Federal actos trial

[Anonymous]

From your own website.


While the jury found that Takeda negligently failed to adequately warn Mr. An’s physician of the potential risk that ACTOS (pioglitazone HCl) might cause bladder cancer, the jury also found that Mr. An failed to exercise reasonable and ordinary care for his own health and safety. As a result, judgment was entered in favor of Takeda, as required by Maryland law.

Key phrase: "In favor of Takeda".

 

[Anonymous]

It is quite obvious (and sad) that lawyers/legal aides/paralegals (whatever you are..) are not required to THINK - and have a BASIC knowledge of science - before suing a pharmaceutical company. Listen, tool, it's simple: Drugs that come out in 1999, do not magically have long-term, rigorous data showing possible links to cancer, etc. That's called post-marketing data, and it often is not available (especially showing possible links, or causation - that takes time) immediately after or even, within a few years of a drug's approval. Look at Actos: there still is no causation link - as evidenced by the FDA's CONTINUED APPROVAL of the PRODUCT and PRODUCTS that are COMBINED WITH IT.

Let me provide you an example, on a level you can understand:

Patient begins taking product A in 2000.

Patient develops cancer XYZ in 2002.

"Adverse event" may (or more likely, may NOT) be mentioned to the company that distributes product A. (many times, the patient is on 5-15 therapies...because they have a CHRONIC, high risk disease - and probably more than 1 or 2 of them, such as diabetes type 2).

(lets just say the distributor of product A does get wind of the cancer XYZ). Patient's doctor reports the cancer, as an AE, to the company in 2003. (Again...not likely. The doctor knows the patient is on 10 drugs - how can he decide what he believes may be correlated the cancer?).

....So 3 years later, the company is aware of the cancer. There is no causation that has been established. There may be 10 or similar cases of the cancer, for product A. So the company develops a study to look at new patients on product A, which takes 3-5 years to complete. Get the idea? The time course for proving ANYTHING is usually many years - and usually a decade or longer, if you look at the history of products.

Don't come on here and show your ignorance - you will just continually get crushed...by little ole reps like me. Ironic thing is - I don't even sell the drug. I just know an idiot when I see one.

The FDA tried to get Takeda to change or update the label about the possible side affects of BC 3-4 Yrs before their own study showed the 40% chance of getting BC. Mind you...Takeda's own study, besides the rest of them that are out there. But they bulked because of the loss of profits. They were making more money than they would have to pay out in lawsuits, so money over peoples lives, what they hell do they care? Or even you, the more you sell the more you make. So it's all greed. Go spill your BS somewhere else.

 

[Anonymous]

Key phrase: "In favor of Takeda".

Even if Mr. an was 1% at fault, under Maryland law and 4 other states they lose, even if the verdict came in against Takeda for 1.7m. It's called contributory negligence. Thats why it went for Takeda. But there are 45 States that don't have that law for them to fall back on. There luck will soon run out.

 

[Anonymous]

It is quite obvious (and sad) that lawyers/legal aides/paralegals (whatever you are..) are not required to THINK - and have a BASIC knowledge of science - before suing a pharmaceutical company. Listen, tool, it's simple: Drugs that come out in 1999, do not magically have long-term, rigorous data showing possible links to cancer, etc. That's called post-marketing data, and it often is not available (especially showing possible links, or causation - that takes time) immediately after or even, within a few years of a drug's approval. Look at Actos: there still is no causation link - as evidenced by the FDA's CONTINUED APPROVAL of the PRODUCT and PRODUCTS that are COMBINED WITH IT.

Let me provide you an example, on a level you can understand:

Patient begins taking product A in 2000.

Patient develops cancer XYZ in 2002.

"Adverse event" may (or more likely, may NOT) be mentioned to the company that distributes product A. (many times, the patient is on 5-15 therapies...because they have a CHRONIC, high risk disease - and probably more than 1 or 2 of them, such as diabetes type 2).

(lets just say the distributor of product A does get wind of the cancer XYZ). Patient's doctor reports the cancer, as an AE, to the company in 2003. (Again...not likely. The doctor knows the patient is on 10 drugs - how can he decide what he believes may be correlated the cancer?).

....So 3 years later, the company is aware of the cancer. There is no causation that has been established. There may be 10 or similar cases of the cancer, for product A. So the company develops a study to look at new patients on product A, which takes 3-5 years to complete. Get the idea? The time course for proving ANYTHING is usually many years - and usually a decade or longer, if you look at the history of products.

Don't come on here and show your ignorance - you will just continually get crushed...by little ole reps like me. Ironic thing is - I don't even sell the drug. I just know an idiot when I see one.

I see the online college did wonders for you. What did you major in? Bullshit.

 

[Anonymous]

Even if Mr. an was 1% at fault, under Maryland law and 4 other states they lose, even if the verdict came in against Takeda for 1.7m. It's called contributory negligence. Thats why it went for Takeda. But there are 45 States that don't have that law for them to fall back on. There luck will soon run out.

You use shotty grammer above, and at the same guess where I went to school as online? My degrees are from an all online school, they are not...

BTW, here's a short lesson for you on proper grammer:

The word "their" is the possessive form of the pronoun "they", and is used as an adjective to modify the noun that follows it. For example:

Humans were forced to develop their intelligence so as not to be destroyed by their stupidity. - Matthijs van Boxsel

That was the proper "their" to use in your sentence above...

 

[Anonymous]

Wow!!!!! Somebody just got skooled