Re: It may be more effective to focus on the doctors rather than pharma

[Guest guest]

I have not posted in a while but I was compelled to reply to your post.

I couldn't agree more. There are countless lawsuits against big Pharma.

Most are settled out of court, and some have gag orders attached. You

can sue the drug companies from now until doomsday. Its the MD's

prescribing these drugs that need to be held accountable. They are the

ones that took the oath First Do No Harm. They have been getting away

with this bullshit long enough. Let them sue the pharmaceuticals.

Peggy

>

> The amount of information linking SSRIs to addiction, suicide, mania,

> etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself why the physicians are

> not more proactive in identifying these problems and warning the

> patients about them.

[Guest guest]

I'll endorse that sentiment not only in words but I my proposed acts

of 2006

> >

> > The amount of information linking SSRIs to addiction, suicide,

mania,

> > etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself why the

physicians are

> > not more proactive in identifying these problems and warning the

> > patients about them.

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe it should be called involuntary manslaughter or

criminal negligence.

I don't want their money, I want them in jail.

Some are a danger to society.

I'll even consider tort reform, if we can put them in

jail.

No one handed them a golden license, that says they

can kill someone and it's ok because their a doctor.

If you drive down the road and accidently kill

someone, you can go to jail.

Their always crying about insurance costs, well let

then cry about jail time, then.

Of course the insurance companys would be against

this, along with the criminals in the AMA and APA.

Prosecute them first, then sue them. Doctors should be

held accountable.

john

--- bryce_j_j <jeremy.bryce@...> wrote:

> I'll endorse that sentiment not only in words but I

> my proposed acts

> of 2006

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > >

> > > The amount of information linking SSRIs to

> addiction, suicide,

> mania,

> > > etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself

> why the

> physicians are

> > > not more proactive in identifying these problems

> and warning the

> > > patients about them.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Maybe it should be called involuntary manslaughter or

criminal negligence.

I don't want their money, I want them in jail.

Some are a danger to society.

I'll even consider tort reform, if we can put them in

jail.

No one handed them a golden license, that says they

can kill someone and it's ok because their a doctor.

If you drive down the road and accidently kill

someone, you can go to jail.

Their always crying about insurance costs, well let

then cry about jail time, then.

Of course the insurance companys would be against

this, along with the criminals in the AMA and APA.

Prosecute them first, then sue them. Doctors should be

held accountable.

john

--- bryce_j_j <jeremy.bryce@...> wrote:

> I'll endorse that sentiment not only in words but I

> my proposed acts

> of 2006

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

> > >

> > > The amount of information linking SSRIs to

> addiction, suicide,

> mania,

> > > etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself

> why the

> physicians are

> > > not more proactive in identifying these problems

> and warning the

> > > patients about them.

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

Welcome back, Peggy. Glad to see you're still exposing yourself to our rants.

Hope everything is working out for you and your family. I've thought about you

often.

What you all say is true enough. BUT the problem with suing the doctors is

that it is almost impossible to establish a case against any doctor whose acts

of malpractice/negligence occurred before the FDA Black Box warning was issued

for any victim 21-years of age and under and it is impossible (at this time) to

prove that a doctor was negligent for adult victims if the prescription was not

for " off-label " purposes, because at this time doctors are judged to be acting

in a " prudent " fashion by prescribing these drugs because they are FDA approved.

It goes all the way back to one of the first AD lawsuits where Prozac claimed

immunity from liability because they were following FDA guidelines and is still

being fought in the courts on one level or another. That's also why the drug

companies keep going to the FDA for approval of additional uses of already on

the market drugs to treat the newest psycho-diagnoses. It extends the FDA

blessing to doctors who prescribe for anything and

everything. It also extends their ability to reap big non-generic bucks as

long as they maintain an active patent on a med for any particular use - 10

years for depression, 3 years later, get it approved for GAD - bam! - longer

patent protection. Patent protection = BIG BUCKS!

The issue right now for all ages is who knew what within the pharmaceutical

companies, when did they know it and what actions did they take to prevent this

info from coming to light. The mis- and disinformation that they were feeding

the FDA through the hiding/skewing of negative clinical data and adverse

reaction reports is what they are being held accountable for. Now that the

kid-warning is on the labels, doctors will increasingly be found liable for

their actions in treating 21-and unders. If the FDA puts a black box warning

for all ages after their upcoming study, I think it will open the floodgates for

everyone who has been negatively impacted by their lies and conspiracies and

will lead to the bursting of the whole pharmaceutical bubble.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough attention being paid to how the

millions of people currently on these drugs are going to be informed about how

to stop. Dr. and a few others are working to spread this information, but

if the media won't even publicize the fact that these drugs are a huge health

risk, and the impact of drug cessation is immediate and often horrendous,

potentially millions of people are going to be crashing all over the place -

within days of any FDA admission that these drugs are dangerous. And they won't

know what to do. Like we didn't know what to do when B.J. was suffering.

Terry

Peggy Rose <rpggyr@...> wrote:

I have not posted in a while but I was compelled to reply to your post.

I couldn't agree more. There are countless lawsuits against big Pharma.

