ANTIDEPRESSANT: Girl (11) From Bedwetting to Agitation & Psychotic Break

NOTE BY Ann Blake-Tracy (www.drugawareness.org):

What a TRAGIC case and all too common! It compares with the
case of the 15 year old girl given Zoloft for warts – yes warts – and ended up
committing suicide. Of course Pfizer tried as hard as they could, albeit
unsuccessfully, to convince the court in her wrongful death suit that it
was the warts that drove her to suicide, not the Zoloft! And this case is also
very similar to the case of the little girl I discuss in my book, “Prozac:
Panacea or Pandora? – Our Serotonin Nightmare” who was given Prozac because as
an A student it was felt she spent too much time doing homework! (I thought that
was how you became an A student!) She was described before the meds as an
excellent student and well behaved child.  Yet, within days on
Prozac she was throwing herself downstairs. They then took her off the meds
and then put her back on the meds at higher doses and the Yale
study ends with her pulling her hair out and being locked in a psych
ward where she would jump up and down on her Teddy Bear screaming “Kill, kill!
Die, Die!” As I have asked for years, how many productive and caring lives have
we cut off from us all by these deadly drugs?!
Paragraph three reads:  “He also includes the stories of
individual patients, all of whom fared poorly on psychiatric medications and did
better after coming off them. One was of a young woman from Seattle
prescribed an antidepressant at age 11 to treat her bed-wetting, who then became
agitated and spiraled into full-blown psychosis.
When Whitaker met her
at age 21 she was living in a group home for the severely mentally ill, mute,
and withdrawn. Her story is heartbreaking, and the implication is that her
deterioration was triggered by the medications she was given.”

http://www.boston.com/ae/books/articles/2010/04/14/tying_the_rise_in_mental_illness_to_drugs_used_in_its_treatment/

Tying the rise in mental illness to drugs used in its treatment

By Dennis
Rosen

April 14, 2010

ANATOMY OF AN EPIDEMIC: Magic Bullets,
Psychiatric Drugs, and the Astonishing Rise of Mental Illness in America
By
Robert Whitaker

Crown, 416 pp., $26

In “Anatomy of an Epidemic’’
Whitaker presents his theory that the dramatic increase in mental illness in the
United States since World War II is the direct result of the medicines
psychiatrists have been prescribing to treat it, and that this itself stems from

an unholy alliance between the pharmaceutical industry and corrupt physicians.
However, although extensively researched and drawing upon hundreds of sources,
the gaps in his theory remain too large for him to succeed in making a
convincing argument.

Whitaker cites studies showing better outcomes for
patients with depression or schizophrenia who have come off their medications
than for those who have stayed on them, but doesn’t consider the possibility
that this may be because those with milder disease recovered and no longer
needed medications, while those who were sicker to begin with simply could not
do without them.

He also includes the stories of individual patients, all
of whom fared poorly on psychiatric medications and did better after coming off
them. One was of a young woman from Seattle prescribed an antidepressant at age
11 to treat her bed-wetting, who then became agitated and spiraled into
full-blown psychosis. When Whitaker met her at age 21 she was living in a group
home for the severely mentally ill, mute, and withdrawn. Her story is
heartbreaking, and the implication is that her deterioration was triggered by
the medications she was given.

But how can one be certain of this?
Perhaps she was destined for mental illness through a combination of her genes
and the environment in the same way that some children develop cancer,
irrespective of any medications they may be taking. Perhaps without the
medications given to treat her psychosis her course would have been even worse.
Many children are treated with tricyclics for bed-wetting and the vast majority
do fine. A single case does not prove the rule, and here lies the basic problem
of this book. As Whitaker himself points out, there simply are not enough data

from well-designed, trustworthy studies. And without this information, it is
impossible to conclude anything meaningful about cause and effect.

Though
there remain unanswered questions about the efficacy of some psychiatric
medications in some patients and their long-term consequences, there is no
denying that they have brought about a huge improvement in quality of life for
millions. While it is reasonable for Whitaker to raise his concerns, it is
critical to remember that hypothesis is no substitute for data.

Ignoring
this can lead to disastrous consequences, such as occurred in South Africa at
the turn of this century. Thabo Mbeki, then president of that country, refused

to accept that AIDS was caused by the HIV virus, believing instead that it was a
side effect of malnutrition and the medications used to treat AIDS itself. In
the absence of an effective treatment and prevention program, it is estimated
that 365,000 South Africans died prematurely of AIDS between the years 2000-05
(currently, 18.1 percent of South African adults have HIV/AIDS).

Those
who would seize the opportunity to cast psychiatry as a discipline into the
rubbish heap without consideration for the benefits it has brought to so many
would do well to remember how Mbeki’s inability to distinguish between theory
and fact exacted such an enormous toll in human life and
suffering.

Dr. Dennis Rosen is a pediatric lung and sleep specialist
at Children’s Hospital Boston and an instructor in pediatrics at Harvard Medical
School.
[]
© Copyright 2010 Globe Newspaper
Company.

599 total views, no views today

ZOLOFT: Wrongful Death Suit Filed in Behalf of the Andrea Roberts’ Family

NOTE FROM Ann Blake-Tracy:

FINALLY!!!! A wrongful death suit that states these SSRI
wrongful death cases for what they really are: cold blooded premeditated murder!
When the risk is known and not stated, then what else could it be
other than premeditated murder? If it was an individual, rather than a wealthy
corporation who did this you had better believe they would be facing
premeditated murder charges.
___________________________________________
The label did contain a warning that children and teenagers
may have an increased risk of suicidal thinking, but it did not mention adults
being at risk of committing suicide or that the drug could cause any homicidal
thoughts or actions.

