Prozac Timeline
Below is the timeline presented to the jury in the Forsyth v. Eli Lilly Trial. It was presented during closing arguments by the plaintiffs. It lists Lilly’s internal documents. The plaintiffs allege that it shows that Lilly knew about Prozac-induced suicidality and violence (even before Prozac was approved for marketing in the United States) and that this was withheld from the public.
-
Aug. 1978 – Team Meeting Minutes – “There have been a
fairly large
number of reports of adverse reactions . . . Another depressed patient developed
psychosis . . . Akathisia and restlessness were reported in some patients.”
Exhibit 30 (2nd page, end of 2nd paragraph)
-
May 1984 – BGA Comments – “During the treatment with
the preparation
(Prozac) 16 suicide attempts were made, 2 of these with success. As patients
with a risk of suicide were excluded from the studies, it is probable that this high proportion can be attributed to an action of the preparation
(Prozac) . . .” Exhibit 42 (page 3, 6th paragraph)
-
Jan. 1985 – Lilly receives reasons why the BGA will reject Lilly
registration,
one of which was because of “SUICIDAL RISK.” With instructions
for “IMMEDIATE FOLLOW-UP ON ALL KEY OPINION LEADERS ON THE BGA COMMISSION
FOR SELECTED VISITATION NEXT WEEK.” Exhibit 53
-
March 29, 1985 – “Benefit/Risk Considerations” –
“The
incidence rate (suicide) under fluoxetine (Prozac) therefore purely mathematically
is 5.6 times higher than under the other active medication imipramine.”
. . . “The benefits vs. risks considerations for fluoxetine (Prozac)
currently does not fall clearly in favor of the benefits. Therefore, it
is of the greatest importance that it be determined whether there is a particular
subgroup of patients who respond better to fluoxetine (Prozac) than to imipramine, so that the higher incidence of suicide attempts may be tolerable.
Exhibit 58 (pages 18 & 22)
-
June 1986 –
Draft of Proposed PRECAUTIONS and ADVERSE REACTIONS Sections
of the Prozac Package Insert – “Mania and psychosis may be precipitated
in susceptible patients by antidepressant therapy.” Exhibit 5 (1st
page) (never included in actual inserts)
-
Aug. 1989 – Additional Feedback Regarding the Fluoxetine (Prozac) Review
by the Commission A (Germany) – “3. The counterindication because of
acute suicidality should become a warning whereby the physicians should
be advised that in the absence of sedation, the risk of higher suicidality
should be taken into account.” Exhibit 88
-
Nov. 17, 1989 – Letter to sales representatives on article about
Prozac-induced
akathisia authored by Dr. Lipinski and others. “In the article the
authors voice their suspicion that ‘the triad of symptoms’ (anxiety,
nervousness, and insomnia) reflects the syndrome of akathisia, ‘which,
in their view is apparently related to fluoxetine (Prozac) therapy.”
But the sales people are warned: “Use of this information in product
discussions may violate federal law.” Exhibit 91 (1st page, 2nd paragraph
and 2nd page, last sentence)
-
Jan. 1990 – PROZAC and SELF-DIRECTED VIOLENCE – “We have
just received
a pre-print of an article (not a letter to ed.) Which we understand is to
appear in the February 1990 AMERICAN JOURNAL OF PSYCHIATRY suggesting that
Prozac can induce severe, intense, obsessional suicidal ideation.”
. . .” Exhibit 94
-
Jan. 30, 1990 – Letter to sales representatives giving the sales people
a “heads-up” on the forthcoming Teicher article regarding Prozac
and Suicide and instructing them as follows: “Because these issues
(suicide) are not part of our current marketing plan, you should not initiate
discussions on these articles. … “Again, because these issues
are not part of our current marketing plan, discussions should not be initiated
by you.” Exhibit 15 (bottom of second page)
-
Feb 1990 – Teicher article published “Emergence of Intense Suicidal
Preoccupation During Fluoxetine (PROZAC) Treatment” – “The purpose
of this report is to suggest the surprising possibility that fluoxetine
(Prozac) may induce suicidal ideation in some patients.” . . . “In
our experience, this side effect has occurred in 3.5% of patients receiving
fluoxetine (Prozac) . . .” Exhibit 95
-
February 7, 1990 – Leigh Thompson Memo – “Anything that
happens in
the UK (England) can threaten this drug (Prozac) in the US and worldwide.
