Evidence is mounting that SSRIs (selective serotonin re-uptake inhibitors, such as Prozac, Zoloft, and Paxil) do more good for the bottom line of the corporations that make and sell them than they do to the patients who take them.

Co-incident with this growing realization is a spate of law suits, studies, and modified limited regulatory alarms all of which point to a possible peaking in the popularity of these powerful, seemingly-ubiquitous, and highly profitable pharmaceutical products.

On June 2, 2004, Baum Hedlund, a Los Angeles-based law firm that is the lead counsel for a massive, multi-thousands, group lawsuit against GlaxoSmithKline (GSK) for failure to adequately warn people taking its Paxil "anti-depressant" about its potentially addictive nature, issued a press release complimenting crusading New York State Attorney General Eliot Spitzer for his action in suing the same company for fraud in the marketing of that drug.

Baum Hedlund attorney Karen Barth Menzies, lead attorney on the Paxil addiction case, said:

"Hopefully this will set an example to other drug companies who are guilty of the same malfeasance. There is no difference between what GSK has done regarding Paxil and what Pfizer has done related to Zoloft. Quite frankly, there has been a huge fraud perpetrated against the public by these companies. They tout the benefits as huge and the risks as minimal in an extremely deceptive way. It's about time this fraud was exposed."

To read the whole press release, click here.

On the non-SSRI-but-very-related-marketing-front, Pfizer, the makers of Zoloft and also the makers of Neurontin, an "anti-convulsive" drug, settled a multi-state case against it for illegally promoting "off-label" prescribing of Neurontin by several devious means for $430 million dollars. You can read the details of this case by clicking here.

On June 2nd, Bloomberg.com, quotes Mr. Spitzer as saying, "While Paxil has been approved by the FDA for adults only, physicians have discretion to prescribe the drug to treat depression in children, a so-called off-label use."

Improper promotion of Neurontin by Pfizer for "off-label" uses cost that company $430 million dollars. Now it's under attack by Eliot Spitzer for covering up negative indications concerning the "off-label" prescription of Zoloft for children and teens.

Speaking of teens, Ms. Menzies was also recently appointed defense co-counsel in the case of 14-year-old Christopher Pittman, who is being charged in South Carolina with murdering his grandparents, and who is arguing that whatever he did in that regard was due to the adverse effects of Zoloft.

To hear an interview with a local reporter about this case, which involves possible obstruction by the Food and Drug Administration and a change of judges necessitated by the first one's wife (a state senator)'s ownership of Pfizer (makers of Zoloft) stock, click here here.

On June 3rd, Baum Hedlund issued another press release, this one reporting on legal action it had taken in Utah on behalf of additional victims of GSK negligence regarding the addictive effects of its Paxil product:

"Salt Lake City, Utah, June 3, 2004 - Thirty Utah residents who have suffered withdrawal reactions as a result of taking the antidepressant Paxil, filed a mass joinder lawsuit in the United States District Court, Northern Division of Utah, against SmithKline Beecham d/b/a GlaxoSmithkline ("GSK"). Each of the victims have experienced similar withdrawal reactions and problems such as: nausea, anxiety, dizziness, sensory disturbances (including paraesthesia, which is described as electric jolt sensations or "zaps" or a sensation of cramps), headache, vision distortion, sweating, agitation, fatigue, tremor, sleep disturbances (including intense dreams), confusion, palpitations, insomnia, irritability, digestive disorders, and asthenia."

For the whole press release, click here.

Also on June 3rd, the New York Times ran an article entitled "Two Studies, Two Results, and a Debate Over a Drug," which reports on how GlaxoSmithKline commissioned two studies of Paxil and saw to it that the one with favorable results was published and that the one with less favorable results wasn't. You can read a summary of this article by clicking here and you can read the whole article if you're willing to pay $2.95.

Etopia Media Medical News Network asked Robert Milin, M.D., Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychiatry at the University of Ottawa and Clinical Director of the Regional Children's Mental Health Centre of the Royal Ottawa Hospital, the man responsible for whistle-blowing GSK's suppression of Study 377, as it was called, for a copy of the suppressed report. His office responded by saying that "Unfortunately, we do not have a copy here at all. I would assume your best source would be the pharmaceutical company."

Etopia Media Medical News Network hasn't been able to get a copy of Study 377 from that source yet, but we can offer you a look at an internal FDA memo about Zoloft's lack of effectiveness and excuses for why that shouldn't matter.

You can also take a look at a copy of "The Emperor's New Drugs: An Analysis of Antidepressant Medication Data Submitted to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration", from The American Psychological Association's Prevention & Treatment, Volume 5, Article 23, posted July 15, 2002.

In light of this torrent of proven and still-being-litigated patient abuse, one might ask, "What part of on-going international criminal conspiracy to commit fraud and cover it up while causing intense suffering to thousands of people hasn't yet been proven several times over in these and other cases still to come?"