This comes from Ann Tracy, of the International Coalition For Drug Awareness. Data about Dr. Tracy's group is available at the end of the excerpt:
Today the first Prozac class action lawsuit was filed in Montreal, Canada. The following quote from the press release on this suit explains the basis for the suit that was filed:
"Yesterday, the Indianapolis based drug maker completely vindicated the British Medical Journal, which it had charged earlier this week with misleading its readers, when it posted a document on its website called Annotations. Eli Lilly had been invited on numerous occasions to answer whether a document called "Summary of a preliminary analysis of clusters of adverse events based on pooling data from multiple studies" was authentic and whether it had been released to health authorities around the world.
"Eli Lilly confirmed the authenticity of the document and implicitly admitted that it had never been released to health authorities, including the FDA, or anyone else."
Of course few of us who are in on the truth about SSRI-type drugs like Prozac would be surprised to learn that this information about Lilly is true. When someone is knowingly putting a drug out that causes suicide, homicide and the host of other horrors it produces, why would we expect them to be honest and upright? Now I use the term "knowingly" because there is no way that anyone who read the previous research on serotonin could not have known that impairing the metabolism of serotonin with any chemical would produce the adverse effects we just listed.
The only thing that does worry me about this press release is this statement:
"The lead plaintiff is seeking $10,000 in punitive damages and $5 000 for herself and each member of the group from Eli Lilly for misrepresenting the safety of its drug."
Considering how little is gained for victims in class action suits such as this where they are only being sued for misrepresenting the safety of Prozac, it would almost make me wonder if Eli Lilly is the one who initiated this suit.
Why? Because it is yet to be determined that if someone joins a suit like this, when they actually have cause to file a more serious damage suit, such as death, mania/psychosis, diabetes, cancer, serious debilitating withdrawal, etc., and they sign off on the suit, will they be able to file against the company again for the more serious damages? Most likely not. So, those of you with more serious damage PLEASE keep this in mind and do not allow this to happen in your case. Doing so could save Eli Lilly millions in damage claims. And since lawsuits are the only recourse we have against the pharmaceutical industry when they kill us with a pill instead of a bullet, we need to make sure that process works with the utmost efficiency.
Ann Blake Tracy, Ph.D.,
Executive Director, International Coalition For Drug Awareness
Author of "the Bible" on SSRI antidepressants: "Prozac:
Panacea or Pandora? - Our Serotonin Nightmare"
& audio tape on safe withdrawal: "Help! I Can't Get
Off My Antidepressant!"
Order Number: 800-280-0730
Attention News Editors:
Prozac: A class action lawsuit is filed in Montreal
MONTREAL, Jan. 14 /CNW Telbec/ - A class action lawsuit was filed before the Superior Court in Montreal this morning. Giant drug maker Eli Lilly is alleged to have withheld vital information on the safety of Prozac, its flagship drug for years. Yesterday, the Indianapolis based drug maker completely vindicated the British Medical Journal, which it had charged earlier this week with misleading its readers, when it posted a document on its website called Annotations. Eli Lilly had been invited on numerous occasions to answer whether a document called Summary of a preliminary analysis of clusters of adverse events based on pooling data from multiple studies was authentic and whether it had been released to health authorities around the world.
Eli Lilly confirmed the authenticity of the document and implicitly admitted that it had never been released to health authorities, including the FDA, or anyone else. The document consisted of data stemming from numerous studies conducted by Eli Lilly and that showed that Prozac caused activation in 38% of its users compared with 19% with placebo and 4% for Tricyclic, a then well known drug in the treatment of depression.
When Eli Lilly representatives attended the FDA hearings on the safety of Prozac in 1991, they had known the existence of the study for years but failed to disclose it to the FDA, in the word of the lead plaintiff's attorney, "lest it should warrant a much stringent warning on the label of the drug with regard to its safety, thereby seriously hampering Eli Lilly's efforts to market its new drug as effective and safe." In the words of Serge Petit of the law firm Petit Desjardins based in Montreal, Canada, that represents the lead plaintiff "such a likelihood was looming large since Eli Lilly knew that if doctors had been made aware that Prozac, back then being introduced as the new kid on the block, caused activation in 38% of its users compared with 19% of patients taking a placebo and 4% of those taking a drug then well known to doctors, Tricyclic, they would certainly have hesitated before prescribing Prozac. It was nearly a ten folds increase in activation compared with the other drug they could prescribe."
The lead plaintiff contends that the reason why Eli Lilly failed to disclose the document to Health authorities was that it would have placed another study, that consisted of a pooling of what is called spontaneous reports and showed alarming increases in suicide attempts and other violent acts in patient using Prozac as compared with four other drugs, in a totally new perspective and prevent it from being dismissed by FDA and Eli Lilly as inconclusive. To Serge Petit "had the study on activation and the one on spontaneous reports been put side by side before the FDA, Eli Lilly would have faced an uphill battle as to the safety of its drug".
The class action contends that Eli Lilly misled health authorities around the world and therefore the millions of users of its drug Prozac around the world as to the safety of its drug by failing to disclose the said document. To Serge Petit, "the passage of time cannot condone Eli Lilly's behavior and it must be held accountable for circumventing the safeguards that have been put in place to protect the public health." The lead plaintiff is seeking $10,000 in punitive damages and $5 000 for herself and each member of the group from Eli Lilly for misrepresenting the safety of its drug.