We are now expending enormous efforts fending off attacks because of (1)
relationship to murder and (2) inducing suicidal ideation.” Exhibit
97
-
February 7, 1990 – Leigh Thompson Memo – “I am concerned
about reports
I get re UK attitude toward Prozac safety. Leber (FDA) suggested a few minute
ago we using CSM database to compare Prozac aggression and suicidal ideation
with other antidepressants in UK. Although he is a fan of Prozac and believes
a lot of this is garbage, he is clearly a political creature and will have
to respond to pressures. I hope Patrick realizes that Lilly can go down
the tubes if we lose Prozac and just one event in the UK can cost us that.”
Exhibit 98
-
June 1990 – Letter to Lilly by concerned doctor – “I
am writing to
inform Eli Lilly Company that a disturbing number of suicides or suicide
attempts associated with Prozac has come to my attention over the last several
months.” I am concerned that the association with Prozac may be more
than coincidental.” . . . “There appears to be growing concern
that Prozac may somehow trigger a suicidal preoccupation in a small subset
of patients and that their families should be warned of this potential risk.
It is certainly possible that some of the cases reported are “coincidence”
in that the depressed person may have attempted suicide independently of
Prozac. However, some of these cases appear to be in patients taking Prozac
for reasons other than depression.” Exhibit 102 (2nd page)
-
July 18, 1990 – Memo regarding call from Paul Leber at the FDA. “Paul
Leber called yesterday; I contacted him at 6:15 am this morning and half-hour
conversation, very, very pleasant . . .” “The call was about suicide.”
. . . “He asked that we FAX nothing to him unless he has agreed before
hand.” “Paul (Leber) is taking a position in talking with outside
folks today that Lilly and FDA working together on the suicide issue and
following closely the postmarketing events, but that there are no denominators
and the best that can be done is to put a ‘cap’ on the number of events.”
Exhibit 104 (top of 1st page and bottom of 2nd page)
-
August 3, 1990 – Letter to sales representatives regarding reports
of suicidal
ideation/behavior possibly associated with PROZAC therapy. “This
information is not intended to replace our current promotional strategy
but is being provided to enable you to respond to physicians when appropriate.
You should not initiate discussion on these issues nor use this letter in
detailing. However, if asked to comment on these issues by a health
care professional, you should: 1. Reassure the health care professional
that no casual relationship has been established between suicidal ideation
and PROZAC therapy.” Exhibit 17 (bottom of 1st page and top of 2nd
page)
-
August 31, 1990 – “Dear Doctor” letter assuring them
that there
is no “causal relationship between Prozac and suicidality (ideation
or acts).” Exhibit 22
-
September 12, 1990 – Lilly memo between Max Talbot and Leigh Thompson- Talbot
says “One possible strategy if FDA presses for an additional labeling
change vis-a-vis suicide is a class-wide (i.e. ALL antidepressants) cautionary
note; however we should take this position only as a last resort.”
Thompson replies: “that report MUST move swiftly through approval and
to Dr. Leber’s (FDA) hands – – he is our defender.” Exhibit
109
-
September 14, 1990 – Lilly memo between John Heiligenstein (Lilly) and Leigh
Thompson – Heiligenstein says: “We feel caution should be exercised
in a statement that “suicidality and hostile acts in patients taking
Prozac reflect the patient’s disorder and not a causal relationship to Prozac
– – – – Postmarketing reports are increasingly fuzzy and we have assigned
‘Yes, reasonably related’ on several reports.”. . . “You
may want to note that trials were not intended to address issue of suicidality.”
