inconvient truth - prescribing trend away from Seroxat 2001

[Guest guest]

http://tuesday1st.blogspot.com/2009/05/doh-1998-2008-england-ssri-snri_2963.html

Click image to enlargehttp://farm4.static.flickr.com/3640/3492881456_528c138c6a_o.jpgThe marginal trend reversal of Paroxetine Total Prescriptions in 2001 correlates with: -1 USA – August 2001, Paxil (Paroxetine / Seroxat) GSK class action Lawsuit filed in California Superior Court, LA County, USA.http://www.onlinelawyersource.com/paxil/class-action.html2 UK - The Guardian, December 10, 2001 article "Anti-depressant 'addicts' threaten legal Case", publicises that solicitors Graham Ross of Ross & Co, Wirral, and Mark Harvey of Hugh Ford Simey, Cardiff (Now Hugh ) who had liaised with American lawyers about Paxil are investigating the possibility of a UK Seroxat class action.http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2001/dec/10/medicalscience.highereducationThe increase in the marginal trend reversal of Paroxetine Total Prescriptions in 2002 correlates with: -3 UK – The Observer February 3, 2002 article "Hard habit to break", Mark Harvey, of Hugh Solicitors, Cardiff; instigates further publicity of the adverse drug reactions (ADRs), side effects and withdrawal problems, connected with the Seroxat --- but common to all drugs in the SSRI / SNRI class.http://www.guardian.co.uk/Archive/Article/0,4273,4348653,00.html.4 UK - The Observer, Sunday April 28 2002 "The chemistry of happiness"http://www.guardian.co.uk/theobserver/2002/apr/28/features.magazine375 UK - The November 11th 2002 Parmjit Dhanda Early Day Motion, EDM 238 Seroxat, brought the drug and the SSRI issue to Parliament,http://edmi.parliament.uk/EDMi/EDMDetails.aspx?EDMID=24050 & SESSION=681The acceleration of the marginal trend reversal of Paroxetine Total Prescriptions in 2003 correlates to: -6 UK - The ensuing parliamentary questions, media coverage and MIND Seroxat Protest, May 12th 2003 at the MHRA London offices, which made national television news coveragehttp://www.mind.org.uk/News+policy+and+campaigns/Press+archive/PRPanoramaSeroxat.htmThe Proxetine prescribing trend continues to decline, all be it at a slower rate.Significantly, the parliamentary interest and media coverage given to Seroxat and the continuing down trend in Paroxetine prescriptions has had NO impact on the overall marginal trend increases in prescription numbers for the drug class, although ALL are affected by the same ADRs, side effects and withdrawal problems.****Data collection reference:Department of Health; NHS; Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) - England.1998 to 2007:http://www.dh.gov.uk/en/PublicationsAndStatistics/Statistics/StatisticalWorkAreas/StatisticalHealthCare/DH_40864882008:http://www.ic.nhs.uk/webfiles/publications/PCA%202008/PCA%202008.pdf12-P-01p Tuesday

> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > > 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."> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > > >> > > >> > > > > >> > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >>