First
a transcribed copy of the Glaxo Fax sent to The Sunday
Times Magazine in 1997 in response to enquiries by
one of their freelance journalists, David James Smith.
It is typical of the type of answers we got from them
during production of the "Arachnoiditis - Fighting
Back" video.
Glaxo Wellcome Fax
To: David James Smltb
(0171-610-2970) 2 September 1997
The Sunday Times Magazine
Fm: Martin Sutton
Manager. Corporate Communications
Direct tel: 0181-966-8256
Dlrect fax: 0181-966-8827
Dear Mr Smith,
Further to my fax of yesterday please find to follow
our answers to the questions which you raised in your
fax of last Friday 29th August. Prior to that I think
it would be worthwhile my giving you a summary of
the Company's position on Myodil, as follows:
We have every sympathy
for people who think they have suffered as
a result of the administration of Myodil. However.
The symptoms and issues surrounding arachnoiditis
are complex, with current medical opinion indicating
that people's suffering is most likely due to their
original condition, degenerative back disease, or
surgery and other medical procedures which were undertaken.
It should not be overlooked that by definition people
who had myelograms were already back-sufferers.
Glaxo supplied Myodil
to meet the needs of a knowledgeable and specialist
medical profession, who had to take into, account
side effects before using the product on a case-by-case
basis. All pharmaceutical products have side-effects
which have to bc weighed up by doctors against the
benefits which the products bring, and this judgement
clearly has to be based on The medical knowledge available
at the time. As soon as Glaxo became aware of the
possibility of arachnoiditis, in 1971, it included
warnings to that effect in the form of inserts in
the product's packaging. (Note 1)
In July 1995, after
4 years of legal proceedings over Myodil, Glaxo Wellcome
reached a settlement with a group of plaintiffs. This
was done without any admission of liability by the
company, which took the view that a settlement was
more equitable and in the best interests of all parties,
not least in terms of the legal costs which would
have been incurred. The terms of the settlement involved
a lump sum payment of £7 million and took
into account 425 plaintiffs who had submitted
their full cases including medical information.(Note
2)
In conclusion the
company believes that it has acted responsibly at
all times in relation to the supply of Myodil.
Signed Martin Sutton
Note
1: Package Inserts
We will be publishing extracts from a deposition given
by Dr Newton of Lafayette, the US producers of the same
material. This company changed their package inserts
following a letter from the FDA regarding their non-reporting
of adverse reactions for over 25 years.
That
letter will also be appearing on these pages.
It
ordered them to change their package inserts to reflect
the non-absorbability of the product and the dangers
of arachnoiditis. Papers regarding this danger dating
back to 1947 had been ignored up to this date. Abstracts
from these medical papers, amongst others, will be
included in our Medical Papers Archives.
Note
2: Number of Plaintiffs (Claimants)
The numbers of plaintiffs had originally been over
3000 and were trimmed back in negotiations between
both sets of lawyers.
The
425 "lucky" ones ended up with a pitiful
amounts when one considers their injuries. Most of
the plaintiffs assert to this day that they were "bullied"
by both their solicitors and the Legal Aid Board,
which threatened to withdraw support if they did not
accept.
A
quick check on the maths using my desk top calculator
shows that £16,570 was the average pay out.
A miserly sum of money in respect of all that they
had lost. In many cases, mine included, victims of
this toxic material have lost everything that they
had worked all their lives for.
A separate sheet contains Glaxo's answers to The Sunday
Times' questions.
Top
Back
to Government and Business Papers
