CCHR International » birth defects

ONE DRUG TO MAKE YOU HAPPY

admin — Mon, 28 Nov 2011 18:24:55 +0000

NewsWithViews.com – 11/28/2011
by Jonathan Emord, Constitutional Attorney and Author

Psychiatric drugs are big sellers. They are among the best selling drugs made. In 2010, Americans or their insurers doled out some $16.1 billion for anti-psychotics; $11.6 billion for anti-depressants; and $7.2 billion for ADHD treatments.

Within the last two decades the field of psychiatry has mushroomed from a fringe body of Sigmund Freud admirers to a mainstream player in the field of medical pharmacology, largely because of an unseemly union between that profession and the drug industry, leading to the creation of many never before known disease states and profitable ways to exploit those alleged diseases with psychiatric services and drugs.

The field of psychiatry has persistent and well-informed critics who point to the excessive drugging of institutionalized patients, of children commonly misdiagnosed as suffering from Attention Deficit Disorder or Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder, and of the elderly misdiagnosed with treatable dementia, among others. The drugs given these patients have their own side-effects, including increased risk of depression, suicidal thoughts, birth defects, and even death. Because of the movement of psychiatry from the fringe of medicine to its heart, a majority of Americans are likely to come into contact with psychiatric drugs, either recommended for use by their children or for use by them at some point in their lives. Indeed, presently some 1 in 5 adults take anti-depressants, anti-psychotic, or anti-anxiety drugs.

The next edition of the American Psychiatric Association’s Diagnostic and Statistical Manual (DSM-5), the profession’s so-called diagnostic bible, will soon be published in 2013. It comntinues the trend of identifying as “diseases” conditions that have previously been considered within the normal range. It adds to the list of “disease” states “apathy syndrome” (i.e., not caring enough); “internet addiction disorder” (i.e., liking the web too much); “parental alienation syndrome” (i.e., not liking your parents enough); “mild neurocognitive disorder” (i.e., age-related decline in mental function); “absexual” disorder (i.e., disliking sex); and “sluggish cognitive tempo” (i.e., daydreaming too much). Characteristics that we all used to think within the realm of normal brain function (such as teenage angst at parental rules; parental angst at teenage rebellion; a loss of quick wittedness in the elderly; youthful exuberance or youthful preoccupation with daydreams beyond the confines of academia) are all fast becoming “diseases.” The APA’s overall movement has been one of calling into question characteristics of eccentricity, leading to an unscientific conclusion that anything different may be rightly called a disease and rightly prescribed a treatment.

Every newly identified psychiatric disorder begets a new slate of psychiatric drugs for their treatment, giving leading pharmaceutical companies new opportunities to profit from the expansion of psychiatric diagnoses.

Psychiatric drugs are big sellers. They are among the best selling drugs made.

In 2010, Americans or their insurers doled out some $16.1 billion for anti-psychotics;

$11.6 billion for anti-depressants;

and $7.2 billion for ADHD treatments.

Profit lies in designing drugs for the treatment of these conditions. As the drug industry continues to pump out new elixirs that, in turn, leads to more reliance on psychologists and psychiatrists, which leads them in turn to prefer identifying more conditions as disease. The perverse incentives abound, and the FDA is pleased to approve the drugs at the behest of the drug company sponsors.
Everyone standing to profit from the sale of these agents wins at the expense of patients.

The drugging of America is an enormous problem, having spill-over effects that include drug addiction and destruction of the family, productivity, even national security. With an ever rising population taking these drugs which alter cognitive function, it becomes ever more apparent that the very fabric of our society, its common commitment to stable family life, self-sacrifice for the greater good, and adherence to laws that protect life, liberty, and property are all imperiled. As the drug industry and psychiatric profession profits enormously with each new declared disease state, there is a loss of free agency in the population, a movement that saps self-control from the individual in favor of control by the medical community over basic life-affecting decisions. Patients become dependent, event addicted, to drugs, and ever more dependent on their medical counselors to cope with life.

