Anti-smoking Drug Suits Filed Against Pfizer

[kristin]

And, ironically, ASH's John Banzhaf has been trying to get together a lawsuit against e-cigarettes (for harm linked to use) and e-cigs haven't even been shown to cause any serious adverse affects! THERE I can agree it's frivilous!

It's a wonder that a lawsuit against Chantix has taken so long - but consider that ASH is funded by Big Pharma, so they go after the competition, not the hand that feeds them.

 

[Tyger0902]

My regular dr tried to get me to use Chantix. I was debating on using it. I'm glad I waited because I have MS and this was before the SPECIFIC neuroligical effects were put on the box and it took the FDA 2 years to do that. And I'm not talking about the weird dreams/depression warnings, I'm talking about what they added later. I now several people on the MS boards that tried it and immediately they had a flare up and some had new symptoms.

So I'm thankful for e-cigarettes because I've tried everything else.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

You mean that everyone who files a lawsuit against a drug maker for damages caused by one of their drugs is an opportunist?

Post #21 is the ad for chantix. If you watch the ad then go ahead and take the drug regardless, then sue for the very reasons stated in the ad, what would you call it?

 

[Vocalek]

Post #21 is the ad for chantix. If you watch the ad then go ahead and take the drug regardless, then sue for the very reasons stated in the ad, what would you call it?

That's taking one hell of a risk with your life just to make a few bucks. The thing that is really surprising is that there are still doctors who whip out their prescription pad and start writing. Why haven't those doctors caught on to the level of risk? And many people are very docile and do what their doctors tell them to, even if they have misgivings. In those cases, it's the doctor who should be getting sued if the patient is injured.

The point is that many people were injured or died before there were any warnings at all. It took several years before the FDA started listening to the people who were complaining about the effects of the drug. Those cases have a legitimate beef with Pfizer. Unfortunately, nobody can sue the FDA for negligence.

 

[Petrodus]

That's taking one hell of a risk with your life just to make a few bucks. The thing that is really surprising is that there are still doctors who whip out their prescription pad and start writing. Why haven't those doctors caught on to the level of risk? And many people are very docile and do what their doctors tell them to, even if they have misgivings. In those cases, it's the doctor who should be getting sued if the patient is injured.

The point is that many people were injured or died before there were any warnings at all. It took several years before the FDA started listening to the people who were complaining about the effects of the drug. Those cases have a legitimate beef with Pfizer. Unfortunately, nobody can sue the FDA for negligence.

I am soooo confused (sarcasm)

You can sue the doctor who prescribed the legal FDA approved dug because he/she prescribed it based on the information provided by the Big Pharma sales rep. The doctor should have known better than to believe FDA approved drugs are safe. The doctor should have known better than to believe information provided by Big Phara sales reps and should have conducted his/her own tests.

You can't sue the FDA for negligence? Oh, I forgot. They are Unelected and Uncountable to anyone except the drug companies (OK...and the courts but the courts rarely make a move against the FDA)

 

[Vocalek]

The doctors who prescribed it when it first came out had no way of knowing there were risks. The FDA said it was "safe and effective."

I was talking about holding doctors responsible who CONTINUE to prescribe it -- especially to patients vulnerable to the harmful effects. All they have to do is take a look in their PDR (Physician's Desk Reference -- a big book containing detailed information on all prescription drugs). That's called "due diligence."

 

[kristin]

Post #21 is the ad for chantix. If you watch the ad then go ahead and take the drug regardless, then sue for the very reasons stated in the ad, what would you call it?

Planet, my husband took Chantix when it first came out. There were no scary warnings for people with emotional or neurological disorders. My husband became increasingly aggitated to the point I told him to quit the Chantix and start smoking again! He suffers from mild panic attacks and mild depression and Chantix made him a different, very angry person. I could blame quitting smoking, but he didn't act that way when using patches or gum. He was only that way on the Chantix.

