Google+ Google+

Cardiac problems after dialysis? Visit new site, Dialysis Lawsuit Attorneys, for info and legal help

This is just a quick post to say that, together with the litigation firms of Yearout & Traylor, P.C. and Gathings Law, I’ve launched a new website for people who experienced cardiac problems after dialysis. We’re looking at the drugs NaturaLyte and GranFlo, as well as problems after kidney dialysis at a Fresenius Medical Care dialysis center.

For more details, see our GranuFlo, NaturaLyte and Fresenius press release, or visit http://www.DialysisLawsuitAttorneys.com.

Actos Recall is Overdue: Reasons It’s Time For An Actos Recall in the U.S

The diabetes drug Actos was recalled in France and Germany in June 2011 because studies showed it increased patients’ risks of developing bladder cancer and congestive heart failure. But instead of requesting an Actos recall n the U.S., the FDA merely issued a warning about the risk of bladder cancer.

In the time since France and Germany recalled Actos, there have been two new studies confirming the bladder cancer risk (June 1, 2012 and July 3, 2012). There has also been a study (June 11, 2012) showing that Actos increases the risk of macular edema, which causes blurred vision.

Actos bladder cancer victims have filed so many lawsuits that the federal lawsuits have been consolidated in Actos Multidistrict litigation. Both California and Illinois have a number of consolidated Actos lawsuits filed in their state courts.

According to an Associated Press article, Takeda Pharmaceutical Co., Ltd. (“Takeda”), the maker of Actos, took in $3.4 billion in sales of Actos in the U.S. in 2011. Pardon me if I wonder if the maker of Acts cares more about profits that it does the health of people with diabetes.

Money in medicine bottles.To try to build public support for an Actos recall, I’ve created a Recall Actos Facebook Page, a Recall Actos Google+ Page, a RecallActos Twitter account, and a RecallActos.com website where people can sign a petition calling for a recall.

I’ve also created a website where Actos patients who developed bladder cancer (and their family members) can get information and obtain a free legal evaluation of their potential Actos lawsuit.

The Actos lawsuit website includes shocking excerpts from an Actos whistleblower lawsuit filed by a former medical researcher for Takeda. The website also offers people with bladder cancer (and their family members) the opportunity to obtain a free Actos lawsuit review by calling 800-671-0996 toll free, 24 hours a day, 7 days a week or using the website’s Free Actos Lawsuit Review Form.

_____

If you take Actos, you should continue taking it until you can schedule an appointment to discuss the drug’s risks with your doctor. And between now and your appointment, do some research on the risks of the drug. A good place to begin your research is the Actos Lawsuit Background post at Actos-Lawsuit.pro. That post gives a good history of the regulatory background and the studies regarding Actos and bladder cancer.

Actos® is one of the trade names under which the drug pioglitazone is marketed. ACTOS, ACTOplus met, ACTOplus met XR, and Duetact are trademarks of Takeda Pharmaceutical Company Limited registered with the U.S. Patent and Trademark Office and used under license by Takeda Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.

Yaz, Yasmin ads must be updated to add risks of thromboembolism

The Food and Drug Administration is requiring Bayer, the maker of Yaz/Yasmin birth control pills, to change its ads and promotional materials to add information about the risk of thromboembolism.  Bayer recently changed the drugs’s warning labels to include information about the risk of thromboembolism in women using Yasmin compared to contraceptives using other progestins. [Read more…]

How low will Big Pharma go to make a buck?

I continue to be amazed at the depths to which some drug companies will stoop to make a dollar (okay, so it’s more like a few billion dollars).  Just yesterday Bloomberg reported that Pfizer agreed to a $1.2 billion criminal fine (the largest in U.S. history) and a felony plea by a subsidiary to settle Justice Department charges that Pfizer was guilty of fraud in marketing drugs.  The $1.2 billion was merely part of the total $2.3 billion in fines that Pfizer agreed to pay.  Oh yeah, Pfizer also entered into a five- year “integrity agreement” with the Health and Human Services Department as well.

Why in the world does the world’s largest drug manufacturer have to sign an “integrity agreement?”  Maybe it’s because it’s the settlement was the fourth with Pfizer or a subsidiary since 2002. The previous three agreements settled criminal or civil charges involving distribution and marketing or Lipitor, Neurontin and Genotropin and resulted in combined payments of $513 million.

Then today, BNET reports that the U.S. Senate’s Special Committee on Aging released a study showing that Forest Labs budgeted $100,000 for ghostwriting articles about its antidepressant Lexapro.  The Justice Department sued Forest in February for allegedly promoting its anti-depressants for children without FDA approval, and paying kickbacks to doctors to encourage prescriptions.  BNET also reported that Forest expected to pay about $100,000 to get Emory University on its payroll.

The New York Times reported that Forest wanted 2,000 docs on its payroll, at about $17,350 each.  The Times reported that a Forest document said “the company planned to spend $34.7 million to pay 2,000 psychiatrists and primary care doctors to deliver 15,000 marketing lectures to their peers in one year.”

I’ve represented injured consumers, and the families of deceased consumers, who have been victimized by Big Pharma’s greed, so I’m not shocked that drug companies are willing to sell drugs that harm and kill people in order to make money.  I’ve always believed that if you’re willing to do that, then you’ll probably lie, cheat and steal to make money.  I’ll admit to being surprised, however, that medical integrity sells for only $17,500.

Attorney Advertising

No representation is made that the quality of legal services to be performed is greater than the quality of legal services performed by other lawyers. The hiring of a law firm is a serious decision that should not be based on advertising alone.