Whatever may be said for use of psychiatric drugs in those who cannot function in society, the expansion of those drugs to embrace those who can, including those with virtually any characteristic that exceeds the norm, represents a horrific sacrifice of the very promise of life that lies in those eccentricities. It is particularly horrific to watch beautiful, energetic children with all their great promise become addicted to drugs that alter brain chemistry in ways that yield drug dependency and lessen their perception of and enthusiasm for life and their ability to achieve. A majority of children prescribed anti-depressant and anti-psychotic drugs are wrongly prescribed those drugs, even by accepted psychiatric standards. That misguided course is itself a form of deviant behavior by this profession, calling into question the mental stability of those who would profit off of misdiagnosis and mistreatment.

The psychiatric drugging of America is bearing and will continue to bear for generations to come toxic consequences, whether in the form of the destruction of the family, increases in crime, or decreases in productivity and inventiveness. It’s high time for a rebellion against this drugging for the sake of sanity.

http://www.newswithviews.com/Emord/jonathan220.htm

Jonathan W. Emord is an attorney who practices constitutional and administrative law before the federal courts and agencies. Congressman Ron Paul calls Jonathan “a hero of the health freedom revolution” and says “all freedom-loving Americans are in [his] debt . . . for his courtroom [victories] on behalf of health freedom.” He has defeated the FDA in federal court a remarkable eight times, six on First Amendment grounds, and is the author of Amazon bestsellers The Rise of Tyranny, and Global Censorship of Health Information. He is also the American Justice columnist for U.S.A. Today Magazine. For more info visit Emord.com.

« Return to news items

News Feed

Are You Taking Pills You Don’t Need? Here Are Some Reasons Why

admin — Thu, 21 Jul 2011 15:51:33 +0000

OpEdNews – July 21, 2011
by Martha Rosenberg

Most people blame direct-to-consumer advertising, especially on TV, for elevating everyday anxiety to depression, depression to bipolar disorder, childhood behavior problems to psychiatric illnesses, lack of sleep to excessive sleepiness, migraines to epilepsy drug deficiencies and old age to hormone deficiencya.

But ghostwriting also helps the national malaise of people suffering from and treating diseases that didn’t even exist before and ballooning government and private health plans costs.

There are 200 US medical education and communication companies (MECCs) who ghostwrite medical journal articles for pharma for $20,000 to $40,000 per article. Companies like Complete Healthcare Communications (CHC) whose phalanx of 50 medical writers, editors and medical directors promise a “84.5 percent acceptance rate for first-time manuscript submissions.”

Ghostwriting was behind the blockbuster Vioxx, withdrawn in 2004 for doubling the risk of heart attacks. “Merck designed the trial, paid for the trial, ran the trial,” Dr. Jeffrey R. Lisse told the New York Times about a Vioxx study he authored in the Annals of Internal Medicine that left out three cardiac deaths. Oops. “Merck came to me after the study was completed and said, ‘We want your help to work on the paper.’ The initial paper was written at Merck, and then it was sent to me for editing.”

Medical journals themselves can make $450,000 off one such ghostwritten article, because pharma orders reprints which reps disseminate as sales pieces (“look, Doc, it says RIGHT HERE”).

Click image to watch Psychiatric Drug Side Effects Video

In 2006, the editor-in-chief of the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA) Dr. Catherine DeAngelis had to apologize for a pharma-tainted article that defended the use of antidepressants during pregnancy and an article linking migraines to coronary risks in women. The doctor authors, it turned out, were getting money from antidepressant and heart medication manufacturers.

But ten months later, JAMA ran a study “designed jointly by the non-Merck investigators and Merck employees” and “supported by contracts with Merck and Co” that extolled the virtues of Fosamax, a Merck bone drug. Three Merck authors on the study disclosed they potentially owned Merck “stock and/or stock options” and the article’s 11 other authors disclosed 40 research grants, consultancies and other financial relationships with drug companies including Eli Lilly, Pfizer, Roche, SmithGlaxoKline, Wyeth (now Pfizer) Novartis, Procter & Gamble and Merck. Since then, the FDA has issued several warnings about Fosamax and other bone drugs.