Because of the omissions from the label, the

plaintiffs allege Pfizer committed “fraud, misrepresentation, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, aggravated or gross negligence, battery,
assault, and potentially, premeditated murder.” . . .

“Defendants’
conduct was extreme and outrageous in character, and so extreme in degree as to
go beyond all possible bounds of decency as to be regarded as atrocious and
utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” the suit states.

Suit blames anti-depressant drug for 2007 murder-suicide
10/1/2009 2:43 PM By Marilyn Tennissen

[]

SHERMAN — In a suit recently transferred to the East
Texas federal court, the maker of a popular anti-depressant drug is being blamed
for a murder-suicide committed by a woman who had taken the drug.

Court
papers say that after taking Pfizer’s drug Zoloft, 41-year-old Andrea Roberts

shot and killed her two children and husband before turning the gun on
herself.

Her parents, Glenda and John Robert McCoy, and brother, John
Andrew McCoy, acting pro se, first filed a suit in Denton County on July 31 on
behalf of decedents Jon Andrea Roberts, Michael Roberts, Micayla Roberts and
Dylan Roberts.

Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Chairman Jeffrey Kindler, Pfizer
subsidiary Greenstone Pharmaceuticals and Does 1-50 were named as defendants.


Pfizer had the case transferred to the Sherman Division of
the Eastern District of Texas on Sept. 28.

According to the suit, on
July 24, 2007, Andrea Roberts bought Zoloft from a Tom Thumb Pharmacy in Flower
Mound.

Zoloft is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescribed to
patients for many psychiatric conditions and is designed to be taken orally once
a day or more often as directed by a physician.

The suit does not state
why Roberts was taking the medication, how long she had taken it or the doctor
who had prescribed it.


One week after she picked up the prescription, Andrea
Roberts and her family were dead.

Andrea Roberts allegedly shot and
killed her two children Micayla and Dylan, her husband, Michael, and then
committed suicide at their home in Denton on July 31, 2007. According to the

suit, in the days leading up to the incident Roberts had become paranoid and
delusional.

The surviving plaintiffs allege that the product Zoloft

caused these violent acts,” the complaint states. “In the alternative, the
surviving plaintiffs allege that the product Zoloft was a contributing cause
accounting for causing or worsening decedent Andrea Roberts‘ condition to the

point of causing paranoia, psychosis, homicidal thinking or other symptoms
inhibiting her judgment leading to the commission of homicidal and suicidal
actions.”

In its Notice of Removal, Pfizer argues there are many
inconsistencies in the plaintiffs’ complaint.

“Although this action can
be fairly characterized as a products liability case, plaintiffs purport to
assert a wide variety of claims in this lawsuit and their Petition is confusing
and contradictory,” Pfizer states.

The plaintiffs argue that because

Andrea Roberts did not consent to taking “a drug that causes homicide,” she
should be considered “involuntarily intoxicated” and therefore not guilty of
contributory negligence or assumption of risk.

Pfizer knew from reports
and studies that Zoloft could cause homicidal actions, the suit alleges, but
failed to include that information on the drug’s warning label.

The

label did contain a warning that children and teenagers may have an increased
risk of suicidal thinking, but it did not mention adults being at risk of
committing suicide or that the drug could cause any homicidal thoughts or
actions.

Because of the omissions from the label, the plaintiffs allege
Pfizer committed “fraud, misrepresentation, intentional infliction of emotional
distress, aggravated or gross negligence, battery, assault, and potentially,
premeditated murder.”

They also claim a safer alternative design of the

drug existed, but Pfizer “chose to manufacture and the dangerous drug anyway.”

“Defendants’ conduct was extreme and outrageous in character, and so
extreme in degree as to go beyond all possible bounds of decency as to be
regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized society,” the suit

states.

The plaintiffs cite several causes of action throughout the
complaint.

Pfizer argues that while the plaintiffs appear to be
asserting a claim for products liability, they also assert claims for negligent
manufacture, design and marketing; a wrongful death and survival action; and
intentional infliction of emotional distress as well as actual and punitive
damages.

They are also claiming breach of warranty, fraud,
misrepresentation, aggravated or gross negligence, battery, assault and even
murder.


Pfizer writes that the complaint incorrectly lists
Greenstone Pharmaceuticals as a subsidiary of Pfizer when it is not.

In
addition, Jeffrey Kindler is listed as a defendant in the style of the case, but

the petition does not identify him as a party to the case and there are no
allegations against Kindler in the complaint.

As to damages, Pfizer
points out the varying amounts mentioned in the plaintiffs’ petition.

In

one place, the plaintiffs state they are seeking to recover $900,000 in Andrea‘s
lost earnings and $4 million for Michael’s.

Then they ask for $23
million for the products liability claims, $20,000 for funeral and burial costs,
$1 million for each of the surviving plaintiffs and $5 million for each of the

decedents to compensate them for their loss of affection, companionship and
pecuniary support.

At other places in the complaint, it states
plaintiffs are limiting damages to $50,000.

The pro se Plaintiffs’
Petition appears to have been put together using a legal form,” Pfizer writes.

Pfizer is represented by Laura E. De Santos of Clark, Thomas &

Winters PC in Houston. Jack E. Urquhart of Clark, Thomas is of
counsel.

The case has been assigned to U.S. District Judge Michael H.
Schneider and referred to Magistrate Judge A. L. Mazzant.

Case No.
4:09-cv-496-MHS-ALM

499 total views, no views today