This is why I don't trust the medical industry

[Slider]

I've had my own experiences that make me skeptical about doctors and medication. The problem with medicine isn't insurance, it's marketing and sales BS.

I pity the parents who's kids may be scarred for life as a result of this a**hole.

Slider

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

November 25, 2008
Research Center Tied to Drug Company
By GARDINER HARRIS
When a Congressional investigation revealed in June that he had earned far more money from drug makers than he had reported to his university, Dr. Joseph Biederman, a world-renowned child psychiatrist, said that his “interests are solely in the advancement of medical treatment through rigorous and objective study.”

But e-mails and internal documents from Johnson & Johnson made public in a court filing reveal that Dr. Biederman pushed the company to fund a research center at Massachusetts General Hospital whose goal was “to move forward the commercial goals of J&J,” the documents state. The documents also show that Johnson & Johnson wrote a draft summary of a study that Dr. Biederman, of Harvard University, was said to author.

Dr. Biederman’s work helped to fuel a 40-fold increase from 1994 to 2003 in the diagnosis of pediatric bipolar disorder and a rapid rise in the use of powerful, risky and expensive antipsychotic medicines in children. Although many of his studies are small and often financed by drug makers, Dr. Biederman has had a vast influence on the field largely because of his position at one of the most prestigious medical institutions in the world.

Johnson & Johnson manufactures Risperdal, also known as risperidone, a popular antipsychotic medicine. More than a quarter of Risperdal’s use is in children and adolescents.

Last week, a panel of federal drug experts said that medicines like Risperdal are being used far too cavalierly in children and that federal drug regulators must do more to warn doctors of their substantial risks. Other popular antipsychotic medicines, also referred to as neuroleptics, are Zyprexa, made by Eli Lilly; Seroquel, made by AstraZeneca; Geodon, made by Pfizer; and Abilify, made by Bristol-Myers Squibb.

Thousands of parents have sued Johnson & Johnson, AstraZeneca and Eli Lilly, claiming that their children were injured after taking the medicines, whose risks the companies minimized, the parents claim. As part of the suits, plaintiffs’ attorneys have demanded millions of documents from the companies. Nearly all of those documents have been provided under judicial seals, but a select few that mentioned Dr. Biederman became public after plaintiffs attorneys sought a judge’s order to require Dr. Biederman to be interviewed by plaintiff attorneys under oath.

In a motion filed two weeks ago, attorneys for the families argued that they should be allowed to interview Dr. Biederman under oath because his work has been crucial to the widespread acceptance of pediatric uses of antipsychotic medicines. To support this contention, the lawyers included more than two dozen documents, including e-mails from Johnson & Johnson that mentioned Dr. Biederman. That interview request has yet to be ruled upon.

The documents offer an unusual glimpse into the delicate relationship that drug makers have with influential doctors. In one November 1999 e-mail, John Bruins, a Johnson & Johnson marketing executive, begs his supervisors to approve a $3,000 check to Dr. Biederman in payment for a lecture he gave at the University of Connecticut.

“Dr. Biederman is not someone to jerk around,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “He is a very proud national figure in child psych and has a very short fuse.”

Mr. Bruins wrote that Dr. Biederman was furious after Johnson & Johnson rejected a request that Dr. Biederman had made to receive a $280,000 research grant. “I have never seen someone so angry,” Mr. Bruins wrote. “Since that time, our business became non-existant (sic) within his area of control.”

Mr. Bruins concluded that, unless Dr. Biederman received a check soon, “I am truly afraid of the consequences.”

A series of documents described the goals behind establishing the Johnson & Johnson Center for the study of pediatric psychopathology, for which Dr. Biederman still serves as chief.

A 2002 annual report for the center stated that its research must satisfy three criteria: improve psychiatric care for children, have high standards and “move forward the commercial goals of J&J,” according to court documents.

“We strongly believe that the center’s systematic scientific inquiry will enhance the clinical and research foundation of child psychiatry and lead to the safer, more appropriate and more widespread use of medications in children,” the report stated. “Without such data, many clinicians question the wisdom of aggressively treating children with medications, especially those like neuroleptics, which expose children to potentially serious adverse events.”

A February 2002 e-mail from Georges Gharabawi, a Johnson & Johnson executive, stated that Dr. Biederman approached the company “multiple times to propose the creation” of the center. “The rationale of this center is to generate and disseminate data supporting the use of risperidone in” children and adolescents, the e-mail stated.