In 2007, the AMA itself was criticized for playing both sides of the enterprise street and making $50 million a year selling the names, office addresses and practice types of its members to data miners. The AMA’s defense? Doctors could “opt out” of the privacy-invading program if they wanted to.

And then there are pharma’s “unbranded” campaigns designed to look like real public health messages or communications from grassroots groups. Who can forget PR firm Cohn and Wolfe’s faux grassroots group Freedom From Fear to sell Paxil, a pill now linked to birth defects? And the Wyeth (Pfizer) campaign, The Change You Deserve which said, whoever you are, you have depression and need Effexor? Now, a new unbranded pharma campaign, Depression Is Real, running on radio stations, compares depression to cancer because it kills and diabetes because it doesn’t go away. Kind of like pharma’s huckstering.

http://www.opednews.com/articles/Are-You-Taking-Pills-You-D-by-Martha-Rosenberg-110721-870.html?show=votes

« Return to news items

News Feed

Paxil and Prozac Linked to Risk of Heart Birth Defects

admin — Tue, 28 Jun 2011 00:27:42 +0000

AboutLawSuits.com – June 27, 2011

According to Finnish researchers, doctors should avoid prescribing Paxil or Prozac to pregnant women, due to the potential risk of heart birth defects.

In a study published in Obstetrics & Gynecology medical journal, researchers found that side effects of Prozac and Paxil use during pregnancy may increase the risk of women giving birth to children with congenital heart defects. Both drugs belong to a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs).

Researchers looked at national data from Finland on 635,583 births occurring between 1996 and 2006, and found that 31 out of every 10,000 women who took Paxil during pregnancy gave birth to children with right ventricular outflow tract defects that affect blood flow from the right chambers of the heart to the rest of the body, more than four times the frequency of births among women who did not take Paxil. For those who took Prozac, 105 babies born out of every 10,000 had isolated ventrical septal defects; a hole between the left and right sides of the heart, which was more than double the rate of babies born to women who did not take the drug.

The researchers also found that women who took any SSRI antidepressant during pregnancy were more than twice as likely to give birth to a child with a neural tube defect; 22 out of every 10,000 newborns, as compared to 9 out of every 10,000 newborns born to women who did not take any SSRI during pregnancy.

SSRIs are a relatively new class of antidepressants, which help reduce symptoms of depression by preventing certain nerve cells in the brain from re-absorbing the chemical serotonin. These drugs are commonly used by millions of Americans with depression.

Although the drugs have been found to cause fewer side effects than older anti-depressants, research has shown that users of the drugs could also face an increased risk of suicides, and use during pregnancy has been linked to a risk of birth defects, especially among users of Paxil.

Prozac (fluoxetine) is marketed by Eli Lilly and is approved for the treatment of depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) and other psychiatric problems. In 2007 there were more than 22 million Prozac prescriptions in the United States.

Paxil (paroxetine) is a selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor prescribed to treat depression. Approved in 1992, it has become one of the most commonly prescribed drugs in the United States, with sales of just under $1 billion in 2008.

In December 2005, the FDA issued an alert about the risk of birth defects from Paxil after studies showed the drug could increase the risk of the heart defects when taken during the first three months of pregnancy. At that time, the agency also required GlaxoSmithKline to update the warning label to include information about the risk of birth defects from Paxil side effects.

The company reportedly agreed to settle hundreds of Paxil heart birth defect lawsuits last year. The Paxil lawsuits were filed by parents who say that the use of the antidepressant during pregnancy caused persistent pulmonary hypertension in newborns (PPHN) and other birth defects. The lawsuits claimed that the company failed to warn consumers and doctors that use of Paxil during pregnancy could lead to congenital heart defects in newborns. The lawsuits also claimed that the company purposefully hid test results that would have revealed the side effects of Paxil and misled doctors.

http://www.aboutlawsuits.com/paxil-prozac-birth-defect-study-19139/

« Return to news items

News Feed

Psychiatrist on Payroll of Glaxo Pleads Guilty to Research Fraud

admin — Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:50:04 +0000

NaturalNews, November 29,2010

by David Gutierrez

GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of Paxil, paid Palazzo $5,000 for every child she enrolled in the study.

