|
|
The brand-name form of sertraline, Zoloft, was advertised to consumers
using the following wording: "While the cause is unknown, depression
may be related to an imbalance of natural chemicals between nerve
cells in the brain. Prescription Zoloft works to correct this imbalance.
You just should't have to feel this way anymore." An assay
in PLOS Medicine noted that there is no scientific support for the
"serotonin imbalance" theory of depression and criticized
the sertraline manufacturer Pfizer and manufacturers of other SSRIs
for using it. When asked to comment on this apparent breach of federal
regulations, the FDA answered that the "reductionist statements"
could be used to explain the neurochemistry of depression "to
the fraction of the public that functions at no higher than a 6th
grade reading level."[105] To the FDA's credit, it reacted
promptly with a warning letter when a Zoloft advertisement omitted
the information about the risk of suicidality.
In the case of Regina vs Hawkins (an Australian court case from
the state of New South Wales), Zoloft was described as an important
factor in David Hawkins' murder in 1999 (through strangling) of
his wife. Hawkins had been depressed, was prescribed 50 mg of
Zoloft a day and on his first day of treatment took 250 mg. He
claimed on the night of the murder that he couldn't sleep, was
agitated and claimed he had hallucinations during the attack on
his wife. Several experts agreed that "Zoloft can cause agitation
and a certain amount of disinhibition so that some individuals
engage in aggressive or dangerous behaviours without due regard
for the consequences and in a manner that is out of character
for them" and that the prisoner's behavior was consistent
with agitated depression further exacerbated by akathisia and
toxic delirium that developed as a result of Zoloft overdose.
The court concluded that "it can be seen that the medical
evidence strongly supports a conclusion that, but for the effects
of the 250 milligrams of Zoloft he had taken, it is wholly unlikely
that the prisoner would have committed the crime to which he has
pleaded guilty. Furthermore, it is common ground that his having
done such an act is quite foreign to his former life history,
his personality and psychological make up. It was also wholly
inconsistent with his love for his marriage partner of nearly
fifty years."
In 2004, a Los Angeles nurse sued Pfizer as a private attorney
general "on behalf of all California residents who have been
misled about Zoloft", claiming the company covered up side
effects. In 2005, the Los Angeles Superior Court dismissed the
case and ordered the plaintiff to pay the Pfizer's cost of the
suit.
|
