Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim: READ MY LIPS!!! No lawyer is going to file a $100,000 lawsuit against a pharma. Never! Ever! And it wasn't North Dakota, it was Wyoming. You are way out of your league here, Tim. Don't compare Brokavich with this lawsuit against Paxil. Right now, TV is rife with ads calling for victims to come forward to get their piece of the pie on the Phen-Fen suit. The pie is now worth TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS!!!! Tim, I used to work for some of the biggest law firms in this country. My ex-husband is a famous lawyer, on par with any of the guys in Baum, Hedlund. So, I can say with absolute certain and candor, you simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to lawsuits in this country. End of disucssion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim: READ MY LIPS!!! No lawyer is going to file a $100,000 lawsuit against a pharma. Never! Ever! And it wasn't North Dakota, it was Wyoming. You are way out of your league here, Tim. Don't compare Brokavich with this lawsuit against Paxil. Right now, TV is rife with ads calling for victims to come forward to get their piece of the pie on the Phen-Fen suit. The pie is now worth TWELVE BILLION DOLLARS!!!! Tim, I used to work for some of the biggest law firms in this country. My ex-husband is a famous lawyer, on par with any of the guys in Baum, Hedlund. So, I can say with absolute certain and candor, you simply do not know what you are talking about when it comes to lawsuits in this country. End of disucssion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 In a message dated 1/1/02 11:39:30 AM Mountain Standard Time, realityab@... writes: So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road. No lawyer is going to take on a case for this little money. THEY'RE IN IT FOR THE $$$$$$. And winning a bunch of little lawsuits is NOT going to get this shit off the market. Ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 In a message dated 1/1/02 11:39:30 AM Mountain Standard Time, realityab@... writes: So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road. No lawyer is going to take on a case for this little money. THEY'RE IN IT FOR THE $$$$$$. And winning a bunch of little lawsuits is NOT going to get this shit off the market. Ever! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Did the judge deny the appeal in the Wyoming suit???? I could've sworn that I read that someplace. And even if they DO appeal, it doesn't mean that the decision will be reversed. Eventually, GSK will have to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Did the judge deny the appeal in the Wyoming suit???? I could've sworn that I read that someplace. And even if they DO appeal, it doesn't mean that the decision will be reversed. Eventually, GSK will have to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Did the judge deny the appeal in the Wyoming suit???? I could've sworn that I read that someplace. And even if they DO appeal, it doesn't mean that the decision will be reversed. Eventually, GSK will have to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Did the judge deny the appeal in the Wyoming suit???? I could've sworn that I read that someplace. And even if they DO appeal, it doesn't mean that the decision will be reversed. Eventually, GSK will have to pay. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim, It was not Baum & Hedlund who won this suit. It was Andy Vickery's firm out of Houston. The case was in Wyoming, not North Dakota. The Avenging Angel >From: Tim Casey <realityab@...> >Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against >Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, >the kids and himself. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim, It was not Baum & Hedlund who won this suit. It was Andy Vickery's firm out of Houston. The case was in Wyoming, not North Dakota. The Avenging Angel >From: Tim Casey <realityab@...> >Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against >Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, >the kids and himself. _________________________________________________________________ MSN Photos is the easiest way to share and print your photos: http://photos.msn.com/support/worldwide.aspx Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Dear Collissa: You are so right about everything. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Dear Collissa: You are so right about everything. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Dear Collissa: You are so right about everything. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Dear Collissa: You are so right about everything. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Yes it would be appealed, But intrest starts the day of Jury award. If its a good case to appeal it would be worth it, But think about this, The companies who sell ssri know the danger. Its going to continue to get worse (for the pushers)as more information is released. I general Tim, I agree. As for personal experience the legal system sucks. >From: Tim Casey <realityab@...> >Reply-SSRI medications >SSRI medications >Subject: The logic of lawsuits >Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:39:03 -0800 (PST) > > >Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against >Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, >the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and >2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We >can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003. > > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common >strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more >lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives >the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal >similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford >Pintos (a long time ago). > > Just because you " win " a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to >get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the >new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at >the end, reduced to just barely enough to cover legal fees. I'll bet the >Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years >from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very >unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind >of mistake. > > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the >market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down >the road. > > > > Tim > > > >--------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Yes it would be appealed, But intrest starts the day of Jury award. If its a good case to appeal it would be worth it, But think about this, The companies who sell ssri know the danger. Its going to continue to get worse (for the pushers)as more information is released. I general Tim, I agree. As for personal experience the legal system sucks. >From: Tim Casey <realityab@...> >Reply-SSRI medications >SSRI medications >Subject: The logic of lawsuits >Date: Tue, 1 Jan 2002 10:39:03 -0800 (PST) > > >Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against >Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, >the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and >2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We >can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003. > > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common >strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more >lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives >the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal >similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford >Pintos (a long time ago). > > Just because you " win " a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to >get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the >new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at >the end, reduced to just barely enough to cover legal fees. I'll bet the >Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years >from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very >unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind >of mistake. > > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the >market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down >the road. > > > > Tim > > > >--------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim, After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena. Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers that the pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sit and cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particular drug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE are the ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to " look into " what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to serious conflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general. In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed " junk science " , it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a " frivolous " lawsuit by the defendants! The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmas who know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suits they do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyers fat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the " goods " BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what won for her and those she represented. Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their hands and they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof. Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of being pulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous " black box warnings " until the science became unavoidably inescapable proving the dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved " learned intermediaries " ,(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous! Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVING their dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, a totally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs. It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period. Collissa In regards lawsuits ever " taki > > Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003. > > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago). > > Just because you " win " a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough to cover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake. > > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road. > > > > Tim > > > > --------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim, After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena. Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers that the pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sit and cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particular drug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE are the ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to " look into " what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to serious conflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general. In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed " junk science " , it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a " frivolous " lawsuit by the defendants! The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmas who know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suits they do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyers fat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the " goods " BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what won for her and those she represented. Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their hands and they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof. Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of being pulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous " black box warnings " until the science became unavoidably inescapable proving the dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved " learned intermediaries " ,(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous! Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVING their dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, a totally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs. It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period. Collissa In regards lawsuits ever " taki > > Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003. > > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago). > > Just because you " win " a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough to cover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake. > > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road. > > > > Tim > > > > --------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim, After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena. Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers that the pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sit and cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particular drug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE are the ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to " look into " what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to serious conflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general. In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed " junk science " , it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a " frivolous " lawsuit by the defendants! The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmas who know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suits they do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyers fat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the " goods " BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what won for her and those she represented. Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their hands and they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof. Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of being pulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous " black box warnings " until the science became unavoidably inescapable proving the dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved " learned intermediaries " ,(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous! Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVING their dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, a totally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs. It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period. Collissa In regards lawsuits ever " taki > > Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003. > > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago). > > Just because you " win " a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough to cover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake. > > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road. > > > > Tim > > > > --------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 Tim, After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena. Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers that the pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sit and cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particular drug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE are the ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to " look into " what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to serious conflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general. In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed " junk science " , it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a " frivolous " lawsuit by the defendants! The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmas who know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suits they do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyers fat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the " goods " BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what won for her and those she represented. Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their hands and they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof. Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of being pulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous " black box warnings " until the science became unavoidably inescapable proving the dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved " learned intermediaries " ,(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous! Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVING their dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, a totally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs. It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period. Collissa In regards lawsuits ever " taki > > Dear Glitter, > > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guy who killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003. > > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago). > > Just because you " win " a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough to cover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake. > > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac off the market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road. > > > > Tim > > > > --------------------------------- > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 well said collissa..............lpretty frustraiting hu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hugs cynthia collissa <collissa@...> wrote: Tim,After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena.Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers thatthe pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sitand cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particulardrug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE arethe ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to "look into" what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to seriousconflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general.In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed "junk science", it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit by the defendants!The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmaswho know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suitsthey do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyersfat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the "goods" BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what wonfor her and those she represented.Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their handsand they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof.Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of beingpulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous "black box warnings" until the science became unavoidably inescapable provingthe dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved "learned intermediaries",(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous!Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVINGtheir dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, atotally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs.It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period.CollissaIn regards lawsuits ever "taki> > Dear Glitter,> > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guywho killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003.> > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago).> > Just because you "win" a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough tocover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake.> > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac offthe market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road.> > > > Tim> > > > ---------------------------------> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 well said collissa..............lpretty frustraiting hu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hugs cynthia collissa <collissa@...> wrote: Tim,After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena.Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers thatthe pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sitand cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particulardrug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE arethe ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to "look into" what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to seriousconflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general.In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed "junk science", it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit by the defendants!The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmaswho know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suitsthey do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyersfat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the "goods" BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what wonfor her and those she represented.Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their handsand they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof.Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of beingpulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous "black box warnings" until the science became unavoidably inescapable provingthe dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved "learned intermediaries",(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous!Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVINGtheir dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, atotally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs.It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period.CollissaIn regards lawsuits ever "taki> > Dear Glitter,> > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guywho killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003.> > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago).> > Just because you "win" a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough tocover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake.> > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac offthe market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road.> > > > Tim> > > > ---------------------------------> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 well said collissa..............lpretty frustraiting hu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hugs cynthia collissa <collissa@...> wrote: Tim,After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena.Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers thatthe pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sitand cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particulardrug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE arethe ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to "look into" what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to seriousconflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general.In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed "junk science", it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit by the defendants!The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmaswho know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suitsthey do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyersfat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the "goods" BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what wonfor her and those she represented.Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their handsand they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof.Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of beingpulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous "black box warnings" until the science became unavoidably inescapable provingthe dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved "learned intermediaries",(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous!Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVINGtheir dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, atotally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs.It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period.CollissaIn regards lawsuits ever "taki> > Dear Glitter,> > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guywho killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003.> > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago).> > Just because you "win" a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough tocover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake.> > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac offthe market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road.> > > > Tim> > > > ---------------------------------> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2002 Report Share Posted January 1, 2002 well said collissa..............lpretty frustraiting hu!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! hugs cynthia collissa <collissa@...> wrote: Tim,After dealing with not only uncountable lawyers AND the FDA, throwing in literally 100's of hours of research into the whole ball of wax concerning getting ANY drug off the market, I have to agree 100%, no ifs, ands, or buts with the contention that you are in for yet another good sized blow when it comes to dealing with the truth concerning drugs and the legal arena.Lawyers are only in these deals for the money and they have to put upfront bookoo to even begin to deal with the bevy of lawyers thatthe pharmas have written into their annual budgets for the EXPECTED, INEVITABLE lawsuits that arise across the board. Ergo, you can sitand cite individual case after individual case (which are few due to the above) 'till the cows come home and observe that a particulardrug is NOT pulled because of the lawsuits. Rather, the way it goes is the SCIENCE must be out there FIRST, PROVING the cause and effect of serious liabilities when any particular drug is finally pulled and anybody even has much of a prayer in seeking recompense. In our dealings with the FDA, WE arethe ones coming up with the science they say they NEED in order to "look into" what they already admit to being a dangerous state of affairs concerning our drug. This means published, peer-reviewed publications that can hold their own against the bought and sold pro-drug publications which are a dime a dozen due to seriousconflict of interest issues within the research/academia/pharma control area and the FDA approval process in general.In court, nothing matters but how many so-called scientific experts there are to refute newly discovered scientific findings and THEN, IF it is found that the new findings are NOT deemed "junk science", it proceeds to obtaining the pharma's internal documents where the truly damning evidence resides. It IS there - they just do everything in their power to NEVER let it get to that point. The VAST majority of the time, they are successful at this. Ergo, countless cases are either dismissed as frivolous, settled for next to nothing, or, believe it or not, the plaintiffs are countersued for filing a "frivolous" lawsuit by the defendants!The legal system is as much a cesspool as the backrooms and ivory towers of the pharma cartel itself. What's a few lawsuits, often settled out of court if the heat gets a little too hot, to pharmaswho know they will continue to CLEAR millions regardless of the suitsthey do lose? Their drugs stay on the market to keep their lawyersfat and healthy along with their own net profits. Brochovich, with whose lawfirm I am involved with at this time, had the RARE FORTUNE of having had in her possession the "goods" BEFORE she could be bankrupted by the defendants. THAT is what wonfor her and those she represented.Phen-fen is a perfect case in point - the lawsuits flew POST publications of findings of heart valve problems. And they now continue to flow because the lawyers have the goods in their handsand they can't be refuted AS PER SCIENTIFICALLY PROVEN FINDINGS. But, you have NO class-actions till you have some science, some proof.Same with the landslide of tobacco lawsuits - took a whistle-blower with INSIDE info to get anything really going. And even then, cigarettes are still very much legally sold - just with more warnings and public awareness. Prozac is one of the few drugs that MAY have a chance of beingpulled, but so far, only a small percent of people have been found to become suicidal/homicidal on the drug, which only means some lawsuits may be won, the drug will STAY on the market with new and improved, FDA WARNINGS. This is par for the course. I can not begin to tell you the drugs that HAVE finally been pulled, long after many died and the FDA KNEW of the hazards, but kept approving the revamped product inserts and infamous "black box warnings" until the science became unavoidably inescapable provingthe dangers of the particular drug. The name of the game is always, new product inserts, new warnings...which the public rarely understands nor ever is aware of due to the fact that it is deemed that our beloved "learned intermediaries",(prescribing MDs),are the ones to inform us as we are presumed too ignorant to understand them! It has been proven that MDs largely go by what they are told by pharm reps, the rep's funding by pharma for their salaries dwarfing even Research and Development expenditures. In the US alone, at last count there was 1 pharm rep for every 13 MDs in the country, up to 13% of what they were communicating to their prey/pushers totally erroneous!Bottom line, to get any drug pulled, especially these psychopharms, MUCH science will have to be out there, in the journals, PROVINGtheir dangers. You've got literally years of lies out there, atotally brain-washed global society that wants their magic bullets NOW, AND many of the largest mental health organizations and the AMA, ad nauseum, touting the wonders of these drugs.It is going to be a long haul. Lawsuits aren't going to amount to a hill of beans when it comes to getting rid of these drugs. Educating people and getting the science out there in the same volume as the lies already propagated is what it is going to take. Period.CollissaIn regards lawsuits ever "taki> > Dear Glitter,> > Last summer, BaumHedlund won a jury award for $6.4 million against Glaxo in favor of the surviving family members of some guywho killed wife, the kids and himself. That has prompted 2 class action suits in the US and 2 in Britain. Paxil is wounded and swimming in shark infested waters. We can let the sharks finish them off and they will before the end of 2003.> > When a large company is attacked by lots of little lawsuits, a common strategy is to offer a settlement to all plaintiffs in return for no more lawsuits pertaining to that product. The government gets involved and gives the public a certain time to make their claim and it turns into a deal similar to a class action suit. Just like the Firestone tires deal and Ford Pintos (a long time ago).> > Just because you "win" a large sum of money doesn't mean your going to get it. The first thing the loser does is appeal the award and drag out the new proceedings. Many large awards have been dragged out for decades and at the end, reduced to just barely enough tocover legal fees. I'll bet the Dakota family members end up with less than $1 million in about 5 years from now. The famous PG & E case in the Brockovich movie was very unusual and you can bet corporate lawyers have learned not to do that kind of mistake.> > So if I could sue, I'd take $10,000 now and have Prozac offthe market than maybe win a big amount to give to my lawyers many years down the road.> > > > Tim> > > > ---------------------------------> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.