If he would have hurt himself or one of us, you're damn right I would have sued! And you're right - anyone who takes it now is a fool not to heed the warnings. But early users didn't get any warnings - they were unsuspecting guinnea pigs.

 

[PlanetScribbles]

Planet, my husband took Chantix when it first came out. There were no scary warnings for people with emotional or neurological disorders. My husband became increasingly aggitated to the point I told him to quit the Chantix and start smoking again! He suffers from mild panic attacks and mild depression and Chantix made him a different, very angry person. I could blame quitting smoking, but he didn't act that way when using patches or gum. He was only that way on the Chantix.

If he would have hurt himself or one of us, you're damn right I would have sued! And you're right - anyone who takes it now is a fool not to heed the warnings. But early users didn't get any warnings - they were unsuspecting guinnea pigs.

I never thought about it like that. It just bugs me that these lawsuits are the very reason why insurance premiums and drugs generally are so expensive in the US. It smacks of cutting your nose to spite your face.
Everyone loses, as there is no way anyone other than the end user pays for these lawsuit settlements. The real way to penalise these people is to get the product withdrawn from circulation IMO.

 

[Aaeli]

I have bipolar disorder as well. My FAMILY doctor offered Chantix to help me stop smoking. I was lucky in that I had already read what a dangerous mix previous mental illness and Chantix were. I was also luck in that I already had a diagnosis. This drug has concerned me from the beginning because so many people who are mentally ill don't have a diagnosis or aren't med compliant.

I don't find this particular lawsuit to be opportunistic. It IS a dangerous medication in a line of MANY dangerous medications. I am a firm believer that psychiatric medications should ONLY be prescribed by a specialist. Not your family doctor who is inexperienced in monitoring your symptoms. My family doctor would have given me Chantix with the best intentions and would not have followed up until weeks later. When my psychiatrist makes ANY med changes, I am seen weekly. Self responsibility sounds great in theory, but when you are talking about psychiatric patients, that isn't always a possibility for the patient.

Drug companies have been going hard and heavy for the last 20 years convincing family doctors that these meds are safe and can be prescribed safely. Sure, Prozac and the likes are relatively safe, but they STILL require constant follow up with someone who is familiar with psychiatric symptoms. The new thing seems to be adding Ambilify to depression treatment. Ambilify is an anti-psychotic. It CAN cause tremors, that CAN become permanent. I took this medication personally, and did have this side effect. I was seen for immediate followup however and was saved from permanent damage. Would I be able to say that if I didn't see the family doctor until 6 weeks later?

We need lawsuits like this because they force change in an extremely profitable business. We know now that antidepressants in children can be dangerous. The drug companies didn't offer this up. It was discovered and forced change because of these types of lawsuits.

Drug companies do not have your best interest in heart. This is a capitalist economy and they owe more to their share holders. I'm not dogging out capitalism or drug companies, but I am realistic about the nature of their relationship.

 

[kristin]

I never thought about it like that. It just bugs me that these lawsuits are the very reason why insurance premiums and drugs generally are so expensive in the US. It smacks of cutting your nose to spite your face.
Everyone loses, as there is no way anyone other than the end user pays for these lawsuit settlements. The real way to penalise these people is to get the product withdrawn from circulation IMO.

On the other hand, the threat of significant punative damages should motivate companies to do thorough and complete studies before releasing new products on the unsuspecting and trusting public. Frivilous lawsuits hurt everyone, but all lawsuits aren't necessarily frivilous. What other recourse would a harmed consumer have otherwise?

 

[Petrodus]

Don't think for a moment that lawsuits are not part of the drug companies business plan.

Lawsuits are inevitable. The goal is to have the drugs on the market long enough to
still show a profit after settlement of lawsuits. The drug companies know that it takes
years to win a suit against them and during that time (in many cases) the drug remains
on the market (but with warnings).

If the drug is later pulled from the market (which is considered in the business plan)
Oh, well...Time to put another one out there.

"Ask your doctor if _____ is right for you" is a drug commercial
and in doing so...the drug companies imply if anything goes wrong...Sue the doctor!

