We had some bad news today, the solicitors acting on our behalf, wrote to us saying they could not find a link between Susan trying to kill herself (several times) and the use of Seroxat, and that they will no longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of the box the way I can.
Now, we have less than 8 weeks to beat the 10 year time limit to get this to court, I want to know how I can at least start court proceedings against Glaxo without the aid of solicitors, can someone advise us on how to start the proceedings in court.
> We had some bad news today, the solicitors acting on our behalf, wrote > to us saying they could not find a link between Susan trying to kill > herself (several times) and the use of Seroxat, and that they will no > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > the box the way I can.
> Now, we have less than 8 weeks to beat the 10 year time limit to get > this to court, I want to know how I can at least start court > proceedings against Glaxo without the aid of solicitors, can someone > advise us on how to start the proceedings in court.
Secrets of the drugs trials: Transcript NB: THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY.
PANORAMA SECRETS OF THE DRUG TRIALS RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE DATE: 29:01:07
JEREMY VINE: Hello, I'm Jeremy Vine and this is Panorama. The secret emails you weren't supposed to see. The paper trail that reveals how results of drug trials were glossed over to cover up a link with suicide in teenagers. Now GlaxoSmithKline faces trial for fraud.
When you take your child to the doctor you assume the medicine they are prescribed is safe and will help them get better. If your teenager is depressed, you certainly don't expect the drug they're given to make them want to kill themselves. But we've uncovered the story of how one company tried to hide the fact that it's medicine did exactly that. Just watch this.
Reporter: SHELLEY JOFRE Malibu, California. It's not where you'd expect to unravel one of the biggest medical scandals of recent times, but that's exactly what this team of lawyers has managed to do. What they've found affects all of us here in the UK, anyone in fact who takes prescription medicine.
KAREN BARTH MENZIES Lawyer, Baum Hedlund It is all about the profits. Even when they have negative studies that show that this drug is going to harm kids they still spin that study as: "remarkably effective and safe for children."
JOFRE: This apartment is crammed full of boxes containing a story that Britain's richest drug company has fought hard to suppress. There's an embarrassment of secrets here that GlaxoSmithKline really doesn't want you to see, and you're about to discover why.
So it's all stuff from the confidential GlaxoSmithKline archives?
BARTH MENZIES: Yeah, the internal documents, the emails back and forth, the decisions that they make from the bottom to the top. ...
ps What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles and what Special Branch don't want you to know. http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm or nutteingd in a search engine.
> > We had some bad news today, the solicitors acting on our behalf, wrote > > to us saying they could not find a link between Susan trying to kill > > herself (several times) and the use of Seroxat, and that they will no > > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > > the box the way I can.
> > Now, we have less than 8 weeks to beat the 10 year time limit to get > > this to court, I want to know how I can at least start court > > proceedings against Glaxo without the aid of solicitors, can someone > > advise us on how to start the proceedings in court.
> Secrets of the drugs trials: Transcript > NB: THIS TRANSCRIPT WAS TYPED FROM A TRANSCRIPTION UNIT RECORDING AND NOT > COPIED FROM AN ORIGINAL SCRIPT: BECAUSE OF THE POSSIBILITY OF MIS-HEARING > AND THE DIFFICULTY, IN SOME CASES OF IDENTIFYING INDIVIDUAL SPEAKERS, THE > BBC CANNOT VOUCH FOR ITS ACCURACY.
> PANORAMA > SECRETS OF THE DRUG TRIALS > RECORDED FROM TRANSMISSION: BBC ONE > DATE: 29:01:07
> JEREMY VINE: Hello, I'm Jeremy Vine and this is Panorama. The secret emails > you weren't supposed to see. The paper trail that reveals how results of > drug trials were glossed over to cover up a link with suicide in teenagers. > Now GlaxoSmithKline faces trial for fraud.
> When you take your child to the doctor you assume the medicine they are > prescribed is safe and will help them get better. If your teenager is > depressed, you certainly don't expect the drug they're given to make them > want to kill themselves. But we've uncovered the story of how one company > tried to hide the fact that it's medicine did exactly that. Just watch this.
> Reporter: SHELLEY JOFRE > Malibu, California. It's not where you'd expect to unravel one of the > biggest medical scandals of recent times, but that's exactly what this team > of lawyers has managed to do. What they've found affects all of us here in > the UK, anyone in fact who takes prescription medicine.
> KAREN BARTH MENZIES > Lawyer, Baum Hedlund > It is all about the profits. Even when they have negative studies that show > that this drug is going to harm kids they still spin that study as: > "remarkably effective and safe for children."
> JOFRE: This apartment is crammed full of boxes containing a story that > Britain's richest drug company has fought hard to suppress. There's an > embarrassment of secrets here that GlaxoSmithKline really doesn't want you > to see, and you're about to discover why.
> So it's all stuff from the confidential GlaxoSmithKline archives?
> BARTH MENZIES: Yeah, the internal documents, the emails back and forth, the > decisions that they make from the bottom to the top. > ...
