Comments on: Michael Loucks And Pharma Fraud: What Next?

By: WB HELL

WB HELL — Thu, 27 Jan 2011 18:21:08 +0000

Well now we know how Loucks really feels, screw the whistleblowers and defend Big pharma.
A 2 million dollar cap huh? What is your cap now Loucks in private practice ? Now that you are out of the DOJ you want to screw the very people that made you who you THINK you are.
Hypocrite Loucks should be indicted for his comments, they are so absurd. Whistleblowers everwhere that made you infamous now want to puke….preferably right in your face.

By: Carl Drumgoole,

Carl Drumgoole, — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 06:18:37 +0000

Please go to http://www.topix.com/Vioxx. CLICK-ON News and Polls, see: Merck to fund Vioxx settlement in August.

By: Carl Drumgoole,

Carl Drumgoole, — Sat, 13 Mar 2010 05:36:06 +0000

I have more of an request then a comment. I am a retired NonCommissioned Officer, with more then twenty years of service. Who has for the two and half years been taxed with the responsibility of caring for my father. Which brings me to my request. Which is to ask Counselor: Mr. Michael Loucks, if he would be predispose to assisting a veteran, in a case involving a class action settlement in which the Pharmaceutical company: Merck was fined 4.85 Billion to settle all outstanding claims made by claimants that were injured or worse died as a result of being prescribe and using the drug Vioxx. I know you my be wondering what’s the issue! Well’ if you or someone that you know that might be interested in champion this veterans plight. POC: carl.lee.drumgoole@us.army.mil. And thank you for your service.

By: harry

harry — Sat, 05 Dec 2009 03:08:52 +0000

loucks will join pfizer next year in time to join the compliance certification class 101, the end result of loucks investigations. but they will take a moment to celebrate the fact that this company and others have gotten off with the worst crime against the american people in the history of the US.

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 20:18:18 +0000

Hi Harpy,

Consciously or not (probably not), my hunch would be that ML used “philosophical” in order _not_ to use the word “ethical.”

In other words, to keep even the framing of the question as morally uncommitted as possible.

By: harpy

harpy — Fri, 04 Dec 2009 18:15:21 +0000

I thought the same thing, JiM.

Also, is he using “philosophical” as a euphemism for “ethical”?

By: Justice in MI

Justice in MI — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 23:19:31 +0000

Good interview, Ed. Great you could do it.

ML says: “I know some very good prosecutors who went on to defend those they prosecuted…I dont’ know that there’s a philosophical issue there.”

Without prejudging what the “right answer” is, if there is not a “philosophical issue there,” there are not philosophical issues anywhere.

By: doc

doc — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 22:26:55 +0000

Lets hope in the Boston office they continue to watch drug companies, it is clear that the companies need watching - long term. They do not police themselves well.

By: Peter

Peter — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 19:28:09 +0000

It would be truly depressing if he went to work defending pharma companies, but that is probably where the money is.

By: harpy

harpy — Thu, 03 Dec 2009 17:31:38 +0000

oh my.