I'm not taking sides here... all I'm saying is the society we live in today
is totally drug orientated. Regardless of the condition including stop smoking
we look to drugs to solve the problems.

We are all "Cash Cows" in the drug market

 

[Aaeli]

On the other hand, the threat of significant punative damages should motivate companies to do thorough and complete studies before releasing new products on the unsuspecting and trusting public. Frivilous lawsuits hurt everyone, but all lawsuits aren't necessarily frivilous. What other recourse would a harmed consumer have otherwise?

Well stated. This is sometimes the only viable consumer recourse.

 

[Nixsdaddy]

Well stated. This is sometimes the only viable consumer recourse.

Exactly. It's not like we can walk up to the drug companies and say "You destroyed my life (or family members) and I want this product taken off the market."

We would be laughed out of their offices.

 

[JustJulie]

Planet, my husband took Chantix when it first came out. There were no scary warnings for people with emotional or neurological disorders. My husband became increasingly aggitated to the point I told him to quit the Chantix and start smoking again! He suffers from mild panic attacks and mild depression and Chantix made him a different, very angry person. I could blame quitting smoking, but he didn't act that way when using patches or gum. He was only that way on the Chantix.

If he would have hurt himself or one of us, you're damn right I would have sued! And you're right - anyone who takes it now is a fool not to heed the warnings. But early users didn't get any warnings - they were unsuspecting guinnea pigs.

I took Chantix in the early days, too. My doctor said, "Hey, you need to quit smoking." I said, "Hey, I've tried everything, including the gum, the patch, Wellbutrin, the nicotine inhaler, cold turkey, and hypnosis, and I haven't been able to quit." My doctor said, "I'm going to write you a prescription for Chantix. It's amazing--you don't even have to want to quit . . . you just do. It's as close to a miracle as you're going to find." I said, "Hey, thanks!"

Wound up with frighteningly vivid dreams . . . dreams so real that for days I would find myself confused as to whether I had dreamed something or whether it had actually happened. I could have lived with that. What I couldn't live with was PROFOUND depression that was so severe that I could barely even manage to leave the house. Understand that I had never suffered from depression before aside from a two-week spell of situational depression after the death of my daughter. But the depression following my daughter's death was understandable and clearly situational because I was able to pull myself out of it. The Chantix-induced depression was beyond my ability to deal with.

I went off the Chantix and never did manage to quit smoking with it. Oh, yeah . . . and the depression lasted for MONTHS after I got off the Chantix. I'm back to normal now, but it really screwed up my life for the better part of a year.

The black box warnings weren't on the drug at that point, but it was far enough into the game that had I done some research, I would have found that folks were beginning to question the safety of Chantix. Shame on me for not doing more research than breezing through the drug pamphlet . . . but honestly, my doctor presented it as a no-brainer. Kind of makes me wonder why he didn't dig into it a bit more before telling patients that it's a "no-brainer."

If Chantix had that kind of effect on me, someone without any brain chemistry issues, I can't even begin to imagine what kind of effect it might have on someone with a history of depression, anxiety, etc.

The irony, of course, is that 1 1/2 months on Chantix didn't cause me to quit . . . but within days of picking up an e-cigarette, I was completely done with smoking with no side-effects aside from a sore throat and headache, which were gone within two weeks. Seems almost criminal that the FDA is going after e-cigs with Chantix and Marlboro still on the market. (No, I'm not suggesting that traditional cigarettes should be banned--just pointing out the hypocrisy behind trying to ban an alternative to smoking that is inherently less risky.)

Sorry for the rant, but the lawsuit is anything but frivolous in my opinion.

 

[Aaeli]

My Dad took Chantix and said he had those dreams too. He referred to them as "nightmares". He kept dreaming he was in WWII being shot at (was never in that type of war situation in his life), extremely intense and frightening. When something is truly terrible he now jokingly refers to it as "chantix dreams".

