GSK Seroxat trial data - The outcome?

I think we can all now accept that GlaxoSmithKline DID hold back negative results for 15 years regarding Seroxat safety in children. One only has to read the recently released court documents to see that GSK are guilty as sin.

As promised, I sent the documents to the MHRA in the hope of speeding up their sham of an investigation into GlaxoSmithKline. The MHRA replied to me with:

----- Original Message -----
From: MHRA Information Centre
To: fiddaman64

Sent: Thursday, February 07, 2008 3:04 PM

Subject: RE: GSK Investigation

Dear Bob Fiddaman,

Thank you for your recent enquiry to the MHRA. Thank you for sending us these documents, which we have passed on to those who are dealing with these matters

Please contact us again if you need further assistance with this, or any other queries.

Kind Regards,

Central Enquiry Point Information Centre Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency

Tel: 020 7084 2000

Personally I am in no doubt that GlaxoSmithKline and the MHRA are intertwined - one only has to look at my post from 10.33am today to see that staff at GSK looked in at my blog then a minute later staff from the MHRA looked in. Coincidence? I think not.

So what of the outcome?

It would be highly unlikely that the MHRA find GSK not guilty, particularly faced with the new evidence they have, though then again I have very little faith in the medicines regulator so it wouldn't surprise me if they actually did find GSK not guilty.

Let's say that they do find GSK guilty - what then?

Criminal proceeedings? Well if MHRA Chairman Alisdair Breckenridge is to be beleived then yes that is a possibilty, at least that is what he said when interviewed by Shelley Jofre on BBC TV's Panorama (See video 2.42) Breckenridge also said in the same Panorama programme:
"Remember Seroxat has never been licensed in children, it has never been licensed in children at all... but nevertheless practitioners have, on their own behest, have used it extensively. Our best evidence is that some 7,000 children a year were ... or children and adolescents were recieving Seroxat"(See video 1.00)

7,000 children a year? It just rolled off the tongue - meant nothing to Breckenridge. If the MHRA had done their job properly that 7,000 figure could have turned into a zero. But no, the MHRA stubbornly refused to accept that they had been duped by GlaxoSmithKline. Why would GSK dupe them?, they do after all have two ex-employees sitting on the board at the MHRA, of which Breckenridge is one, the other being Ian Hudson.

The MHRA have to ask themselves why 7,000 children a year were recieving Seroxat, they must hold up their hands and take some of the blame. If they decide to push for criminal proceedings against GlaxoSmithKline then they themselves must be impartially investigated and have criminal proceedings issued against them. They have failed to protect the very essence of life - Our children.

And what of GlaxoSmithKline mouthpiece Alistair Benbow?

When asked in 2003 if he thought the drug (Seroxat) could be still safe for children - he replied:

"Absolutely, it could be, we haven't got a license in children yet" (See video 0.24)

This suggests to me that GlaxoSmithKline were pushing for a license - I mean why say '...we haven't got a licence in children yet'?

So even as late as 2003 GlaxoSmithKline were still denying there was a problem with Seroxat in children. Yet in 1989 the company had trial data demonstrating an eightfold increase in suicide risk. Can Benbow say that he didn't know? Who hid this evidence from him? Or was Benbow lying on national television?

So what will become of Alistair Benbow? Will he be criminally prosecuted? Will his defence be 'I never knew'?

You have to admit that this is the kind of stuff that makes Hollywood blockbusters.

With so many people knowing a drug can cause suicide in children why were so many kept in the dark?

There are many questions that need answering, many paths that need 'impartial' investigation. Heads should roll for this huge corporate cover-up - not only at GlaxoSmithKline but at the MHRA too.