Comments on: Lilly Settles With Zyprexa Document Leaker http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/ News, Comment and Conversation Wed, 09 Jul 2008 03:31:44 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1 By: david egilman http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18872 david egilman Mon, 10 Sep 2007 18:58:31 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18872 My comments above are based on the published literature and publicly available FDA documents. My comments above are based on the published literature and publicly available FDA documents.

]]> By: David Egilman MD, MPH http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18759 David Egilman MD, MPH Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:37:52 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18759 Correction: Lilly is being sued by some states and are being investigated by at least 7. I do not know if they have all sued Lilly yet. Correction:

Lilly is being sued by some states and are being investigated by at least 7. I do not know if they have all sued Lilly yet.

]]> By: David Egilman http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18758 David Egilman Sun, 09 Sep 2007 16:33:40 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18758 Last December, as reported in the New York Times, I was subpoenaed for copies of internal documents that I acquired as a consulting witness in litigation against the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly. I released all of the documents I had, which made their way to The Times and became the basis for four major articles. After the Times story, Lilly’s marketing of Zyprexa became the subject of lawsuits by seven states that claim the company hid side effects of the drug and promoted it for unapproved uses. I reached a settlement with Lilly. I admitted responsibility for violating the protective order that kept Lilly’s documents secret. I did not admit to any illegal conduct. I agreed to pay the company $100,000. I admitted that Lilly has told a different story about the side effects of Zyprexa, but I do not believe, and did not admit, that Lilly's "story" is based in fact. And notably, although Lilly claims that the stories that ran in the Times did not accurately reflect their marketing practices or their knowledge of Zyprexa's side effects, Lilly has refused to release documents that they claim paint a different picture. Even today, Lilly fights in court to keep those documents secret from the public. On the other hand the silence of Eli Lilly & Company and their doctors about the hazards of Oraflex, a drug they knew caused fatal liver failure, resulted in unnecessary deaths of American patients. Lilly pleaded guilty to 25 criminal charges of failing to inform the United States government about adverse reactions to Oraflex and mislabeling the drug. In addition Lilly pleaded guilty and paid $36 million in connection with its illegal promotion of Evista. If Lilly has “secret” documents that indicate that its drugs are safe or that their marketing practices were appropriate, they have the right to release them and it is in their interest to do so. Their silence is deafening. Silence can injure and kill. For public health, the sound of silence is the funeral dirge. I have not and will never play that tune. Last December, as reported in the New York Times, I was subpoenaed for copies of internal documents that I acquired as a consulting witness in litigation against the pharmaceutical company Eli Lilly. I released all of the documents I had, which made their way to The Times and became the basis for four major articles. After the Times story, Lilly’s marketing of Zyprexa became the subject of lawsuits by seven states that claim the company hid side effects of the drug and promoted it for unapproved uses.

I reached a settlement with Lilly. I admitted responsibility for violating the protective order that kept Lilly’s documents secret. I did not admit to any illegal conduct. I agreed to pay the company $100,000. I admitted that Lilly has told a different story about the side effects of Zyprexa, but I do not believe, and did not admit, that Lilly’s “story” is based in fact. And notably, although Lilly claims that the stories that ran in the Times did not accurately reflect their marketing practices or their knowledge of Zyprexa’s side effects, Lilly has refused to release documents that they claim paint a different picture. Even today, Lilly fights in court to keep those documents secret from the public.

On the other hand the silence of Eli Lilly & Company and their doctors about the hazards of Oraflex, a drug they knew caused fatal liver failure, resulted in unnecessary deaths of American patients. Lilly pleaded guilty to 25 criminal charges of failing to inform the United States government about adverse reactions to Oraflex and mislabeling the drug. In addition Lilly pleaded guilty and paid $36 million in connection with its illegal promotion of Evista.

If Lilly has “secret” documents that indicate that its drugs are safe or that their marketing practices were appropriate, they have the right to release them and it is in their interest to do so. Their silence is deafening.

Silence can injure and kill. For public health, the sound of silence is the funeral dirge. I have not and will never play that tune.

]]> By: Friday Blog Roundup « The Pump Handle http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18651 Friday Blog Roundup « The Pump Handle Sat, 08 Sep 2007 19:11:05 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18651 [...] Ed Silverman at Pharmalot reports on a settlement between Eli Lilly and an expert witness who provided the New York Times with sealed documents showing the drugmaker hid harmful side effects of its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa; TortsProfBlog has more details. (For more backstory, see David Michaels’s post on the Zyprexa case.) [...] [...] Ed Silverman at Pharmalot reports on a settlement between Eli Lilly and an expert witness who provided the New York Times with sealed documents showing the drugmaker hid harmful side effects of its antipsychotic drug Zyprexa; TortsProfBlog has more details. (For more backstory, see David Michaels’s post on the Zyprexa case.) [...]

]]> By: TortsProf Blog http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18554 TortsProf Blog Fri, 07 Sep 2007 19:16:46 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/2007/09/lilly-settles-with-zyprexa-document-leaker/#comment-18554 <strong>Egilman "Accepts Responsibility," Settles with Lilly for $100K...</strong> Pharmalot broke the story of David Egilman settling his part of the document leak with Lilly to the tune of $100,000 (to be donated to charity). The stipulation is available here: Download EgilmanSettlement.pdf, and his affidavit is here: Download Egil... Egilman “Accepts Responsibility,” Settles with Lilly for $100K…

Pharmalot broke the story of David Egilman settling his part of the document leak with Lilly to the tune of $100,000 (to be donated to charity). The stipulation is available here: Download EgilmanSettlement.pdf, and his affidavit is here: Download Egil…

]]>