Exhibit 110
-
September 25, 1990 – Minutes of Lilly Meeting with FDA – discuss doing an
in-hospital rechallenge of patients who met predefined criteria for suicidal
acts and ideation and agrees to “analyze international data relating
to suicide.” Exhibit 112
-
October 2, 1990 – Memo to Lilly employee Leigh Thompson to Lilly employee
Robert Zerbe regarding an upcoming Prozac symposium in which the issue of
suicidality is discussed. “Then the question is what to do with the
‘big’ numbers on suicidality. If the report numbers are shown next
to those for nausea, they seem small.” Exhibit 113 (2nd page.)
-
November 7, 1990 – Leigh Thompson memo – “I’d suggest
that priorities
are: (1) protect Prozac” . . . Exhibit 116
-
November 13, 1990 – Memo from Claude Bouchy (Lilly Germany) to Leigh Thompson
Re: Adverse Drug Event Reporting – Suicide Fluoxetine – In response to Lilly’s
request that he (Bouchy) change the event “suicidal ideation”
to “depression,” Bouchy writes: “Hans (another Lilly employee
in Germany) has medical problems with these directions and I have great
concerns about it. I do not think I could explain to the BGA, a judge, to
a reporter or even to my family why we would do this especially on the sensitive
issue of suicide and suicidal ideation.” Exhibit 117
-
November 14, 1990 – Second memo from Claude Bouchy (Lilly Germany) to Leigh
Thompson Re: Adverse Drug Event Reporting – Suicide Fluoxetine in which
he states: “I personally wonder whether we are really helping the credibility
of an excellent ADE system by calling overdose what a physician reports
as suicide attempt and by calling depression what a physician is reporting
as suicide ideation.” Exhibit 118
-
April 15, 1991 – Memo to Leigh Thompson called “Upcoming TV
appearance”
Section I. “MESSAGE GOALS – Whatever questions you are asked or direction
the interview take, the three points we want to establish are: 2. ‘It’s
in the disease, not the drug.’; Section III ‘If pressed, or as a postscript
to the above, then make the point that absolutely no evidence indicates
that PROZAC as a cause of such behavior (violence and suicide).’, and ‘Prozac
defense . . . There is simply no medical or scientific merit to the argument.”
Exhibit 123
-
April 23, 1991 – Leigh Thompson Memo re 20/20 Show in which he admits that
on the issue of suicidality “I did NOT share the European data AT ALL.”
and “She attacked on us hiding data by dividing up reports by many
COSTART terms. She had numbers for suicide, overdose, intentional overdose,
unintentional overdose and said they came to 1200 (or 1400) total suicides
– – so we went around on OD not necessarily being suicide and COSTART, etc.”
Exhibit 124 (bottom of 1st page and 4th paragraph of 2nd page)
-
May 15, 1991 – FDA Meeting to Discuss Fluoxetine Rechallenge Protocol –
“we agreed to have the rechallenge protocol ready to go by September
1, 1991 Exhibit 125
-
August 1991 – Dr. David Healy’s Article “Antidepressant
Induced Suicidal
Ideation” – “These two cases suggest that the emergence of suicidal
ideation on antidepressants cannot always be attributed to a lifting of
psychomotor retardation but rather that the ideas may in some instances
be produced by antidepressants.” Exhibit 126
-
October 29, 1991 – Lilly prepared draft for Dr. Beasley entitled
“Suggested
Reply Points to Oswald, Healy & Creaney” in which he acknowledges
that item 3 of the HAMD is an insensitive measure of suicidality and states:”There
was no specific rating scale for akathisia included in the trial designs
for the studies reported, so the only source of data would be adverse event
reports. Akathisia is a subjective phenomenon and hence would rely on patients
volunteering information.” Exhibit 130 (2nd page)
-
December 1991 – Dr. Rothschild’s Article “Re-exposure
to Fluoxetine
After Serious Suicide Attempts by Three Patients: The Role of Akathisia”
– “This is the first report, to our knowledge, of patients restarted
on fluoxetine (Prozac) after a previous suicide attempt during fluoxetine
treatment.” . . .”When re-exposed to fluoxetine, the patients
again developed akathisia and suicidal ideation. The suicidal feelings abated
when the akathisia was treated by the discontinuation of the fluoxetine
(Prozac) or the addition of propranolol.” Exhibit 131 (Cross-examination)
-
January 23, 1992 – Lilly memo regarding upcoming meeting with Taiwanese
doctors (Drs. Lu and Ko) to discuss the report on their study results entitled
“suicidal attempts and fluoxetine (Prozac) treatment.” Exhibit
133
-
April 8, 1992 – Weinstein (Lilly employee) Report – “Mission
Accomplished.
