drugs for diseases such as AIDS and cancer, and to make them available as a faster pace than the FDA had been accustomed to. This was a worthy goal. As with much in government and law, however, unintended consequences often follow. Several drugs were rushed on the market under the hastened FDA approval process-and then subsequently banned because usage in the general population proved them unsafe. When government cuts corners, abuses pop up in a variety of fashions. Mr. Willman pointed out the widespread conflicts of interest at play in the drug approval process at FDA as these events unfolded. Willman’s articles did not specifically address the agency’s psychopharmacological drugs section, but frankly we think that section is “worse” than the FDA in general. FDA psychiatrists in that section have gone out of their way to run interference for the drug companies and for approval of psychotropic drug applications, when their primary concern should be safety for the American consumer. Much of the correspondence coming out of the FDA that we have reviewed on Paxil sounded like SmithKline sales literature. This dynamic is difficult to describe without reading it yourself-but frankly we were shaking our heads as we read the cheerleader tone of the rhetoric. These FDA commentators would accentuate a supposed attribute of Paxil-but when a drawback had to be addressed, an FDA commentator downplayed it. In one clinical trial, “PAR 08-01.” eight (8) medical students, signing up to be guinea pigs for a Paxil dosage experiment, reported they suffered severe adverse symptoms. The FDA categorized the trial as “unexpected difficulty” for SmithKline in the Paxil application. Adverse reactions ranged from 52-90% of the entire patient group. After these questionable results, the commentator grossly spun the results in favor of SmithKline. The FDA blamed the principal investigator (“PI”) hired by SmithKline, alleging he was “conducting his first tolerance study.” . This was remarkably strange given that the protocol for the dosage was written by SmithKline. Not content with that, the FDA commentator then stated the adverse symptoms were the result of an excessively high dosage “and perhaps also to increased sensitivity rising from the medical background of some of the subjects and the inexperience of the investigator.” In other words, the 8 medical students were probably imagining their ills, and the PI was incompetent. Such a thrust by the FDA commentator was without any scientific basis and was nothing but sheer speculation slanted in favor of the Paxil application. Unfortunately this is the FDA pattern as we have observed it. Moreover, the FDA stacks their voting committees with drug industry advocates. Willman’s statistics, carefully gathered over a decade, clearly illustrate that. Half the people who sit on FDA voting boards have a conflict of interest. Incidentally, while Paxil was not highlighted in the Times’ series , we pointed out in our August 18, 2000, complaint that all six (6) members of the FDA’s “Psychopharmacological Drugs Advisory Committee” (“PDAC”) who voted to approve Paxil were issued a waiver to sit on the board because each had a conflict of interest. We have no reason to believe our civil servants at the FDA or physicians sitting on the PDAC are personally corrupt. But the system is corrupt when it circumvents checks and balances and allows individuals with a vested interest in the outcome to represent the public in voting on the outcome of a particular drug application. The standard FDA and industry excuse heard to justify this is that these individuals are uniquely qualified, and without them these committees could not function. That, of course, is absurd and smacks of elitism. These are the same folks that voted for the seven (7) drugs that David Willman reported had to be taken off the market in the 1990’s because they were found to be unsafe. We are not criticizing the FDA for occasional errors of judgment. We are criticizing them for pro-industry bias and abandonment of the consumer as their primary focus. The FDA needs shaking up-and now!

7. SOLICITATION OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES.

The three (3) attorneys prosecuting this lawsuit continue to solicit witnesses. So please, join us. If you have knowledge of anyone suffering Paxil withdrawal, please instruct that individual to contact one of us. Do not assume what you know is commonly known or that we attorneys know it. We are anxious to hear from anybody who has information on Paxil withdrawal. Each person’s experiences are unique, and we would like to learn of them. Also, if you know anyone who has sensitive information on any related issue in the lawsuit, please advise them to call us collect.