A psychiatrist on the payroll of GlaxoSmithKline has been sentenced to 13 months in prison after pleading guilty to committing research fraud in trials of the company’s antidepressant Paxil on children.

Maria Carmen Palazzo is already serving a sentence of 87 months for defrauding Medicare and Medicaid.

Palazzo was accused by the FDA of enrolling children in a clinical trial even though she knew they did not actually suffer from major depressive or obsessive compulsive disorder, the conditions being studied. Palazzo then falsified records and psychiatric diagnoses.

GlaxoSmithKline, manufacturer of Paxil, paid Palazzo $5,000 for every child she enrolled in the study.

The case’s significance goes beyond simple research fraud, as Glaxo is now defending itself against charges that for 15 years it deliberately concealed evidence that Paxil increases the risk of suicide in children.

Glaxo is also defending itself against accusations that it manipulated data to conceal the risks of its diabetes blockbuster Avandia, and that it failed to warn parents that Paxil may cause birth defects if taken by pregnant women. The company has already agreed to pay more than $1 billion to settle roughly 700 birth defect lawsuits; another 100 or so suits are pending.

Although the FDA eventually required Paxil to carry a warning about the risk of birth defects and an even more prominent “black box” warning about suicide risk, many critics allege that the agency acted too slowly.

“There [had] been hints for many years that antidepressants, such as Paxil, when given to children, can cause serious side effects, including suicide, but the FDA delayed taking any action to prevent these drugs from being prescribed for children,” writes Brent Hoadley in Too Profitable to Cure.

Palazzo will not actually serve any additional prison time for potentially placing children’s safety at risk; her new term will be served concurrently with her first.

http://www.naturalnews.com/030557_psychiatry_fraud.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Update of Swedish Study Upholds Concern for Antidepressant Induced Birth Defects

admin — Sun, 14 Nov 2010 15:29:36 +0000

LawyersandSettlements, November 13, 2010

by Gordon Gibb

Swedish research on maternal use of antidepressants in pregnancy continues to bolster existing concerns about SSRI birth defects, according to a recent issue of Obesity, Fitness & Wellness Week (OFWW). “Concerns have been expressed about possible adverse effects of the use of antidepressant medication during pregnancy, including risk for neonatal pathology and the presence of congenital malformations,” according to the authors of the study.

According to the September 18th issue of OFWW, the researchers used data from the Swedish Medical Birth Register from July 1995 through 2007. Women who reported the use of antidepressants in early pregnancy, or were prescribed antidepressants during pregnancy by antenatal care, were identified for the study.

The end number for study purposes was 14,821 women with 15,017 infants.

“Maternal characteristics, maternal delivery diagnoses, infant neonatal diagnoses and the presence of congenital malformations were compared with all other women who gave birth, using the Mantel-Haenszel technique and with adjustments for certain characteristics,” the authors noted.

“There was an association between antidepressant treatment and pre-existing diabetes and chronic hypertension, but also with many pregnancy complications. Rates of induced delivery and caesarean section were increased.”

The study authors noted that neonatal complications were common, especially with regard to the use of tricyclic (TCA) antidepressant use. “An increased risk of persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN) was verified. The congenital malformation rate was increased after TCAs,” wrote M. Reis and colleagues.

The conclusion?

“Use of TCAs was found to carry a higher risk than other antidepressants, and paroxetine (Aropax, Paxil, Seroxat) seems to be associated with a specific teratogenic property.”

Paxil, one of the antidepressants mentioned, is a drug belonging to the SSRI class (selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor) and includes a host of SSRI side effects. One of the most grievous adverse reactions is PPHN, or persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn. The latter is considered a serious birth defect.

