![\"user-pic\"](\"/mt-static/support/assets_c/userpics/userpic-1161-100x100.png\")
It's certainly no smoking gun. I found it funny and bizzare. Why is stopping Paxil bad? Because we make a lot of money on it. See? Look at the money bomb. Thank you for the fine presentation, VP of Obviousness. The item's timing is notable, though not proof of anything in and of itself. I expect to see it featured in Micahel Moore's upcoming shock-doc, \"Big Pharma.\"
![\"user-pic\"](\"/css/images/default.gif\")
This document appears to have been provided as part of a document production by GSK. It was stamped with the statement, \"Confidential Pursuant to Protective Order.\" Generally, the effect of protective orders continue even after litigation ends, and violation can include sanctions. Your tipster could have some 'splaining to do.
Also, I'm not sure I agree with the comment that this memo (which actually looks to be part of a PowerPoint presentation) \"proves GSK knew that providing adequate safety warnings in Paxil's prescribing language would cause doctors to severely curtail or not prescribe the drug.\" It looks like it shows that GSK was evaluating options and that discontinuation would be a very costly one. I don't think it has anything to do with \"adequate safety warnings.\" While one might be able to infer bad intent from a company wanting to make a profit, I think that a company stating that discontinuation of a popular product would cause huge losses is just a statement of the obvious.