Professor Lu will not present or publish his fluoxetine (Prozac) vs. maprotiline
suicidality data.” Exhibit 144
- March 3, 1993 – Forsyth’s deaths
-
1994 – Dr. David Healy’s Article “The Fluoxetine and
Suicide Controversy”
– Dr. Healy concludes: “In the opinion of this author, the volume of
case reports and other studies is sufficient to demonstrate that antidepressants
and antipsychotics may induce suicidal ideation in certain individuals under
certain conditions.” Exhibit 153
-
1995 – Dr. Jick’s Study “Antidepressants and Suicide”
– “The
results indicate that only fluoxetine (Prozac) has a rate that seems to
be substantially higher than that of the other antidepressants.” Exhibit
155
-
June 1998 – Dr. Roger Lane’s article “SSRI-Induced Extrapyramidal
Side-Effects
and Akathisia; Implications for Treatment” appears in the Journal of
Psychopharmacology. “SSRI-induced akathisia is a relatively rare but
is frequently unrecognized when it does occur.” . . . “The precise
definition of akathisia is a matter of controversy, as is the relative importance
of the objective and subjective aspects of the disorder. Is akathisia a
movement disorder or an intense and uncomfortable mental state . . .”
“It may be less of a question of patients experiencing fluoxetine (Prozac)-induced
suicidal ideation, than patients feeling that ‘death is a welcome result’
when the acutely discomforting symptoms of akathisia are experienced on
top of already distressing disorders.”
Call (855) 948-5098 for more information.
-
Pharmaceutical Settlement $105 Million Settlement
Wisner Baum obtained $105 million on behalf of multiple clients involved in a pharmaceutical negligence case.
-
Paxil Pediatric Class Action $63 Million Settlement
$63 million pediatric class action re false promotion of Paxil. Judge approves final terms of improved national pediatric paxil class action settlement – consumers get a better deal.
-
Third-Party Payer Class Action $40 Million Settlement
$40 million third-party payer class action re off-label promotion of Paxil. Judge approves $40 million settlement in the second phase of national pediatric paxil class action – insurance companies to be reimbursed.
-
Defective Drug Class Action $28 Million Settlement
$28 million Paxil defective drug class action. A class action has been brought in the US territory of Puerto Rico against UK-based drug major GlaxoSmithKline.
-
Celexa-Lexapro Pediatric Class Action $10 Million Settlement
$10 million pediatric class action re false promotion of Celexa and Lexapro. Babies born to women who have used Lexapro and other similar medications such as Zoloft, Celexa, Prozac, Paxil, and Symbyax are at an increased risk for birth defects.
-
Drug Injury $9 Million Settlement
Wisner Baum obtained a $9 million settlement on behalf of an individual who was injured by a drug.


-
A ranking in The U.S. News – Best Lawyers® “Best Law Firms” is widely regarded by both client and legal professionals as a significant honor. It is considered the most reliable, unbiased source of legal referrals anywhere.
-
Wisner Baum is proud to be a sponsor of The Truck Safety Coalition, a a group of caring individuals dedicated to reducing the number of deaths and injuries caused by truck-related crashes. Our support enables them to help families and save lives.
