In a latest development in the field of medicine and drug litigation, GlaxoSmithKline and Brown University have been accused of aggressively promoting the use of antidepressant drug Paxil in children. The news that has surfaced in last few days reveals, though, the drug was doing very well in grown-up people however; U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) didn’t approve it for children and adolescents. The pharmaceutical giant is being accused of presenting fabricated study data pertaining to Paxil. The lawsuit was conceived and filed by New York Attorney General Eliot Spitzer, who accused GlaxoSmithKline of “repeated and persistent fraud,” alleging the pharmaceutical giant had promoted positive findings and had concealed those that go negative to it. Some of the parties have also framed charges of misreporting data from a clinical trial that itself is misleading and needs to be corrected.

It needs to be emphasized that GlaxoSmithKline had recently settled a lawsuit with a party pertaining to Paxil that caused it lose a massive sum of $3 billion in early July 2012. In Fact Paxil was being viewed as the only competitor of Prozac manufactured by Pharmaceutical giant Eli Lilly. Prozac enjoys maximum market share in the United States in the antidepressant sector and was the only drug that FDA had given approval for which was deemed safe for kids younger than 12. GlaxoSmithKline launched Paxil in order to take some of the market share of Eli Lilly and Co. Many parties have framed charges against GlaxoSmithKline of helping tweak a medical journal article to suit their desire and purpose.

However, the story doesn’t end with the involvement of pharmaceutical giant alone ratherBrownUniversityand the Journal of  the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry were also dragged into the issue for publishing such a baseless and fabricated data. The whole issue surfaced after a paper published by Journal of the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry that stated that the antidepressant “Paxil was generally well tolerated and effective for major depression in adolescents.” However later it was found that the content was written by a ghost writer and only selective results were presented to the scientific world. Since then the study has been devalued and discredited by the scientific and academic world.

In fact many players are of the opinion that the lead author of the paper Martin Keller, needs to apologize and the study should be retracted. However, despite prevailing allegations the University did not even issue a public acknowledgement of the danger their academics created when they published a fabricated study and the lead author Keller quietly retired from his academic position at Brown University and is still named as emeritus professor of psychiatry and human behavior.

Meanwhile, Brown University has publicly remained indifferent to the GlaxoSmithKline settlement and did not see any reason for further action. “The recent announcement by the US Department of Justice did not suggest that any further reviews of the paper by the university are immediately warranted,” said the spokesman and representative of the University.