Johnson & Johnson gave the center $700,000 in 2002 alone, documents show.

A June 2002 e-mail from Dr. Gahan Pandina, a Johnson & Johnson executive, to Dr. Biederman included a brief abstract of a study of Risperdal in children suffering disruptive behavior disorder. The study was intended to be presented at the 2002 annual meeting of the American Academy of Child & Adolescent Psychiatry, the e-mail stated.

“We have generated a review abstract, but I must review this longer abstract before passing this along,” Dr. Pandina wrote. One problem with the study, Dr. Pandina wrote, is that the children given placebos and those given Risperdal both improved significantly, “so, if you could, please give some thought to how to handle this issue if it occurs.”

The draft abstract that Dr. Pandina included in the e-mail, however, stated that only the children given Risperdal improved, while those given placebos did not. Dr. Pandina asked Dr. Biederman to sign a form listing himself as author so the company could present the study to the conference, according to the e-mail.

“I will review this morning,” Dr. Biederman responded, according to the documents. “I will be happy to sign the forms if you could kindly send them to me.” The documents do not make clear whether Dr. Biederman approved the final summary of the brief abstract in similar form or asked to read the longer report on the study.

Drug makers have long hired professional writers to compose scientific papers and then recruited well-known doctors to list themselves as authors. The practice, known as ghostwriting, has come under intense criticism recently, and medical societies, schools and journals have condemned it.

In June, a Congressional investigation revealed that Dr. Biederman had failed to report to Harvard at least $1.4 million in outside income from Johnson & Johnson and other makers of antipsychotic medicines.

In one example, Dr. Biederman reported no income from Johnson & Johnson for 2001 in a disclosure report filed with the university. When asked by Senator Charles E. Grassley, a Republican of Iowa, to check again, Dr. Biederman said he received $3,500. But Johnson & Johnson told Mr. Grassley that it paid Dr. Biederman $58,169 in 2001.

On Monday, David J. Cameron, a Harvard spokesman, said the university was still reviewing Mr. Grassley’s allegations against Dr. Biederman. He added that they had not seen the drug company documents in question and that the university is not directly involved in the child psychiatry center at Massachusetts General Hospital.

Calls to Dr. Biederman were not returned. Johnson & Johnson did not immediately comment or make executives available for comment.

[hogboy]

well, harden up.

This particular instance may seem unfortunate, but drug marketing is a necessary evil to generate funds to pump into research and
keep the healthcare improvement cycle moving ahead. You are going to get some bad apples along the way. But overall it is all
about trying to improve living for the afflicted. Nothing is ever going to be perfect, and when problems are found they will be fixed.

[Slider]

New drugs with a large market can have a $billion dollar advertising budget. Seems to me that money would be better spent on R&D.

And the whole idea that marketing needs to "generate" funds is the problem. All the doctors and patients need to know when choosing the right medication is the application, the effectiveness, and the side effects. Every thing else leads to inappropriate and very often harmful applications. It is really easy to find a lot of examples of drug companies promoting drugs for conditions that they've not been approved and, worse, do more harm than good.

Just the tip 'o the iceberg here:

http://boston.fbi.gov/dojpressrel/pressrel07/kickbackplea040207.htm
http://books.google.com/books?id=8vyBx61gXjEC&pg=PA333&lpg=PA333&dq=illegally+promoted+pharaceuticals&source=web&ots=w9EhkJCIFP&sig=QyxbPyaIJPNiEWZX-9FyjV9WZhs&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=6&ct=result
http://www.scientificblogging.com/news_releases/drug_companies_illegally_promote_offlabel_drug_use _allege_two_doctors

Slider

[CouchingTiger]

A little off topic but I think that we unfortunately live in an over prescribed, over medicated society. Heck, why wouldn't we, we have big pharmaceutical companies trying to sell their wares, doctors taking snazzy trips to posh resorts sponsored by these same companies to 'learn valuable information and skills' about said wares and oh yea, maybe if you prescribe them here and there, that would be cool. It's no different than any other free market.

I think that we have to expect that anyone that is selling anything has ulterior motives in mind (aka hocking their goods). You need to be your own advocate. Unfortunately, doctors are not necessarily always in your corner either. They are like real estate agents; they work for the seller, not the buyer, even though they make you think your are best buddies.

