As you say, “frivolous” lawsuit is hard to define. I’d like to suggest (knowing it is futile in the scheme of thing) that we don’t use the phrase at all. It is obnoxious and dismissive without having any explicit principle behind it.

Instead, I would prefer a phrase like “exploitative lawsuit,” which is really closer to what we’re talking about, and a more authentic condemnation. (Just as we wouldn’t say “frivolous fraud.”) A truly exploitative lawsuit ought to be condemned, not simply dismissed as “frivolous.” There is actually nothing “frivolous” about it.

Using such phrases may also helpbreak the knee-jerk responses to these issues as policy so they can be looked at seriously. So, at least, I’d hope!

The quote from Eli Lilly’s Loren Grossman,M.D., testifying before a Health Canada commission, was this: “We know that some diabetics [no percentage given] cannot use [rDNA] human insulin.”

Lilly’s succeeding actions were to withdraw EVERY natural (animal) insulin from the U.S. market–’just a business decision.’ What does that tell you about Lilly’s concern for those diabetics ‘who cannot use human insulin’? My interpretation (except for the small window of opportunity provided by the FDA for personal importation) is “use OUR human insulin and die” or “use no insulin and die”–what a choice! I expect the Colonel, who founded Eli Lilly, as well as Banting & Best–who GAVE their discovery (insulin) to mankind–would be astounded at such compassion.

Still, as far as I know, there are no plans with withdraw Zyprexa. Indeed, we will probably see Zyprexa XL, XR, etc.

So you think you may be denied your “lifeline”? You NEED Zyprexa? it worked for you as no other drug did? your life will be miserable without it? SO-o-o-o-?

Corporations are allowed to make any “business decision” they want. Eli Lilly made a decision to withdraw all natural animal-sourced insulins DESPITE their own acknowledgement that some patients COULD NOT TOLERATE (survive on) synthetic insulin, genetically-engineered from E. coli bacteria. Corporations and their bean-counters merely see such individuals as collateral damage . . . there ARE no morality or ethical issues involved when “making a profit” and successfully driving a ‘business model.’ Let me say–welcome to the club, from another ‘expendable’ consumer.

When our then Governor Engler supported Michigan’s preemption law in 1995, his aides stated directly that it was intended to “be a favor to the Upjohn Company.” Remember them?

And then the bigger Pfish ate the smaller Pfish until the biggest Pfish ate them all. And swam away, favors notwithstanding.

And so we are left with this legacy after all these years. We know un-favors when we see them.

Rather, the issues have been about accurate reporting of risks and benefits, especially in promotional material.

Do you see the suggestion to withdraw Zyprexa somewhere?