Comments on: Pfizer Wins Dismissal Of 23 Prempro Lawsuits http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/pfizer-wins-dismissal-of-23-prempro-lawsuits/ News, Comment and Conversation Fri, 10 Feb 2012 22:24:01 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.6.2 By: Maria http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/pfizer-wins-dismissal-of-23-prempro-lawsuits/#comment-512585 Maria Mon, 12 Jul 2010 19:23:40 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=20489#comment-512585 This corrupt judge should be removed and the cases tried on facts and Weyth has to pay for all the suffering they caused to all those thousands of women, they was healthy and happy women before they was diagnosed with breast cancer after taking Prempro, some of them even died. This corrupt judge should be removed and the cases tried on facts and Weyth has to pay for all the suffering they caused to all those thousands of women, they was healthy and happy women before they was diagnosed with breast cancer after taking Prempro, some of them even died.

]]> By: Pete Neisman http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/pfizer-wins-dismissal-of-23-prempro-lawsuits/#comment-482096 Pete Neisman Sun, 21 Mar 2010 15:03:20 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=20489#comment-482096 Interesting that the fraud was so evident that a fraudulent and corrupt judge could not find it. The fact is that Wyeth used the wrong estrogen (the one that causes cancer in lab rats) -was not ruled as fraud with intent to cause harm. The fact is that this judge should be removed and the cases tried based on facts instead of a corrupt judge. This is a disgrace and women in the US should be outraged. The women who died of breast cancer, heart attacks, blood clots caused by this drug are real-and their rights must be defended even against a corrupt judge. Interesting that the fraud was so evident that a fraudulent and corrupt judge could not find it. The fact is that Wyeth used the wrong estrogen (the one that causes cancer in lab rats) -was not ruled as fraud with intent to cause harm. The fact is that this judge should be removed and the cases tried based on facts instead of a corrupt judge. This is a disgrace and women in the US should be outraged. The women who died of breast cancer, heart attacks, blood clots caused by this drug are real-and their rights must be defended even against a corrupt judge.

]]> By: Mr. Green Jeans http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/pfizer-wins-dismissal-of-23-prempro-lawsuits/#comment-457722 Mr. Green Jeans Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:56:20 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=20489#comment-457722 I know of an internal auditor of Wyeth that many years ago was made to change failing audit results from "Fail" to "Inconclusive". The "dismiss / distract" think made me think of that. Part of a trend? If I were to guess, I would guess yes. These people certainly are not the offspring of Mother Teresa and Ghandi... I know of an internal auditor of Wyeth that many years ago was made to change failing audit results from “Fail” to “Inconclusive”.

The “dismiss / distract” think made me think of that.

Part of a trend?

If I were to guess, I would guess yes.

These people certainly are not the offspring of Mother Teresa and Ghandi…

]]> By: M. Black http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/pfizer-wins-dismissal-of-23-prempro-lawsuits/#comment-457717 M. Black Tue, 12 Jan 2010 04:31:45 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=20489#comment-457717 How could a judge, or how much was he bribed to conclude a negation of "deception". The data was knowingly hidden for a decade. I've said this on other posts, but it needs to be restated: Why in the world is the emphasis on breast cancer? First, imagine what would occur, or go thru in your own mind reading "Prempro link to Pancreatic Cancer". A bit more frightening, no? Google "function of the pancreas" and familiarize yourself with that. Why the F$&K has a link between any of the 3 HRT's written about not been established? The pancreas makes hormones that are tinkered with by these three drugs. President Carter, where are you now? Do you (the reader) know of anyone that has or had Pancreatic Cancer and also have been taking any of the three HRT's? If so, the time to make noise and / or see an attorney ASAP. There is an aspect of more serious danger to the pancreas than to the breast. Oprah doesn't have a medical degree, we all know you're a woman even if you have one or both breasts removed, but you are alive. If proper precautionary measures are taken by the patient, there is little to no risk that you will die of Breast Cancer. Not so much with Pancreatic Cancer. In fact, if the link of HRT's with Breast Cancer is being used as a sort of "distractor" to something more serious, the defendant / jury / judge could always conclude "Well, you're alive". The proverbial bleeding these companies (or Wyeth) will be far less than if it is established that their product(s) caused death, and data has been under lock and key for a decade. They confessed. Now the clock is ticking. The statute of limitations clock. The time to act is now. See an attorney .... Yesterday. M. Black How could a judge, or how much was he bribed to conclude a negation of “deception”. The data was knowingly hidden for a decade.

I’ve said this on other posts, but it needs to be restated:

Why in the world is the emphasis on breast cancer? First, imagine what would occur, or go thru in your own mind reading “Prempro link to Pancreatic Cancer”.

A bit more frightening, no?

Google “function of the pancreas” and familiarize yourself with that.

Why the F$&K has a link between any of the 3 HRT’s written about not been established? The pancreas makes hormones that are tinkered with by these three drugs.

President Carter, where are you now?

Do you (the reader) know of anyone that has or had Pancreatic Cancer and also have been taking any of the three HRT’s?

If so, the time to make noise and / or see an attorney ASAP.

There is an aspect of more serious danger to the pancreas than to the breast. Oprah doesn’t have a medical degree, we all know you’re a woman even if you have one or both breasts removed, but you are alive. If proper precautionary measures are taken by the patient, there is little to no risk that you will die of Breast Cancer. Not so much with Pancreatic Cancer. In fact, if the link of HRT’s with Breast Cancer is being used as a sort of “distractor” to something more serious, the defendant / jury / judge could always conclude “Well, you’re alive”. The proverbial bleeding these companies (or Wyeth) will be far less than if it is established that their product(s) caused death, and data has been under lock and key for a decade.

They confessed. Now the clock is ticking. The statute of limitations clock. The time to act is now. See an attorney …. Yesterday.

M. Black

]]> By: Big Pharma Watch http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/pfizer-wins-dismissal-of-23-prempro-lawsuits/#comment-452327 Big Pharma Watch Fri, 18 Dec 2009 20:18:06 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=20489#comment-452327 What BS!!!!! What BS!!!!!

]]> By: Justice in MI http://www.pharmalot.com/2009/12/pfizer-wins-dismissal-of-23-prempro-lawsuits/#comment-451984 Justice in MI Thu, 17 Dec 2009 15:48:22 +0000 http://www.pharmalot.com/?p=20489#comment-451984 Interesting to me that the judge disagrees with "fraud, deception, or misrepresentation," but does not use the term, "neglect." What I get from most of the released documents and summaries(like Ed's good one) is tactics aimed _not_ to know, and make it as hard as possible for others _to_ know, rather than suppressing definitive knowledge. Thus, "dismiss/distract" fits well with the overall plan. It sounds like (haven't read the full decision) this judge focused on suppression of definitive risk info. Punitive damages decision. as the history is retold, was more about warding off bad news as long as possible--until the WHI, as it turned out. Interesting to me that the judge disagrees with “fraud, deception, or misrepresentation,” but does not use the term, “neglect.”

What I get from most of the released documents and summaries(like Ed’s good one) is tactics aimed _not_ to know, and make it as hard as possible for others _to_ know, rather than suppressing definitive knowledge. Thus, “dismiss/distract” fits well with the overall plan.

It sounds like (haven’t read the full decision) this judge focused on suppression of definitive risk info. Punitive damages decision. as the history is retold, was more about warding off bad news as long as possible–until the WHI, as it turned out.

]]>