M. Reis is affiliated with the National Board of Forensic Medicine, Department of Forensic Genetics and Forensic Toxicology, Linkoping, Sweden. The study authored by Reis and colleagues updates a previous study and was published in the Journal of Psychological Medicine, published out of New York.

http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/15389/ssri-birth-defects-side-effects-pphn-swedish.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Glaxo Failed to Warn About Paxil Risks, Lawyer Says at Philadelphia Trial

admin — Tue, 09 Nov 2010 19:51:21 +0000

Note from CCHR: Also see attorney Karen Barth Menzies interview on Paxil withdrawal effects and documents withheld from the public http://www.youtube.com/cchrint#p/c/B9EA75455D155D89/3/Mpex0n0DXuc

Bloomberg News

by Jeff Feeley, November 9, 2010

GlaxoSmithKline Plc, the U.K.’s largest drugmaker, failed to properly warn consumers that its antidepressant drug Paxil could cause birth defects, a lawyer for the family of an injured teenager told jurors.

Glaxo officials had research from the 1980s showing Paxil caused deaths among the offspring of animal test subjects and didn’t provide clear warnings about those deaths, Kimberly Baden, a lawyer for Anna Blyth and her family, told a Philadelphia jury. Baden said the drug caused a narrowing of the aorta leading from the heart of Anna, now 14 years old.

“We believe the evidence will show Paxil caused Anna’s birth defects,” Baden said in opening statements in the trial. “We believe the warnings and instructions put out in 1995 weren’t appropriate and reasonable.”

The Blyth family’s case is the first over Paxil’s birth- defect risks to go to trial since the company agreed in July to pay more than $1 billion to settle 800 cases alleging the company failed to adequately warn consumers and their doctors about the drug’s hazards. The Blyth case wasn’t part of the settlement.

In the first Philadelphia trial, a jury ordered Glaxo in October 2009 to pay $2.5 million to the family of a 3-year-old boy born with heart defects his mother blamed on the drug.

$11.7 Billion in Sales

Glaxo officials contend Paxil played no role in Anna’s heart defects. They were most likely caused by genetics or the fact that her mother became pregnant late in life, Chilton Varner, a lawyer for the drugmaker, told jurors in her opening statement.

The deaths of Paxil animal test subjects had nothing “to do with Anna Blyth’s heart defects,” Varner said.

Approved in 1992 for U.S. use, Paxil generated about $793 million in sales in 2009, or about 1.8 percent of Glaxo’s total revenue. The company had $11.7 billion in U.S. Paxil sales over nine years starting in 1997, according to documents made public last year in a Pennsylvania trial over birth-defect claims.

Chief Executive Officer Andrew Witty has moved to replace revenue lost to generic versions of drugs such as Paxil. The drugmaker said in May it plans to double revenue from India and China by 2015 as it cuts prices to match competitors in emerging markets.

The company has paid out more than $2 billion to resolve a wave of litigation over Paxil, including claims the anti- depressant caused suicides in some users and withdrawal symptoms. In July, Glaxo set aside $2.4 billion to resolve litigation over Paxil and its Avandia diabetes drug.

Second Wave

After announcing its settlement of Paxil suits this summer, the company faced a second wave of suits over the drugs, said Carl Tobias, a University of Richmond law professor who teaches classes about mass-tort cases. That’s not unusual once a big- dollar settlement is on the table, he said.

“You’ll have plaintiffs lawyers who hope to get in on a settlement by going out and finding some new cases,” Tobias said. “Glaxo probably feels it had to litigate this case to send a signal that it’s not going to settle every one of these birth-defect cases, especially if they are weak.”

Sarah Alspach, a Glaxo spokeswoman, didn’t immediately return a call for comment on how many Paxil birth-defect cases remain outstanding.

In Anna’s case, the Summerville, South Carolina, resident had to undergo two rounds of open-heart surgery within nine months of her birth, Baden told jurors.

Her mother, Marsha Blyth, had taken Paxil for a short time during her pregnancy to deal with depression, Baden noted.

