Continued from Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"
Cross-examination of Wendy Dolin
Ursula Henninger continued her cross-examination in an attempt to dismiss the role Paxil played in Stewart Dolin's death. Henninger tried to shift focus from Paxil's adverse side effects to Stewart's work history and previous prescriptions. (Stewart was prescribed another SSRI, Zoloft, years earlier and it was discontinued because he experienced several adverse side effects.)
Henninger reviewed Stewart Dolin's employment history and raised questions about work-related tension and anxiety. She even asked questions about Stewart's experiences in law school and first professional job decades earlier.
I mean, C'mon! Doesn't everyone feel a little anxious when taking an important exam or starting a new job? Certainly, GSK and all pharmaceutical companies fully understand such situational anxiety considering all their sales pitches promote SSRIs as some sort of miracle pill to wash away anxiety and sadness. GSK and other SSRI makers use these scenarios to their advantage when advertising SSRIs. But in court, situational anxiety is touted by GSK attorneys as a cause of violent death!
To add insult to injury, Henninger then changed direction and asked Ms. Dolin about the time when her parents were running out of money and moved in with the Dolin's. Henniger asked whether or not Stewart felt anxious about this. What loving son-in-law wouldn't show concern about his aging in-laws?
Throughout the cross, Wendy Dolin explained that Stewart was dedicated to finding the right balance and that he viewed therapy as a personal investment to help maintain such balance. Henninger's repetitive questioning continued, and she even inquired about the dreadful night Wendy learned Stewart had died. Henninger reminded Wendy that in her original deposition Wendy had not reported any unusual behavior to the police officers the evening Stewart passed away. Wendy replied that she was "in a total state of shock."
Going down this line of questioning was unsavory and appeared unnecessary, but hey-ho, it is what we've come to expect from King & Spalding during this trial.
After Wendy's cross-examination, she was redirected by David Rappaport, and a video of Stewart's life was played for the jury. The jury saw Stewart high on life, active, fun, goofy, traveling, hiking, skiing but, most importantly, they saw the sheer joy and happiness on the face of a man who was devoted to the family and friends he dearly loved. When the video finished, David Rappaport turned to the jury and rested the case.
After the jury had recessed, King & Spalding petitioned the court to dismiss the case. The GSK lawyers claimed there was not sufficient evidence to support Wendys claim that Paxils adverse side effects and misleading, inadequate warning caused Stewart's death. I believe this is standard procedure for defence attorneys when faced with what seems to be impending defeat. It's also quite possible that the Bayman, Davis & Co. circus is suffering delusions.
GSK attorneys cited points of law and case points, but the Honorable Judge Hart wasn't buying their bull. Judge Hart ruled that the evidence Dolin has presented is to be viewed in a light most favorable to Dolin. The trial will proceed.
GSK is now starting to present its counter-evidence and yesterday called its first "expert" witness, Robert Gibbons. To call Gibbons an "expert" is laughable considering Gibbons has been labeled a "Shill"* by members of his own profession.
Gibbons, a biostatistician, has infamously lobbied for the removal of the black box warnings for children. He appears to believe children are not harmed by SSRIs and that some kids are actually dying because they are not prescribed SSRIs. Further, Gibbons has also made outlandish claims stating SSRI drugs, such as Paxil, actually reduce suicide.
More on Gibbons tomorrow, although not too much. I feel it improper to give Gibbons a platform to spout his ignorance and junk science on my blog.
*A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps or gives credibility to a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization.
Dolin Vs GSK
Dolin Vs GSK - "Babes"