Most are settled out of court, and some have gag orders attached. You

can sue the drug companies from now until doomsday. Its the MD's

prescribing these drugs that need to be held accountable. They are the

ones that took the oath First Do No Harm. They have been getting away

with this bullshit long enough. Let them sue the pharmaceuticals.

Peggy

>

> The amount of information linking SSRIs to addiction, suicide, mania,

> etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself why the physicians are

> not more proactive in identifying these problems and warning the

> patients about them.

[Guest guest]

Welcome back, Peggy. Glad to see you're still exposing yourself to our rants.

Hope everything is working out for you and your family. I've thought about you

often.

What you all say is true enough. BUT the problem with suing the doctors is

that it is almost impossible to establish a case against any doctor whose acts

of malpractice/negligence occurred before the FDA Black Box warning was issued

for any victim 21-years of age and under and it is impossible (at this time) to

prove that a doctor was negligent for adult victims if the prescription was not

for " off-label " purposes, because at this time doctors are judged to be acting

in a " prudent " fashion by prescribing these drugs because they are FDA approved.

It goes all the way back to one of the first AD lawsuits where Prozac claimed

immunity from liability because they were following FDA guidelines and is still

being fought in the courts on one level or another. That's also why the drug

companies keep going to the FDA for approval of additional uses of already on

the market drugs to treat the newest psycho-diagnoses. It extends the FDA

blessing to doctors who prescribe for anything and

everything. It also extends their ability to reap big non-generic bucks as

long as they maintain an active patent on a med for any particular use - 10

years for depression, 3 years later, get it approved for GAD - bam! - longer

patent protection. Patent protection = BIG BUCKS!

The issue right now for all ages is who knew what within the pharmaceutical

companies, when did they know it and what actions did they take to prevent this

info from coming to light. The mis- and disinformation that they were feeding

the FDA through the hiding/skewing of negative clinical data and adverse

reaction reports is what they are being held accountable for. Now that the

kid-warning is on the labels, doctors will increasingly be found liable for

their actions in treating 21-and unders. If the FDA puts a black box warning

for all ages after their upcoming study, I think it will open the floodgates for

everyone who has been negatively impacted by their lies and conspiracies and

will lead to the bursting of the whole pharmaceutical bubble.

Unfortunately, I don't think there is enough attention being paid to how the

millions of people currently on these drugs are going to be informed about how

to stop. Dr. and a few others are working to spread this information, but

if the media won't even publicize the fact that these drugs are a huge health

risk, and the impact of drug cessation is immediate and often horrendous,

potentially millions of people are going to be crashing all over the place -

within days of any FDA admission that these drugs are dangerous. And they won't

know what to do. Like we didn't know what to do when B.J. was suffering.

Terry

Peggy Rose <rpggyr@...> wrote:

I have not posted in a while but I was compelled to reply to your post.

I couldn't agree more. There are countless lawsuits against big Pharma.

Most are settled out of court, and some have gag orders attached. You

can sue the drug companies from now until doomsday. Its the MD's

prescribing these drugs that need to be held accountable. They are the

ones that took the oath First Do No Harm. They have been getting away

with this bullshit long enough. Let them sue the pharmaceuticals.

Peggy

>

> The amount of information linking SSRIs to addiction, suicide, mania,

> etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself why the physicians are

> not more proactive in identifying these problems and warning the

> patients about them.

[Guest guest]

So you're saying that if an adult is prescribed Effexor off label,

not told is was an antid, was not told it was addictive, that a law

suit is possible? And the doctor knew it was addictive.

> >

> > The amount of information linking SSRIs to addiction, suicide,

mania,

> > etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself why the

physicians are

> > not more proactive in identifying these problems and warning the

> > patients about them.

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

I'm saying that I have been told it is far more likely to get a lawyer to pursue

a claim against a doctor if it is prescribed for off-label use. The implication

is that the doctor is making a decision to prescribe off-label based on his own

knowledge formulated by reading various publications, articles, etc. but not at

the urging of the pharmaceutical company or with the blessing of the FDA. The

way I had it explained to me by one attorney is that as long as the doctors can

say " I was only doing what the FDA said was safe and effective " , they have an

automatic out. Juries buy into the concept; and lawyers know it and won't take

cases like that. Until the data is openly published and a warning or notice

about the additional data is issued by the FDA - then doctors have an added

responsibility to be aware of the side effects, dangers, etc. in the warning and

assume a greater liability for prescribing if they do not adhere to the wording

of the warning. In other words, a doctor who

prescribes an antidepressant for a child/adolescent after 9/04 had better be

able to document increased tracking of the child's reactions to the drug or they

will be able to be deemed negligent.

Terry

magnoliaig <LEstill491@...> wrote:

So you're saying that if an adult is prescribed Effexor off label,

not told is was an antid, was not told it was addictive, that a law

suit is possible? And the doctor knew it was addictive.

> >

> > The amount of information linking SSRIs to addiction, suicide,

mania,

> > etc., is huge. You have to really ask yourself why the

physicians are

> > not more proactive in identifying these problems and warning the

> > patients about them.

>

>

>

>

>

>