Posted on 12/02/2002 11:11:09 AM PST by Nov3
Lilly settled the case last week for an undisclosed amount. The lawsuit, which sought $4.84 million in tangible damages, had been scheduled to go to trial Tuesday in U.S. District Court in Pittsburgh.
The complaint was filed two years ago by Diane Cassidy and her husband Melvin. In July 2000, the Monroeville, Pa., couple picketed outside Lilly's Indianapolis headquarters, handing out fliers proclaiming, "Lilly, how many people are maimed or dead on your drug today?"
The overdose caused intracranial bleeding, which left Cassidy paralyzed on one side and mentally impaired, according to the lawsuit.
The Cassidys were represented by Houston trial lawyer Andy Vickery, who has negotiated settlements of several Prozac cases against Lilly.
Lilly said in a statement that it "made a business decision to settle ... for factors completely unrelated to the safety and efficacy of Prozac," The Indianapolis Star reported in a story Saturday. "Such factors included the extensive time demands that litigation would have placed upon our scientists, keeping them away from their primary objective of discovering lifesaving medicines."
Also last week, a new Prozac lawsuit was filed against Lilly in U.S. District Court in Georgia.
It raises a new claim that has not been raised in previous lawsuits over Prozac, which was approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration in 1987 and went on to become Lilly's top-selling drug.
The Georgia wrongful-death lawsuit alleges Lilly failed to publicize research showing some people are "poor metabolizers of Prozac," and a test can reveal if a patient might be affected.
That lawsuit, in which Vickery is assisting the plaintiff, was brought by William H. Shell, the widower of LaVerne M. Shell. She shot herself to death at age 63 in November 2000, 11 days after starting on a prescription of Prozac to treat migraine headaches.
The lawsuit says that a human enzyme dubbed CYP2D6 normally metabolizes or breaks down Prozac and similar drugs in the body, but fails to do so in a minority of people. In their bodies, the active ingredient in Prozac builds up to high levels, putting them at risk of violence and suicide, the lawsuit says.
Lilly spokesman Blair Austin said that company officials had not seen the lawsuit and could not comment on the new allegation.
Copyright 2002 by The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed
You almost have it. The fact is we know precious little about how changes in our low level brain chemistry affect moods and higher thoughts. All these tools are extremely blunt and imprecise especially the stronger ones used for severe brain illness. What clinical psychiatrists essentially do is supress (or sometimes enhance) certain brain activity in the hope that it changes certain thought patterns. Effectiveness is usually enhanced when the treatment is combined with a psychologist who helps the patient through the thought process changes. I believe that therapy should never be left out even with relatively weak drugs like Prozac.
But the most important fact of all is that many placebo patients undergo the same or similar low level brain chemistry changes that the drugs cause.
If belief is so important, why didn't I get better with Prozac? God knows I thought I would. But I didn't. Perhaps I should have tried harder?!?
Faith in medicine is intrinsic, you have it or you don't. If you don't, you can't "force" yourself to have it. However, you can develop faith in your own healing abilities, with medicine and without. That faith can only develop very slowly with substantial changes in lifestyle, work habits, etc. Diet is also very important but very slow to affect brain chemistry. There are no short cuts; Prozac is not a one step program.
You are right it is not a SSRI but both drugs raise the level of serotonin.
This is clearly different from a reuptake inhibitor, but the research I found was that Paxil (not Prozac) had the effect when taken in doses greater than the depression treatment level.
You really need to find out if the research was funded by one of the drug companies. Eli Lilly has a non-disclosure on all of their research. If it doesn't come out the way they want it, it never sees the light of day. Of course if you are a researcher and your research does not come out the way Eli-Lilly wants it to you don't get any more research! The published research may be skewed a little by this.
You may trust this research if you wish.
To make more money?????
Is it the prohibitive testing costs for finding any possible risk from a new drug?
Maybe it is just cheaper to hide known faults and falsify reseach.
The reason these drugs work for all these things is basically a placebo effect.
Yeah right.
I don't know the merits of these various lawsuits, but I do know that they are not generally used to punish wrongdoers. Usually the costs are passed to insurance companies, shareholders, and consumers.
The concept that people should stand by as others lives are destroyed for that moronic reason is so ridiculous it doesn't bear any further discussion.
Or, there may be some brains that are not as responsive to non-chemical intervention. There is the thought that children who have undergone trauma or serious long term stress when young have their brains almost hardwired along certain pathways.
I believe that there are also cases where giving up the drugs is not an option. Regardless, I agree that therapy is a necessary part of recovery. (Gosh that sounds so touhy-feely!)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.