8. EXPERT CONSULTANT.

Peter R. Breggin, MD, nationally known psychiatrist and author, is plaintiffs’ expert consultant in the lawsuit(“www.breggin.com”) Dr. Breggin, National Director of the Center for the Study of Psychiatry and Psychology, Bethesda, MD, is a former faculty member of the Johns Hopkins University Department of Counseling. Dr. Breggin is a consummate professional with unsurpassed integrity and courage. When one observes the degree to which the “bio psychiatric” establishment attacks Dr. Breggin and his views, one begins to appreciate what is at stake in this issue. Dr. Breggin has testified many times before congressional committees. Most recently in September, 2000, Dr. Breggin testified before a House subcommittee on the forced drugging of children. Even more recently an experienced psychiatrist in Southern California told me in regard to our consultant: “I used to think Breggin was exaggerating the danger of psychiatric drugs but I’ve come to realize he was actually understating the problem.” After the lawsuit was filed, the same psychiatrist told me flat out: “ For your information, ALL SSRI’s are addictive!!!”

NEXT SITREP..More later. We will issue the next sitrep after the next case management conference in April.

Regards Donald J. (“Don”) Farber Attorney at Law (and co-plaintiff) (Commander, U.S. Navy (Retired)) 1907 Las Gallinas Avenue San Rafael, CA 94903 ph (415) 491-0674 fax (415) 491-0829 e-mail: “n3dgt@AOL.com”

Co-Plaintiff and Co-counsel Vince D. Nguyen, Esq. c/o Law Offices of Vince D. Nguyen 2858 Stevens Creek Blvd, Suite 101 San Jose, CA 95129 Ph (408) 296-1881 Fax (408) 296-0474 e-mail: “lawvdn@accesscom.com”

In Association with Plaintiffs George W. (“Skip”) Murgatroyd, Esq. Of Counsel c/o Baum, Hedlund, Aristei Guilford & Downey 12100 Wilshire Blvd, Suite 950 Los Angeles, CA 90025 Ph (310) 207-3233 Fax (310) 820-7444 e-mail: “skip-tracy@att.net”

1,264 total views, no views today

Jefferson Co., Wisconsin vs. David Throm (Criminal Trial)

Trial starts for Palmyra man accused of killing

By Steve Sharp
Daily Times staff

The defense said today it plans to argue that Throm did not intend to kill Wilke and that his personality was affected by the mood-altering drug Paxil.
Jefferson Co., Wisconsin vs. David Throm (Criminal Trial)

2/24/2003

Trial starts for Palmyra man accused of killing

By Steve Sharp
Daily Times staff

JEFFERSON – A Jefferson County judge began hearing the opening statements of attorneys this morning in the case of a Palmyra man who is charged with first-degree intentional homicide for the killing of his girlfriend last summer.

Prior to the opening statements, Branch II Circuit Court Judge William Hue worked out details of the bench trial with attorneys for defendant David Throm, 41, of Palmyra and the state of Wisconsin. The trial is expected to last through the end of this week with Hue returning a verdict as early as Friday afternoon or as late as next Monday morning, March 3.

Throm is charged with killing his live-in girlfriend, Colleen Ann Wilke, 39, of Palmyra, last summer. He remains held on a $1 million cash bond.

Throm fled to Minnesota following the death of the woman and had apparently failed in an apparent attempt to commit suicide by hanging himself from a tree at a rest stop along Interstate 90 near Faribault, Minn. Throm was also found with a suicide note that stated where Wilke’s body could be found in a marshy area of Palmyra. The body was then recovered by Jefferson County authorities.

At Daily Times press time this morning, Jefferson County District Attorney David Wambach was making his opening statement to the court. Wambach said that the case before the court this week “proves the old addage that themore things change, the more they stay the same.”

“We’re in an era of lap-top computers, automobiles, and high-techweaponry,” Wambach said, but he noted that Throm’s alleged crime harkens to man’s more primitive period, when physical size and strength were more important.

Wambach explained, using a visual presentation including photos of Wilke’s dead body, just how Throm went about killing her. Wambach noted that she sustained a cerebral hematoma, or fatal injury to her skull.

“She died at the hands of David Throm,” Wambach said, adding thatThrom had stated in days prior to the homicide that Wilke “should fear” him.

Wilke and Throm were not living together at the time of the murder because they had recently broken off their relationship.

The defense said today it plans to argue that Throm did not intend to kill Wilke and that his personality was affected by the mood-altering drug Paxil.

937 total views, no views today