Last Updated on August 29, 2022 by
Effexor Lawsuit Concerns
Effexor lawsuit concerns for side effect damages are likely one reason the drug fell in 2007 from the sixth most prescribed antidepressant to the 12th spot in 2009.
SNRI’s are designed to block serotonin and norepinephrine (excitatory neurotransmitters) from being absorbed into the nerve pathways. The chemical imbalance theory that marketing efforts focused on proffered that the buildup of these naturally occurring hormones can stimulate a lift in mood for those suffering from depression. Since the emergence and profound proliferation of antidepressants such as Effexor, clinical evidence has never proven this theory. A July 2002 clinical review was published by the Journal of Molecular psychiatry, that revealed no evidence for the “chemical imbalance” theory can be found.3
Effexor was the first SNRI drug to reach the market back in 1993, and many similar drugs have followed under different names, not only prescribed for depression but GAD (generalized anxiety disorder), insomnia, and other off-label applications.10
One wishes the advertised claims were valid. But according to many studies, it has been found that, in the main, antidepressants are no more effective than a placebo, except in extraordinarily severe cases of depression.
Aside from lack of efficacy, Effexor can produce adverse effects that are debilitating. Effexor withdrawals are so extreme for some, that patients have initiated lawsuits against Pfizer for damages. While it has been shown in clinical studies and research that all SSRIs and SNRIs can produce adverse effects upon discontinuation, Effexor withdrawals and drug side effects are considered to be the most severe of any other drug in its drug class.4-8,11,12
Effexor lawsuit concerns include the fact that in court proceedings, the drug manufacturer has attempted to shift the blame for these drug injuries to the prescribing doctors and away from the drug or the drugmakers. The strategy involves using what is termed “learned intermediary doctrine,” in an attempt to legally remove the drugmaker’s liability and place the blame on the prescribing physician. This has also affected prescribers who may decide not to prescribe medications that may harm the patient or a child born to a mother taking the drug, because doing so may result in the prescriber’s own bankruptcy.2,9
Perhaps the arranged marriage between the medical community and pharmacology-for-profit is breaking apart.