Your description of the depression is exactly why I say "self responsibility" is NOT an answer. When you are in that state you simply cannot be expected to monitor your own symptoms. I also agree that the lawsuit is NOT frivolous.

 

[BCB]

My nurse-practitioner recommended Chantix to me when I was in begging for some valium to help me cope with anxiety and depression over my daughter's bi-polar diagnosis. She wouldn't give me the valium. I really wasn't thinking about my smoking at the time--wasn't why I was there in the first place, so I tossed the prescription in the trash. Got some valium from a friend instead. We're all much better now, and I'm sure glad I didn't take the Chantix. This was before any black box warnings--it was a no-brainer miracle drug at the time. I also agree that the lawsuit is not frivolous. I think it would have been a disaster for me. One more crisis accidentally averted.

 

[Petrodus]

Lately I have noticed a marked increase in the number
of Chantix commercials on TV.

Listening to the long list of disclaimers... wears me out

Anyone else noticed an increase in these TV commercials?

 

[Crumpet]

Lately I have noticed a marked increase in the number
of Chantix commercials on TV.

Listening to the long list of disclaimers... wears me out

Anyone else noticed an increase in these TV commercials?

Yes. This war on drugs is really going strong, isn't it?

 

[kristin]

I've been noticing commercial warnings for this one: FDA OKs New Psoriasis Drug Stelara

In a news release, the FDA notes that because Stelara reduces the immune system's ability to fight infections, the product poses a risk of infection. "Serious infections have been reported in patients receiving the product and some of them have led to hospitalization. These infections were caused by viruses, fungi, or bacteria that have spread throughout the body. There may also be an increased risk of developing cancer," the FDA states.

The commercial even states that it may increase your risk of cancer, yet it's FDA approved! For clearing your skin!!

The commercial also states that it has not been tested for safety or efficacy beyond 2 years. Yet people want assurances that vaping will be safe 20 years down the line, even though e-cigs have been on the market for 3 years without any reports of serious adverse reactions linked to e-cig use?? Just goes to show that research, testing and FDA-approval is no guarantee that a product is safe or even safe long-term for those who don't have immediate reactions.

 

[Petrodus]

Kristin... The combined power of Big Pharma and the FDA
is overwhelming. I wonder if America woke up too late.
_____________________

We are a Drug orientated society (period!)

If we have an issue and our first thought is of a drug...
We should ask why? The painful truth is that we have
been "programmed" to think first of drugs.

We are Cash Cows and the product of many years
of Big Pharma's programming (period!)

Ex-Pharma Sales Rep ... "Educate yourself"
Reference: Post #10 and #11
http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/campaigning-discussions/138726-ecf-force-reckoned.html

Research doesn't mean research other drugs to determine which
might be the best drug. Research means gather the facts and
decide if even drugs should be considered.

Drug companies advertise...
When diet and exercise don't work... Take this Drug
(Big Pharma knows our diet sucks and most don't exercise)

"Ask your doctor if (fill in the blank) is right for you"
(Sue your doctor, not the drug company, if anything goes wrong)

In many cases, we are the ones that bring up drugs (by name)
when we visit the doctor. Many insist on the drugs and doctors
comply (for several reasons). Heck, many doctors simply ask
"Which drug works best for you?"

Big Pharma isn't stupid!

They know Americans would rather take a pill than "break a sweat"

We live in a "sue happy" world. If anything goes wrong... It's not our fault.
And yes I agree, there are times that law suits are appropriate and necessary.

We should question the "drug orientated system" that we live in
and our obvious "sick" Co-Dependency to Big Pharma and the FDA.

My X-wife was an alcoholic and addicted to prescriptions drugs.
I qualify as an expert on co-dependency.

Our country is sick and living in denial.

I can't even begin to count the number of people, while smoking a cigarette,
who asked me if the (Mommie) FDA approved E-cigarettes as safe.

PS: There are those that believe the FDA is doing a wonderful job
with the exception of E-cigarettes. I'm not a member of that club.