-Couch

[Husqvarna]

Just say no to drugs. There are better alternatives. Most of these alternatives are based on high quality nutritional plan for the specific individual. The side effects are usually more energy and weight loss. Consider a organic diet, nutritional values are higher since the soils have not been robbed of there minerals from the use of pesticides and herbacides. More nutrients in your food, so you will actually start eating less. Once you satisfy your nutritional needs you will stop having cravings for junk (sugar).

[Slappy]

The hard sell on drugging kids these days in unbelievable.

Over the past 4 or 5 years my stepson had been 'diagnosed' with ADD/ADHD and once it became obvious that that wasn't the case, he was promoted to Aspergers. The whole time, I've been sticking to my guns and telling him and all the pushers that the only 'disease' he has is what used to be know as 'being a boy'. Doctors, headshrinkers and teachers have all all but equated my unwillingness to drug him up with child abuse. Lo and behold, he seems to have miraculously been 'cured' this year through nothing other than getting a little older and more mature (13 now). If you could've heard these peopletrying to push methamphetamines on an normal 11 year old simply to keep him from acting like a typical bored kid daydreaming in school....ridiculous. I'm not the sharpest marble in the bag by any means, but I can guarantee that the common sense in my little finger is worth more than a stack of psychiatry degrees. What a bunch of out-of-touch eggheads, and with absolutely no compunction about throwing mind altering, insufficiently tested drugs at little kids like it was candy. The whole 'profession' is suspect as hell IMHO, and the drug makers are right in it with them. It's disgusting how many people they take in with this **** - there needs to be some sort of crackdown.

[Mr_Cheeze]

A little off topic but I think that we unfortunately live in an over prescribed, over medicated society. Heck, why wouldn't we, we have big pharmaceutical companies trying to sell their wares, doctors taking snazzy trips to posh resorts sponsored by these same companies to 'learn valuable information and skills' about said wares and oh yea, maybe if you prescribe them here and there, that would be cool. It's no different than any other free market.

I think that we have to expect that anyone that is selling anything has ulterior motives in mind (aka hocking their goods). You need to be your own advocate. Unfortunately, doctors are not necessarily always in your corner either. They are like real estate agents; they work for the seller, not the buyer, even though they make you think your are best buddies.

-Couch

This is how I feel. Part of the problem is this culture where people take what their doctor tells them for granted. He or she says you need drug A, therefore, you must really need drug A. My parents are perfect examples. Both are taking drugs for various conditions. You would think they understand why they need each one. My dad is taking a heart medication. He never had a heart problem in his life. He doesn't understand why he needs it now, but his doctor says it's best "to play it safe". And that's enough for him. I think many people take the same attitude. The older one gets the more trusting of doctors they become. And you better believe that the pharmaceutical companies know and take full advantage of this. Watch the History channel on any given day and you are inundated with ad after ad of this and that drug, encouraging viewers to "ask your doctor about ____ "

This is a big issue for me. Healthcare and the very big problems associated with this country moving towards universal care... a country that is decidedly more obese than your typical countries that are often cited for their "wondrous" socialized medicine systems. I've heard all of the arguments, for and against. I can honestly see both sides and understand the pros and cons. But it comes down to me not wanting to share the burden for everyone else's unhealthy lifestyle habits. It can't be fixed just by forcing the issue. There has to be incentive for people to take responsibility for their own well being. Has to be. If universal healthcare includes surcharges for obesity, smoking, drinking, etc., then I say let's take a serious look. Otherwise, the system will be too costly on the taxpayers.

As far as big pharm is concerned, their lobby is too powerful. You keep voting in the same corrupt politicians and this stuff will keep happening.

[pk]

we have big pharmaceutical companies trying to sell their wares, doctors taking snazzy trips to posh resorts sponsored by these same companies to 'learn valuable information and skills'

-Couch

This is long gone in primary care. Now drug reps can't even buy lunch for doctors. Where my wife works, they can't even swag pens or paper. Even gifts from patients need to be brought out to the common area for public consumption.

pk

[CouchingTiger]

Yea, I can see that changing for primary care, but the primary care Dr's are small potatoes anyhow. It's the specialists that I assume are the targets. I bet specialists get some special incentives for suggesting one drug over another, assuming both are equal. I honestly believe 'most' doctors wouldn't recommend a drug that isn't the best match for the need, regardless.

Bottom line is that you need to know going in. Do the research, find out the options, side effects, risks and benefits. Do a head to head comparison of the possible med choices and decided for yourself, then have the Dr convince you otherwise if you disagree.