> ps > What they aren't telling you about DNA profiles > and what Special Branch don't want you to know.http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/dnapr.htm > or nutteingd in a search engine.
Yes,
I did see this, Susan was prescribed Seroxat at the time Glaxo omitted the real side effects from the drug information leaflet, how can there not be a link??, Susan over many years had problems with Seroxat that led her to attempt suicide on a number of occasions, this led to addmitance to hospital, but what is annoying me is that the solicitors have said, because your doctor did not make a note in your medical records, you don't really have a case....... are they joking??
I want to take this to court and I need to start this within 8 weeks, how do I do it?
> We had some bad news today, the solicitors acting on our behalf, wrote > to us saying they could not find a link between Susan trying to kill > herself (several times) and the use of Seroxat, and that they will no > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > the box the way I can.
> Now, we have less than 8 weeks to beat the 10 year time limit to get > this to court, I want to know how I can at least start court > proceedings against Glaxo without the aid of solicitors, can someone > advise us on how to start the proceedings in court.
> Simon
Seroxat (paroxetine) J N Jureidini et al 'Efficacy and Safety of Anti-depressants for children and adolescents' british medical journal vol 330 2005 p.9
"out of 93 children given seroxat 11 had serious adverse drug reactions, seven were hospitalised, the drug was only an insignificant bit better than a placebo."
A study by science magazine showed 6.5 per cent of children showed emotional liability (including suicide.
Another two unpublished studies showed more actual suicides than a placebo.
New york state attorney sued gsk for persistent fraud and gsk paid 2.5 million dollars to settle.
welsh coroner calls for drug enquiry report on the bbc wales 11 march 2003 after suicide.
s. boseley guardian 13 may 2006 report on suicide caused by seroxat
> > We had some bad news today, the solicitors acting on our behalf, wrote > > to us saying they could not find a link between Susan trying to kill > > herself (several times) and the use of Seroxat, and that they will no > > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > > the box the way I can.
> > Now, we have less than 8 weeks to beat the 10 year time limit to get > > this to court, I want to know how I can at least start court > > proceedings against Glaxo without the aid of solicitors, can someone > > advise us on how to start the proceedings in court.
> > Simon
> Seroxat (paroxetine) J N Jureidini et al 'Efficacy and Safety of > Anti-depressants for children and adolescents' british medical journal vol > 330 2005 p.9
> "out of 93 children given seroxat 11 had serious adverse drug reactions, > seven were hospitalised, the drug was only an insignificant bit better than > a placebo."
> A study by science magazine showed 6.5 per cent of children showed emotional > liability (including suicide.
> Another two unpublished studies showed more actual suicides than a placebo.
> New york state attorney sued gsk for persistent fraud and gsk paid 2.5 > million dollars to settle.
> welsh coroner calls for drug enquiry report on the bbc wales 11 march 2003 > after suicide.
> s. boseley guardian 13 may 2006 report on suicide caused by seroxat
> any help?
> Mrcheerful
Thanks,
I know all the sneaky things about Glaxo, I have all my evidence, I simply want to know how I can start court proceedings without using a solicitor.
> I did see this, Susan was prescribed Seroxat at the time Glaxo omitted > the real side effects from the drug information leaflet, how can there > not be a link??
Well, quite easily really. Seroxat is generally prescribed for people who are depressed, and depressed people often attempt suicide without treatment. You'd have to convince the court that Seroxat was directly responsible and that Susan wouldn't have attempted suicide without it. I imagine that would be pretty tough to prove. I'm aware that GSK failed to publish some important data, but it's quite a leap from that to proving that Seroxat was responsible in this case.
> Susan over many years had problems with Seroxat that > led her to attempt suicide on a number of occasions, this led to > addmitance to hospital, but what is annoying me is that the solicitors > have said, because your doctor did not make a note in your medical > records, you don't really have a case....... are they joking??
No, solicitors don't joke. They are trying to give you good advice. It may sound harsh, but they are probably right that you don't have a case.
> I want to take this to court and I need to start this within 8 weeks, > how do I do it?
Think very carefully before you do. I know it must be hugely frustrating, but if your solicitor thinks the wisest course of action is to let this go, then you'll probably save yourself a lot of aggro by following that advice.
> We had some bad news today, the solicitors acting on our behalf, wrote > to us saying they could not find a link between Susan trying to kill > herself (several times) and the use of Seroxat, and that they will no > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > the box the way I can.
> Now, we have less than 8 weeks to beat the 10 year time limit to get > this to court, I want to know how I can at least start court > proceedings against Glaxo without the aid of solicitors, can someone > advise us on how to start the proceedings in court.
Fill in the form carefully. Where it says "Particulars of Claim" either type out all the facts in that box or put "See attached" and type it on an attached document, printed out on white paper. No specific legal jargon is required, just a clear statement of what happened and why you allege the defendants were responsible and what damages you are claiming. You should put "limited to 50,000 pounds" or whatever figure you regard as the upper limit. The higher the figure you claim, the greater the court fee for issuing the claim form. If you are claiming damages for personal injury you should attach a medical report proving the injuries. If you have no medical report, you had better make immediate arrangements to get one otherwise the defendants will apply to strike out the claim as soon as they see it.