Glaxo’s Paxil warning label didn’t make it clear that offspring from animals on which the drug had been tested died, she said.

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-11-09/glaxo-failed-to-warn-about-paxil-risks-lawyer-says-at-philadelphia-trial.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Antidepressant Drugs Are Not Safe During Pregnancy—No Matter What the Pharma Shills Say

admin — Fri, 05 Nov 2010 01:50:44 +0000

by CCHR International

November 4, 2010

Medical News Today published an article entitled “Increased Depression Screening Needed During Pregnancy, Study Says,” that is so highly misleading, we wonder if they ever bother checking the validity of what they’re forwarding under the guise of “medical news.”

We’re going to make this really simple—the study and its findings are bogus not to mention highly misleading and we’re only going to take up the two most egregious “facts” of the article to make our point.

The article states, “The authors of the study say their findings suggest that screening for depression should be a routine part of prenatal and postnatal care. They conducted a 10-week pilot project at WIC clinics in Santa Fe and Las Vegas, N.M., finding that 109 of 467 women who were screened had a high enough score on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale to require a referral.”

FACT: The Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale—also called EPDS, is a screening method documented to triple the number of women diagnosed with Post partum depression, according to a study published in Obstecrics & Gynecology. The Scandinavian Journal of Public Health stated that EPDS screening was so unethical it should not be used.

So the authors are knowingly promoting a study which is known to triple the amount of women diagnosed postpartum depression, has been called so unethical it should not be used.

Next, the article states, “There are antidepressants that are safe to take during pregnancy”

False.

FACT: Four countries have done nine studies on the effects of antidepressants during pregnancy or breast feeding. They found that newer and older antidepressants can cause premature births, and increase the risk of cardiovascular interventions such as heart surgery in early childhood. In addition, newer antidepressants could also cause withdrawal symptoms, respiratory problems, and neurological problems.

Six counties have issued a total of 15 drug regulatory warnings on antidepressants causing severe problems for newborns.

They warn of:

Newer antidepressants causing seizures,
Wellbutrin, Cipralex, Luvox, Remeron, Effexor and Zyban increasing the risk of a life-threatening lung condition in newborns,
Zoloft and Celexa causing withdrawal symptoms and increasing the risk of a life-threatening lung condition in newborns,
Paxil and Prozac causing withdrawal symptoms and increasing the risk of cardiovascular birth defects and a life-threatening lung condition in newborns

Like we said, the article and the “findings” are highly misleading to say the least.

We’d also like to suggest something to any press forwarding these psycho/pharma puff pieces— Its called Google Search. Its pretty easy these days to check the facts before promoting bogus studies and or “findings” that are not only false, but can harm pregnant women and can give false information under the guise of “medical news.” We also recommend that anyone reporting on psychiatric drugs at least check our psychiatric drug database to see what international drug regulatory agencies and international studies have warned about these drugs instead of just regurgitating the latest pro drug study http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/

Here is a very short video of what can happen to pregnant women when they are not given the facts about these drugs:

In Memory of Matthew Schultz / Effexor Baby Pregnancy Infant Death

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qnxuw2ufSug&p=7F22F2C419977E5A&playnext=1&index=70

And finally, the “Medical News” article:

Increased Depression Screening Needed During Pregnancy, Study Says

Medical News Today

Twenty-three percent of pregnant women screened at two Women, Infant and Children clinics in New Mexico met criteria for depression, according to a study by a work group of the New Mexico Health Department and state Human Services Department, the Albuquerque Journal reports.

Nationwide, 10% to 16% of pregnant women meet the criteria for depression, and 70% show some depressive symptoms, according to the American College of Obstetrics and Gynecologists. In June, ACOG said that screening of pregnant women for depression should be “strongly considered” but that there is not enough evidence to recommend it.

The authors of the new study say their findings suggest that screening for depression should be a routine part of prenatal and postnatal care. They conducted a 10-week pilot project at WIC clinics in Santa Fe and Las Vegas, N.M., finding that 109 of 467 women who were screened had a high enough score on the Edinburgh Postnatal Depression Scale to require a referral. The work group recommended increased training on depression screening tools for providers and more support groups for women, in both English and Spanish.