-
Law360 recognizes law firms that have a strong regional presence, working on important matters within their home state. “[Wisner Baum] possesses a David v. Goliath-sized slingshot while seeking justice for everyday citizens it believes were harmed or killed through corporate wrongdoing.”
-
NLJ and American Lawyer Media honor law firms and attorneys as Elite Trial Lawyers for their cutting-edge legal work on behalf of plaintiffs in practice areas ranging from mass torts to securities litigation.
-
Best Lawyers is the oldest and most respected peer-review publication in the legal profession. A listing in Best Lawyers is widely regarded by both clients and legal professionals as a significant honor, conferred on a lawyer by his or her peers.
-
Less than one-half of one percent of firms across the nation have achieved this ranking. A firm must have a high percentage of lawyers who have achieved the prestigious AV® Preeminent rating by Martindale-Hubbell®.
-
The National Law Journal inducted Wisner Baum into the Verdicts Hall of Fame for obtaining the $2 billion landmark verdict in the Roundup cancer case of Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto. The verdict was #1 in California and #2 in the U.S. in 2019 and is #9 in American history.
-
Super Lawyers is a rating service of outstanding lawyers from more than 70 practice areas who have attained a high-degree of peer recognition and professional achievement.
-
The National Trial Lawyers Top 100 recognized the law firms of Wisner Baum, the Miller Firm and Audet & Partners with the 2019 Trial Team of the Year award (in the Mass Torts category) for their work in the groundbreaking case of Dewayne “Lee” Johnson v. Monsanto Company.
-
An AV® rating reflects an attorney who has reached the heights of professional excellence. The rating signifies the highest legal ability, and very high adherence to professional standards of conduct, ethics, reliability, and diligence.
-
Wisner Baum is proud to have all of its lawyers listed in Avvo, a legal directory connecting people in need of legal services with lawyers and connecting lawyers to lawyers. Eight of our attorneys have earned a 10.0 perfect rating with Avvo.
-
CA and USATopVerdict.com ranks our $2 billion verdict in Pilliod et al. v. Monsanto as the biggest verdict in California and the second largest verdict in the U.S. in 2019. It is the ninth largest verdict in U.S. history.
-
Published annually, the Lawdragon 500 Leading Plaintiff Consumer Lawyers list recognizes the “best of the best” in this area of the law through nominations, research, and review by a board of their peers.
-
In 2020, Law360 honored the law firms ”behind the litigation wins and major deals that resonated throughout the legal industry.” It recognized our success in several landmark cases.
-
In 2018, our $289 million Johnson v. Monsanto verdict was the largest personal injury verdict in California. TopVerdict.com also ranked it #2 among all verdicts in California and #10 in the nation.
-
The Bar Register is the definitive guide to the most distinguished law firms in America. It includes only those select law practices that have earned the highest rating in the Martindale-Hubbell Law Directory and have been designated by their colleagues as preeminent in their field.

Firm Reviews
What Our Clients Are Saying
-
I Can’t Imagine a Better Law Firm
“Multiple lawyers recommended Wisner Baum to me and I have been consistently impressed with the quality of their work.”
- Best Law Firms Survey -
They Are About Changing the Systems...
“Wisner Baum are not only amazing attorneys but more importantly, they are activists. They are about changing the systems which got us into trouble in the first place. They understand their role in the process of making change.”
- Kim Witczak -
Top Legal Minds in the Country
“The Wisner Baum firm has some of the top legal minds in the country; they are driven, determined, trustworthy, ethical and passionate.”
- From Best Lawyers® Best Law Firms -
Diligent & Professional Representation
“Thanks to your efforts I was able to recover from a tragic experience and turn my life around for the best.”
- W.T. -
Our Best Interest Was Always Number One on Your List
“A special thank you to your Spanish-speaking staff for the extra effort put into this case. The language barrier was never a problem, and we are so very thankful to them. Your name holds much respect in our family.”
- G.C. & C.C