Then make some copies, go to the court (your local county court would do, or the District Registry of the High Court, or the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand) and pay the enormous fee and lodge the papers- either they serve the papers on the defendant or you do.
And then, once the proceedings are served, the claimant (Susan? Is she an adult or a child) will be liable for any costs incurred by the defendants if they win the claim.
It's a bit like playing high stakes roulette, with the wheel loaded against you.
Your solicitors don't think you have a case. Your best bet is to find solicitors who do think you have a case. If you have tried Irwin Mitchell and Leigh Day and neither of them think you have a case, then, um, well, you probably don't. But you might have, and one option is to have a conference with counsel and make absolutely sure that they have considered all the evidence and seen all the possible angles. That is what I'd do in your shoes, not rush to issue proceedings.
> > I did see this, Susan was prescribed Seroxat at the time Glaxo omitted > > the real side effects from the drug information leaflet, how can there > > not be a link??
> Well, quite easily really. Seroxat is generally prescribed for people who > are depressed, and depressed people often attempt suicide without treatment. > You'd have to convince the court that Seroxat was directly responsible and > that Susan wouldn't have attempted suicide without it. I imagine that would > be pretty tough to prove. I'm aware that GSK failed to publish some > important data, but it's quite a leap from that to proving that Seroxat was > responsible in this case.
> > Susan over many years had problems with Seroxat that > > led her to attempt suicide on a number of occasions, this led to > > addmitance to hospital, but what is annoying me is that the solicitors > > have said, because your doctor did not make a note in your medical > > records, you don't really have a case....... are they joking??
> No, solicitors don't joke. They are trying to give you good advice. It may > sound harsh, but they are probably right that you don't have a case.
> > I want to take this to court and I need to start this within 8 weeks, > > how do I do it?
> Think very carefully before you do. I know it must be hugely frustrating, > but if your solicitor thinks the wisest course of action is to let this go, > then you'll probably save yourself a lot of aggro by following that advice.
> Adam
Hello Adam,
thanks for the response,
Now. this has happened in the past with an accident I had, I won the case without the aid of lawyers, some years back, I had a car accident, I pulled out of a give way and a car crashed into the side of me, the police, lawyers, insurance companies, and barristers said that as I pulled out of a give way, the accident was my fault and therefore I had to pay all costs and damages for the other side. I decided to take the case on myself, despite solicitors laughing at me.... yes.. 5 years after I started, I won, I got paid out, compensated for my losses etc, and I didn't get convicted of any driving offence, the other side lost,...., all because I saw outside of the box. I argued that because the hedges were overgrown on my left, it obscured my vision, this forced me to pull out to enable me to see what was coming from my left, at that point, a car hit me..., I found some small law that showed the local council should have maintained those hedges as they were on a public highway....,
> they will no > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > the box the way I can.
There are a lot of broken, broke and frustrated people out there who thought they knew better than their solicitors...
> > they will no > > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > > the box the way I can.
> There are a lot of broken, broke and frustrated people out there who thought > they knew better than their solicitors...
On 8 Feb, 18:36, "Adam" <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> Well, quite easily really. Seroxat is generally prescribed for people who > are depressed, and depressed people often attempt suicide without treatment.
You are blaming Seroxat for a pre-existing illness? The makers would rip you to shreds in seconds. I was on it for ages and it didn't have an effect one way or the other. The answer to lifes problems will not be found in a bottle of tablets anyway.
It is also unlikely that you could bring a case in someone elses name.
>>> they will no >>> longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the >>> past 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their >>> conclusion.... useless, all they see is text book stuff, they >>> cannot see outside of the box the way I can.
But they can see the very real probability that you will lose and even if this happens even at an early stage could result in you having to pay crippling costs.
>> There are a lot of broken, broke and frustrated people out there who >> thought they knew better than their solicitors... > I know we have a case, so I am going to go for it
On 8 Feb, 20:31, "Peter Crosland" <g...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
> But they can see the very real probability that you will lose and even if > this happens even at an early stage could result in you having to pay > crippling costs.
Ask John Bunt... Thought he was being clever trying to have over ISP's last year as a LIP.
He got well and truly stuffed and given a bill for £37k! LOL
> > > they will no > > > longer handle our case, they have been dealing with this for the past > > > 7 years or so.... and after this time, that is their conclusion.... > > > useless, all they see is text book stuff, they cannot see outside of > > > the box the way I can.
> > There are a lot of broken, broke and frustrated people out there who thought > > they knew better than their solicitors...
> > g.
> I know we have a case, so I am going to go for it
If you decide not to go to court you can always put all the evidence on the net. The whole tenor can be about the dangers of Seroxat as long as you do not state anywhere that Seroxat definitely caused a specific set of symptoms in an individual. Opened out to investigationg GSK in general perhaps.
Tips for placing material on the net to keep out out of the clutches of your opposition. http://www.oldbury.chat.ru/nutteing6.htm or nutteing6 in a search engine.
|
