This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at

Your Ad Here

Saturday, May 31, 2008

Eli Lilly, Zyprexa, and Diabetes

There was a lawsuit alleging that Eli Lilly's drug Zyprexa caused diabetes. Eli Lilly *KNEW* the drug caused diabetes, but suppressed the information. During the trial discovery process, the plaintiffs gained access to documentation of the coverup. However, the lawsuit was settled. As terms of the settlement, THE DOCUMENTS WERE SEALED.

That is another argument against the corrupt legal system. Gross misconduct by corporate executives is revealed in a lawsuit. Rather than have the information released to the general public, the executives agree to a settlement. As terms of the settlement, the plaintiffs agree to keep the evidence a secret. In a fair legal system, NO JUDGE would agree to suppress such evidence.

Someone associated with the plaintiffs leaked the secret information. A handful of people gained access to the documentation that proved that Eli Lilly suppressed evidence that Zyprexa caused diabetes. Before they could be served with a "cease and desist" order, they plastered the documents all over the Internet. The judge ordered these people to stop distributing the documents, but it was too late. Anybody who tried putting the information on their website was served with a "cease and desist" order, demanding they take down the evidence.

I tried using Tor to get these documents. This was before I started my blog. Tor was *SLOW* and unusable. I found a torrent, where the tracker and seeds were located outside the USA.

There was evidence that Eli Lilly knew that Zyprexa caused diabetes. They had discovered this in their trials, but didn't release the information. There were instructions to marketing personnel. They were told to downplay the risk of diabetes whenever a doctor suggested it.

The most OFFENSIVE part of the documentation was the revelation of Eli Lilly's *ACTUAL* customers. Who are the customers of a drug company? The people actually taking the drug? *NO*!!! A drug company's customers are DOCTORS! A drug company has *NO* fiduciary responsibility to make sure that its drugs are beneficial! All a drug company needs to do is make sure that doctors prescribe the drugs.

Even more offensive, drug companies offer kickback schemes to doctors. The drug companies *TRACK* doctors and what drugs they prescribe. Do you remember selling cookies in elementary school, where you got a prize based on the amount you sold? Drug companies DO THE EXACT SAME THING with prescription drugs!

In a free market, patients would have a valid tort claim against their doctor, if he let drug company kickbacks affect his treatment strategy.

The FDA exists solely to rubberstamp drug companies' products. There is a revolving door between drug company executives and FDA regulators. This is true for most industries, where many executives also work a few years as regulators. Drug company executives successfully lobbied for "tort reform", which means that their liability is limited when they sell a drug later proven to be harmful.

If you actually read a drug company research report, the quality of science is incredibly shoddy. They never do a proper placebo test! I'll go through a research report if there's interest. The FDA is *NOT* an impartial regulator. The general public has a presumption "If the FDA approved it, then it must be safe." That is *FALSE*!

Eli Lilly did face a bunch of lawsuits over Zyprexa. They were settled for a token trivial amount. Overall, the amount Eli Lilly paid settling these lawsuits was less than one years' profits from Zyprexa.

The FDA is one of many examples why government doesn't work. A truly free market is superior.

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

The general public has a presumption "If the FDA approved it, then it must be safe." That is *FALSE*!

It's not the general public's mistake, but the doctors who prescribe medication. The doctors are actually the agents of the pharmaceutical companies. Pharmeceutical companies has lobbied the state to prohibit unlicensed doctors. They spread propaganda that unlicensed doctors are harmful. If you want to become a doctor, you must be taught that the drugs from the pharmaceutical companies are beneficial, in order to get a medical license. Medical licenses are written by the pharmaceutical companies, which also influence the things taught in medical schools. Therefore, the medical schools are funded by the pharmaceutical companies. Non-existent "disorders" such as schizophrenia and attention deficit disorder are taught at the pharma-regulated curricula in medical schools for over ten years, which would make all licensed doctors believe that these "disorders" are real. All licensed doctors are taught to diagnose non-existent "disorders", that could be corrected by just diatary changes.

Licensed doctors get no real competition from the unlicensed doctors, who would practice non-drug cures for diseases that would be better than drug treatments. Because the only legal kind of doctor is the kind that trusts the pharma-companies, no real competition is available in the medical sector. The whole medical sector is parasitic, and grows larger and larger, like the financial industry and the military-industrial complex.

The general public has a presumption "If the FDA approved it, then it must be safe." That is *FALSE*!

It's not the general public but the lack of competition of doctors.

This Blog Has Moved!

My blog has moved. Check out my new blog at