Today I received a newsletter from Mad in America containing an article about a mother whose son had been enrolled in a clinical trial of Seroquel which is a so-called atypical anti-psychotic made by AstraZeneca. Concerned with her son’s mental state since he had threatened to kill her, the mother attempted to remove him from the drug test. There was no way that such a disturbed young man could have been judged competent to provide informed consent to receive this drug. Despite her protests, she was ignored until she received word that her son had died. It soon became clear that he had committed suicide.
Here was every parent’s nightmare. So, she sued the drug company and the University of Minnesota. added to her pain was the fact that after her suit was dismissed, the university attempted to sue her to recover its costs from defending itself against her. From the Mad in America and a longer article on which it was based in Mother Jones Magazine several things became clear.
- Drug companies routinely discard unfavorable results in their drug trials.
- Drug trials may be conducted in such a way as to produce the most favorable result for the companies.
- The independent review boards that were supposed to prevent abuses of patients are not performing the tasks for which they were intended.
- There is reason to doubt that the new, often more expensive and highly marketed atypical anti-psychotics are any more effective than the older and less expensive anti-psychotics.
- There is good reason to doubt the efficacy of these atypical anti-psychotics either in a first break down of an individual or on a long term basis.
- When university attorneys play hardball with patients (madinamerica.com)
- AstraZeneca sues American drug watchdog over generic competitors (telegraph.co.uk)
- AstraZeneca Pays $520 Million to Settle Seroquel Whistleblower Claims (prweb.com)
- Some studies of popular drugs suppressed (healthsass.blogspot.com)