10,000 Lawsuits Over Bladder Cancer

Quote
Anonymous said:
I have read through this thread, and must shake my head in disbelief. There is an individual on this thread who appears to be super-angry or bitter (like he/she has an ax to grind against the company). Please do not go "postal" on us if you receive a pink slip. Go get some professional help ASAP.
Click to expand...

Agree! I feel for this individual. I hope they are able to find employment and therapy. Life is too short to waste over a 2010 pink slip.
 








Ok despite some disenfranchised folks on here, how can you possibly stay super positive regarding this situation? Actos has legal issues now and generic issues in less than a year:

1) Can Takeda absorb the loss of revenue without cost cutting?
2) Are there drugs that will replace Actos as a money-maker?
 




Anonymous said:
Ok despite some disenfranchised folks on here, how can you possibly stay super positive regarding this situation? Actos has legal issues now and generic issues in less than a year:

1) Can Takeda absorb the loss of revenue without cost cutting?
2) Are there drugs that will replace Actos as a money-maker?
Click to expand...

No and No!!!!Everyone needs to get real before it is too late!
 




Anonymous said:
If you are ndeed a Takeda employee, no wonder the company is in trouble. (You're not Tim Rudolphi, are you?). If you look at the original PI, you will see that bladder tumors were seen in rats and that info provided in the labeling. No tumors had been seen in humans at that time. It appears to me that Takeda has consistently and accurately conveyed safety information about its drugs. So that defangs arguments for "failure to warn" and "over promotion" --or whatever the term of art is for ambulance chasers these days. IMHO, Takeda was not negligent. Rather the ambulance chasers and plaintiffs are greedy and looking for an easy pay day.
Click to expand...

It is clear that you and others don't get it. Takeda was negligent by not looking at the signal (albeit a remote signal in rats) and failing to continue a more robust follow-up. Your logic is unfortunately heavily biased towards your job and being a part of Takeda. These patients are not any more greedy than the standard population - which means that most of them are well meaning. The only part that is right about your argument is that lawyers are indeed looking at claims that will bring large sums (fighting this type of litigation is not inexpensive).

Feel free to hang on to a defense that is clearly more of an emotional attachment and don't worry about me causing any problems when things go down here at Takeda - I am at peace with whatever happens. You on the other hand seem to have some controll issues - I'd work on those before you start sending out the resume.
 




Anonymous said:
Ok despite some disenfranchised folks on here, how can you possibly stay super positive regarding this situation? Actos has legal issues now and generic issues in less than a year:

1) Can Takeda absorb the loss of revenue without cost cutting?
2) Are there drugs that will replace Actos as a money-maker?
Click to expand...

No to #1 (projections for the cost of legal expenses and settlement of the current suits ranges from $2 - $5 billion) but it will take awhile - they haven't even finished filing all the suits or deciding whether it will be rolled into a class action.

Possibly yes to #2 but focus on the word "drugs" and it will take a lot of them. The north american operation will cease to operate on a very large scale after ACTOS goes away. Regardless, get out of Dodge - Takeda is a poisoned asset and it'll be years before there is even a chance they look remotely better.
 




Anonymous said:
It is clear that you and others don't get it. Takeda was negligent by not looking at the signal (albeit a remote signal in rats) and failing to continue a more robust follow-up. Your logic is unfortunately heavily biased towards your job and being a part of Takeda. These patients are not any more greedy than the standard population - which means that most of them are well meaning. The only part that is right about your argument is that lawyers are indeed looking at claims that will bring large sums (fighting this type of litigation is not inexpensive).

Feel free to hang on to a defense that is clearly more of an emotional attachment and don't worry about me causing any problems when things go down here at Takeda - I am at peace with whatever happens. You on the other hand seem to have some controll issues - I'd work on those before you start sending out the resume.
Click to expand...

Puh-leeze. If Takeda were "not looking at the signal", we would not be discussing this topic. If you knew anything about cancer, you would understand that exposure to a carcinogen of ~ 20 years is needed before a malignancy appears. I don't necessarily have an emotional attachment to Takeda. Rather, I have a visceral repulsion to grifters and scam-artists like ambulance chasers and class litigants that sue anyone for financial gain with little evidence of harm. I know the employment climate is rough out there, but try to get legitimate work. Filing nuisance lawsuits will not sustain you for long.
 








Wow, simply wow.

I think this is pretty simple. Takeda made a drug. They said it was safe to use except for specific circumstances. Bladder cancer was not one of them. Takeda has liability for selling a defective product.

It is pretty simple really.

As far as I can tell there is no mention of a possible connection between Actos and bladder cancer in the inserts that patients receive until August 2011. A tentative link was established in 2002. That should have been fully disclosed to both doctors and patients.

No matter what you think of people with type 2 diabetes, they have a right to make an informed choice.

It seems to me that with Actos sales nearing 5 Billion annually and being around 26% of Takeda's bottom line they had / have a huge incentive to NOT disclose the information.

Never take pity on pharmaceutical companies, theoretically they are made up of pretty smart people. They should have known to disclose the information.

Actually if you think about it, its pretty cold blooded to know that a product you are selling is harming people but you continue to sell it anyway.
 




Wow is right! What an idiot! If every "tentative" link was/had to be disclosed you'd be reading a document as long as the Federal HealthCare Bill! More people die of GI bleeds from aspirin than all the deaths from branded pharmaceuticals combined! I got a good idea! Lets sue Bayer for developing aspirin! Moron.
 




Anonymous said:
Wow, simply wow.

I think this is pretty simple. Takeda made a drug. They said it was safe to use except for specific circumstances. Bladder cancer was not one of them. Takeda has liability for selling a defective product.

It is pretty simple really.

As far as I can tell there is no mention of a possible connection between Actos and bladder cancer in the inserts that patients receive until August 2011. A tentative link was established in 2002. That should have been fully disclosed to both doctors and patients.

No matter what you think of people with type 2 diabetes, they have a right to make an informed choice.

It seems to me that with Actos sales nearing 5 Billion annually and being around 26% of Takeda's bottom line they had / have a huge incentive to NOT disclose the information.

Never take pity on pharmaceutical companies, theoretically they are made up of pretty smart people. They should have known to disclose the information.

Actually if you think about it, its pretty cold blooded to know that a product you are selling is harming people but you continue to sell it anyway.
Click to expand...

CORRECTION!! Actos accounts for $4.3 BILLION of the $4.9 BILLION of sales,and is dropping quickly because of the bladder cancer! When it goes,so will Takeda N.A!!!!!!!
 




Anonymous said:
Wow is right! What an idiot! If every "tentative" link was/had to be disclosed you'd be reading a document as long as the Federal HealthCare Bill! More people die of GI bleeds from aspirin than all the deaths from branded pharmaceuticals combined! I got a good idea! Lets sue Bayer for developing aspirin! Moron.
Click to expand...

You are obviously a very obtuse and and sad person.

Since aspirin was developed well over 100 years ago, it is highly unlikely they had any idea that it could cause GI bleeding. It is also rather unlikely they would have known how to investigate the issue. The same cannot be said for Actos and Takeda. Aspirin is an inane example.
 




Anonymous said:
You are obviously a very obtuse and and sad person.

Since aspirin was developed well over 100 years ago, it is highly unlikely they had any idea that it could cause GI bleeding. It is also rather unlikely they would have known how to investigate the issue. The same cannot be said for Actos and Takeda. Aspirin is an inane example.
Click to expand...

"tentative", "highly" unlikely, "rather" unlikely. What did Bayer know and when did they know it? Investigate that prick!
 




Top Bottom
Back
Quote