Signs of depression in pregnant women include feeling dread about the pregnancy, anxiety, isolation from loved ones, suicidal thoughts, self-harm, constant sadness, changes in appetite and lack of ability to experience pleasure, according to therapist Stefanie Luna. Doctors say leaving severe depression untreated could increase the risk for low birthweight or premature birth. When women are depressed they also are less likely to care for themselves and more likely to drink or smoke. There are antidepressants that are safe to take during pregnancy (Schoenberg, Albuquerque Journal, 11/1).

http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/206701.php

« Return to news items

News Feed

Doctor: Paxil “Especially Notorious” for Causing Withdrawal

admin — Mon, 11 Oct 2010 15:41:59 +0000

Note from CCHR: To see the 42 international warnings/studies on Paxil visit our psychiatric drug side effects search engine http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php or watch this video on Paxil causing addiction/withdrawal featuring attorney Karen Barth Menzies http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mpex0n0DXuc

Lawyers and Settlements

October 9, 2010

Atlanta, GA: There are a number of Paxil side effects associated with the antidepressant, and some patients continue to experience these effects even after discontinuing use of the drug.

Dr. Charles Raison, an associate professor at Emory University, wrote in response to a reader’s question on CNN that about 20 percent of patients experience withdrawal symptoms when they stop taking antidepressants.

Raison says that the common symptoms of antidepressant withdrawal include dizziness, anxiety, sensory disturbances and flu-like symptoms.

According to Raison, coming off the medication slowly is important.

“The trick to lowering your chances of having these symptoms is to reduce the dose of the antidepressant as slowly as possible,” he writes. “For people who are really sensitive it can take months to get off an antidepressant slowly enough to avoid withdrawal symptoms.”

Raison also said that Paxil is “especially notorious for causing withdrawal problems” because of its short half-life in the body.

Paxil is also associated with a number of side effects for those currently taking the medication, including birth defects and depression.

Read the rest of the article here http://www.lawyersandsettlements.com/articles/15134/paxil-birth-defects-side-effects-pph-7.html

« Return to news items

News Feed

Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers Site Offers News And Information About Antidepressant Heart Defects

admin — Mon, 27 Sep 2010 16:01:31 +0000

Despite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, Glaxo deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug.

The law firm of Hissey Kientz, LLP is pleased to announce the launch of its new website, Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers (http://www.paxilbirthdefectslawyers.com/). The site will serve as an information resource for the parents and families of children born with birth defects linked to their mothers’ use of Paxil during pregnancy. Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects.

PR WEB

September 27, 2010

Paxil is part of a class of antidepressants known as selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors (SSRIs). After it first went on the market in December 1992, Paxil has gone on to become one of the most widely prescribed drugs in the United States, with annual sales of $3.2 billion by 2002.

Multiple studies have found that the children of mothers who take Paxil while pregnant are at an increased risk of severe birth defects. In December 2005, the Food and Drug Administration called for stronger birth defects warnings on the drug’s labeling after two studies found that Paxil doubles the risk of birth defects when taken by women during the first trimester of pregnancy. Most of these birth defects involved cases of atrial and ventricular septal defects (holes in the walls of the chambers of the heart).

Paxil has also been linked to an increased risk of birth defects when taken later in pregnancy. A 2006 study published in the New England Journal of Medicine found that women who take Paxil or similar antidepressants after the 20th week of pregnancy are six times more likely to give birth to a child with persistent pulmonary hypertension of the newborn (PPHN), a condition which causes breathing and circulation problems that may lead to hospitalization or death.

Taking Paxil during pregnancy may also be linked to a number of other serious heart defects in newborns, including cardiomyopathy, tricuspid stenosis, cleft mitral valves, hypoplastic left heart syndrome (HLHS), hypoplastic right heart syndrome (HRHS), bicuspid aortic valves or patent ductus arteriosus (PDA).

