Similar defense to that used, unsuccessfully, by Merck to fend off the first big Vioxx case -- jogger Robert Ernst died while using Vioxx for tendonitis pain. Merck tried to defend itself by saying that the vioxx did not cause his deth, since he had some degree of heart problems already (hardening of arteries).

In contrast, the lawyer, Mark Lanier, noted that someone with some degree of increased risk ,whether diagnosed or not, is the person who really needs to be protected from side effects of these drugs.

On to the present case: if being African American raises someones' risk of getting diabetes from some drug, well, the drug company ought to be letting everybody know.

But I guess that kind of common sense is not used in the marketing departments of these companies: if a death was caused halfway by someone's health status and halfway by some drug, then the drug is totally innocent, rather than recognizing that the drug really pushed them over the edge - long before Mother Nature would have pushed the person over the edge.

If it is the only defense they have, I guess you can't really fault them for giving it a try. But a lame defense is truly a sign of desperation.

Thanks. I'll add that to my testimony.

They might be quite successful with this defense, as both African-Americans and the obese are at increased risk for type-2 diabetes.

Type 2 diabetes: Risk Factors at MayoClinic.com

Philip Dawdy responds: so what if it was the drug that made them fat? got an answer for that?

Chart of various Pharma fines; found at Peter Rost's blog.

Again, it places the patient/victim in defense and blame. So what if the woman ate chinese food and McDonalds? they are attempting to skewer a patient for taking their drug which has a side effect of diabetes.

The patient got diabetes after taking Seroquel.

AstraZeneca is attempting to save their ass, already spending their $500million for court defense and it will surpass that number, hell the internal court documents are over a million pieces of paper.

This woman also was prescribed Seroquel OFF_LABEL for INSOMNIA. She's a victim of fraud, scandal, lies and all AstraZeneca wants from this is to push Seroquel XR through for depression and anxiety approval.

If becoming diabetic after taking Seroquel isn't a big deal and then how come there are 15,000 or so lawsuits coming down the pike?

yeah, let's blame the patient for being overweight and eating the all-American junkfood diet, while big pharma makes billions of dollars off of them.

People get diabetes without the weight gain from Seroquel use as an FYI!

lkhllywd:

You’re always defending big pharma and their behavior! Are you a drug rep. want-to-be, have a vested stock interest in these companies, or are just in the closet tied up in black leather waiting for Wayne Macfadden to come over for a good time?

Are you trying to say that 15,000 cases brought to court and there is no evidence? I guess Phen Phen, Vioxx, and even tainted peanut butter were just trumped up misunderstandings too.

You are aware that AstraZeneca pleaded guilty in 2003 to a felony charge of health care fraud and agreed to pay $355 million in criminal and civil penalties.

I guess you also believe Lilly settled for billions and admitted criminal behavior because there is no evidence that A-Typical Anti-Psychotics cause a whole host of health problems including diabetes. If that's the case, ask Wayne for a couple of extra hard spankings as a wakeup call.

Or better yet, read the Seroquel's new and improved label or the studies that were buried and/or cherry picked for its original approval from the FDA.

Or how about the FDA independent commission put together to look at the risk factors {including diabetes} relating to Seroquel XR in determining if these risk are really worth approving it for anxiety, depression, sleep disorders, and who knows what else they have up their sleazy marketing sleeves.

Maybe you can get some free samples for your delusional perspective, posts here, and let us all know it works out for you?

Yes, AZ has spent a half Billion dollars so far and is about to start diving into their own stock holders pockets for more; yet when that first case goes before a jury; you might want to think about dumping all that AZ stock your holding so tightly to your chest.

You’re always defending big pharma and their behavior!

No. What I've done in the past is say that medication is helpful to me. And what I did in my previous post is point out that AZ's strategy of pointing out other risk factors that contribute to type-2 diabetes could very well work for them in this particular case. I don't deny that drug companies have engaged in immoral and illegal activities in the interest of sales. But that wasn't what I was addressing in my post

Are you a drug rep. want-to-be, have a vested stock interest in these companies, or are just in the closet tied up in black leather waiting for Wayne Macfadden to come over for a good time?

No to all the above, especially that last one.

Are you trying to say that 15,000 cases brought to court and there is no evidence?

I am not. I am trying to say that that AZ's legal defense might work in this case.

I guess you also believe Lilly settled for billions and admitted criminal behavior because there is no evidence that A-Typical Anti-Psychotics cause a whole host of health problems including diabetes.

I don't, and there was nothing in my post to indicate that I do.

Maybe you can get some free samples for your delusional perspective, posts here, and let us all know it works out for you?

I'm curious as to what it is that makes my posts so offensive to people. Is it not possible for someone to point out a particular angle in one of Philip's posts, or to disagree altogether, even, without all the nastiness? I know I'm not perfect, but I do try hard to be polite and I'm certain the ill will directed toward me far outweighs any I may have unleashed. I've been accused of baiting people, which has never been my intention.

So what's the deal?

People- let's be civil here! Before PD has to go CAPS LOCK on ya.

I see a lot of things that, to me, seem unethical, coming from the Big Pharma-Psych Research Complex. I have also seen people benefit from taking various psych meds for various conditions and problems.

It is a challenge to sort out decent info and decent practice from shenanigans. Especially when outright dishonesty, such as burying data, is involved, and especially when we have only begun to enter the era of comparative effectiveness research.

So, let's keep talking about these issues, various bits of knowledge that bear on these issues, our opinions, our observations, our interpretations, our beliefs, and our suspicions. Sure, we can let our emotions show. Righteous indignation. Outrage. Fear. Confusion.

But let's not drop to the level of name-calling, or to harrassment. Criticizing someone's point of view by suggesting that they desire pain-focused romantic behavior just is not very cerebral, and it does not win the debate squad trophy. A valid point is a valid point, whether the person providing the valid point likes to mix pain with pleasure or not.

Let's not make FS have to devote time and energy to adjudicating school-yard name-calling matches.

I like you.

Thanks, FP. I like you, too.

Er...assuming you were talking to me. I still like you, even if you weren't.

Clearly, my comment is out of order.

To me it's pretty obvious that if Seroquel causes significant weight gain (and it does in many people) that it is increasing a person's chance of developing diabetes.

Wouldn't it be a lot simpler if people were just informed of the risks & then we wouldn't have to have this discussion.

Dear MedsVsTherapy:

I was only going for a bowling trophy dang it; not a debate trophy. Those jabs were meant in good humor and obviously got the comment section engaged once again at least. Please don't go ALL CAPS on me now for getting a little on the edge opinionated. {Laughing}

By the way lkhllywd; thank you for your clarification of position. Would it be too much to ask for a hug now were in agreement on some of these issues?

As far as medication goes; if it works for you, then I happen to believe in your right to self determination and the pursuit of happiness. I’m really most against coercion, forced medicating/treatment, and the misinformation being provided by the powers that be in the name of medicine.

yeah Lisa, and--it would have been nice if AstraZeneca didn't conceal the truth about the diabetes in the first place.

OMG, lkhllywd yes I like you. God, the timing and order of these comment threads can be hilarious in themselves.

By the way lkhllywd; thank you for your clarification of position. Would it be too much to ask for a hug now were in agreement on some of these issues?

It would not. Consider yourself hugged.