Re: Seroxat UK litigation will attach NO fault blame to GSK - repost

[Guest guest]

Eh

The post you reply to refers to Tuesday's blog & this blog shows only antipressant prescription statistics see -

http://www.tuesday1st.blogspot.com/ How on earth can you justify Mr Fiddaman's attack on her?

The statistics (taken from Office National Statistics) are an inconvient truth & have upset & destabilised Seroxat activists who have been led down the garden path at the foot of Mr Harvey's (Hugh ) litigation Order 68

Besides Steph I'm rather confused whilst I acknowledge your sad & tragic loss I am nonetheless curious as to why you are not seeking an outright ban on Seroxat, or indeed any other brand of SSRI, but seek only restriction in those under 25 years of age?

Why 25 Steph ...................in your opinion are antidepressants safe for those of us who are older?

This group is not SSRI Crusaders (any SSRI other than GSK's) neither is it SSRI Crusaders (are ok for those over 25)

> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Mass Tort: Pharmaceutical Product Liability England> > >> > > > > > <http://the-uk- seroxat-litigati on-chronicles. blogspot.> > >> > > com/2010/ 02/mass-tort- pharmaceutical- product.html>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > http://the-uk- seroxat-litigati on-chronicles. blogspot.> com/2010/> > >> > > 02/mass-tort- pharmaceutical- product.html> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > *"Mass tort treatment of pharmaceutical product liability> cases in> > >> > > > > > England.> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Defense Counsel Journal: July 01, 2006: Wilkinson, :> > >> > > Copyright"> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > "II. Causes of Action/Remedies> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > There are three potential causes of actions in product> liability> > >> > > > > > cases. Product liability claims may be made under the Consumer> > >> > > > > > Protection Act 1987 ("CPA"), in negligence, or in breach of> > >> > > contract.> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > A. Consumer Protection Act 1987 The CPA, which implements the> > >> > > > > > Product Liability Directive 85/374/EEC (3) in the UK, imposes> > >> > > > > > liability on the producer of defective products for damage> caused> > >> > > > > > by the defect. A "product" is defined as any good that> includes> > >> > > > > > "any natural or artificial substance." (4) A product is> defective> > >> > > > > > if, at the time of circulation, it is not as "safe as persons> > >> > > > > > generally are entitled to expect," taking account of a number> of> > >> > > > > > factors including any instructions or warnings provided with> the> > >> > > > > > product and the manner in which it has been marketed. (5) A> > >> > > > > > product cannot be deemed defective solely because an improved> > >> > > > > > product has become available. Liability under the CPA is> strict:> > >> > > > > > it is not necessary to prove that the producer was at fault in> > >> > > > > > causing the defect. Producers have strict liability for> > >> > > > > > distributing a product that is "unreasonably dangerous,"> > >> > > > > > regardless of whether they are at fault. The claimant need> only> > >> > > > > > prove a defect and causal relationship between the defect and> the> > >> > > > > > injury; courts will distinguish between products that fail and> > >> > > > > > defective products."> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > **Access my Library: Mass tort treatment pharmaceutical*> > >> > > > > > <http://www.accessmy library.com/ article-1G1- 148575330/> > >> > > mass-tort- treatment- pharmaceutical. HTML>> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > It would appear the Seroxat litigation being brought under the> > >> > > CPA, is> > >> > > > > > solely dependant on the personal expectation of the consumer> on> > >> > > safety> > >> > > > > > and withdrawal.> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > Although producers' liability under the CPA is strict,> successful> > >> > > > > > litigation is not dependant on the producer being found at> fault> > >> > > for> > >> > > > > > causing the defect -- therefore this case will hold *no fault*> > >> > > > > > liability to GSK as the producer.> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > The lead solicitor Mark Harvey of Hugh confirms the> > >> > > withdrawal> > >> > > > > > and no fault criteria on his website.> > >> > > > > > //> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > > "The seroxat group action claims which are being led by Hugh> > > >> > > > > > are being pursued under the Consumer Protection Act (CPA)> 1987.> > >> > > > > > The CPA provides for a non-fault based liability if the> product is> > >> > > > > > found to be defective and to have caused injury as a result.> The> > >> > > > > > Claimants allege difficulties in withdrawing from the drug."> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > > >> > >> > > > >> > >> > > >> > >> >>