Documents uncovered in the ongoing litigation against GSK [Paxil] products liability litigation (MDL-1574)] have revealed that GlaxoSmithKline, the drug’s manufacturer, was aware of the potential link between the antidepressant and birth defects as early as 1980, but failed to recall the drug or properly warn about its dangers until these risks were made public by researchers.

“Despite evidence suggesting that Paxil could cause birth defects, GlaxoSmithKline deliberately chose not to conduct studies that would have uncovered the true dangers of the drug,” says David Friend of Hissey Kientz, LLP. “It is impossible to say how many lives were drastically altered because of the company’s failure to heed the advice of experts and investigate the link between Paxil and birth defects.”

Read the rest of the article here: http://www.prweb.com/releases/2010/09/prweb4565144.htm

« Return to news items

News Feed

Glaxo To Pay $1Billion To Settle Paxil Birth Defect Cases

admin — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 03:20:38 +0000

Pharmalot
By Ed Silverman
July 21, 2010

In an effort to get its arms around massive litigation, GlaxoSmithKline has agreed to settle yet another wad of product-liability lawsuits involving one of its popular meds. The latest deal involves an agreement to pay more than $1 billion to settle some 800 cases alleging its Paxil antidepressant caused birth defects in children borne to women who took the drug, Bloomberg News writes.

The move comes after a Pennsylvania state court jury last October awarded a woman $2.5 million in damages for failing to properly warn docs and pregnant women about the risks of the antidepressant. This case, which was filed by the family of a three-year-old boy who was born with heart defects his mother blamed on the drug. It was the first of 600 such lawsuits and was seen as a test of Glaxo’s vulnerability (background).

Last week, Glaxo disclosed plans to take a $2.4 billion charge in its second quarter to settle product-liability lawsuits over its Avandia diabetes pill, litigation involving the Paxil antidepressant and a US government investigation into its manufacturing site at Cidra, Puerto Rico.

The Paxil deal, which would provide an average payout of more than $1.2 million to families of the affected children, leaves more than 100 similar cases pending. The birth-defect settlements bring to more than $2 billion the amount Glaxo has agreed to pay to resolve a variety of Paxil-related suits, including claims the pill caused suicides or attempted suicides and addiction problems, Bloomberg writes.

Read the entire article here: http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/07/glaxo-to-pay-1b-to-settle-paxil-birth-defect-cases/

See all international studies/warnings on Paxil: http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/drug_warnings.php

See what doctors, pharmacists, health care providers and others have reported to the US FDA on Paxil side effects (such as birth defects): http://www.cchrint.org/psychdrugdangers/medwatch_psych_drug_adverse_reactions.php

« Return to news items

News Feed

CCHR International » birth defects

ONE DRUG TO MAKE YOU HAPPY

Psychiatric drugs are big sellers. They are among the best selling drugs made.

In 2010, Americans or their insurers doled out some $16.1 billion for anti-psychotics;

$11.6 billion for anti-depressants;

and $7.2 billion for ADHD treatments.

Related Posts

Are You Taking Pills You Don’t Need? Here Are Some Reasons Why

Related Posts

Paxil and Prozac Linked to Risk of Heart Birth Defects

Related Posts

Psychiatrist on Payroll of Glaxo Pleads Guilty to Research Fraud

Related Posts

Update of Swedish Study Upholds Concern for Antidepressant Induced Birth Defects

Related Posts

Glaxo Failed to Warn About Paxil Risks, Lawyer Says at Philadelphia Trial

Related Posts

Antidepressant Drugs Are Not Safe During Pregnancy—No Matter What the Pharma Shills Say

Increased Depression Screening Needed During Pregnancy, Study Says

Related Posts

Doctor: Paxil “Especially Notorious” for Causing Withdrawal

Related Posts

Paxil Birth Defects Lawyers Site Offers News And Information About Antidepressant Heart Defects

Related Posts

Glaxo To Pay $1Billion To Settle Paxil Birth Defect Cases

Related Posts