-Couch

[CouchingTiger]

The hard sell on drugging kids these days in unbelievable.

... bored kid daydreaming in school....

Heck, I'm bored and daydreaming at work right now, can I get some cool drugs prescribed to me :)

It's sad. Problem is that we are not meant to sit and pay attention to boring stuff all day. Medicated evolution isn't the answer. Better techniques are, IMHO.

-Couch

[Slider]

Heck, I'm bored and daydreaming at work right now, can I get some cool drugs prescribed to me :)

It's sad. Problem is that we are not meant to sit and pay attention to boring stuff all day. Medicated evolution isn't the answer. Better techniques are, IMHO.

-Couch

I think you are on to something. Restlessness if you have to cover a lot of ground hunter-gathering or whatever is probably a good thing. We weren't meant to sit in a classroom/cubicle/car for hours at at time. It might be one of the reasons we all need a good bike ride now and then.

I got out of the workout habit a few months back, the result of a really stressful sales job. I self medicated with vodka, and just lost the urge, almost compulsion, to ride that I'd had for 19 years. Within weeks, the blood pressure started to climb, to the point where I was getting nose bleeds multiple nights in a row, an excellent way to ruin a perfectly good comforter. Checked the BP one night in the middle of one of them, 198/96. Not far from a stroke, and maybe it is a good thing the nose gave out first, and not a brain vessel.

So I am on the meds for now. I changed jobs a couple of months ago, and the experience I gained while almost killing myself at the last place means I am a lot less stressed now, having hit the gound running, sales wise. The local company I now work for give me the credit and respect I deserved all along. Being appreciated is one way to reduce the stress, now I need to get back on the bike and off the meds to finish the job.

My Primary Care doc is knowledgeable, intelligent, and communicates openly with me. That is a first for me, going back to a lot of ER experience starting with the dirt bikes 25 years ago. Now, I ask the questions and won't take evasiveness in response, and I finally have someone who understands how important it is that I am informed. In my case, the meds were necessary, but I need to step up too.

See you on the trails soon! Need to drop a quick 25 lbs first.

Slider

[Martin]

I rely heavily on drug ads to inform me about whats wrong with me and what magic pill will help.

[Jisch]

I saw an ad the other day it has a guy standing in front of a graph which shows the "concern of elderly people about xx disease" and of course the graph has a pretty good upward slope on it. So if you didn't listen carefully you'd think the information being imparted was that the number of cases of xx disease goes up astronomically as you age, when in fact its the "concern" over xx disease that goes up astronomically. Unbelievable.

John

[Aging Wannabee]

Have you guys been taking your *Flowmax?
I have. All those ads with viagra-aged white guys pal-ing around with their bikes, at the game, in the convertible, always with a lake or pond in the background, and everybody with a water bottle or drink cup prominently displayed made my bladder hurt. Now my Flow is to the Max. Like a horse, if ya know what I mean ;)

But seriously - I'm with ya on the shameful behavior of this doctor. He should be force fed his own medicine, literally. Then he can go around drooling on his shirt and tripping over his own feet.

[Jisch]

We might as well take a detour into the worst ever medical ads - how about that one with the birth control, I don't even know (please don't remind me) which one, but it has all the girls in bathing suits with the "Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday..." song going in the background. ARGH! that one annoys me.

John

[Slider]

I want to take the one that cures halitosis. The side effects of paranoia, delusional thoughts, dry mouth, wet anus, sleep street racing, impotence coupled with priapism, sweaty palms and mouth breathing are minor compared to the massive benefit of minty fresh breath!

Slider

[Slappy]

I want to take the one that cures halitosis. The side effects of paranoia, delusional thoughts, dry mouth, wet anus, sleep street racing, impotence coupled with priapism, sweaty palms and mouth breathing are minor compared to the massive benefit of minty fresh breath!

Slider

:har::har::har::har::har::har::har::har:

[Husqvarna]

I want to take the one that cures halitosis. The side effects of paranoia, delusional thoughts, dry mouth, wet anus, sleep street racing, impotence coupled with priapism, sweaty palms and mouth breathing are minor compared to the massive benefit of minty fresh breath!

Slider

Excellent, and the good news is that all of those symtoms are treatable with other drugs that have there own set of entirely different symptoms.

Viagra is known to increases ones urge for cigarettes! Creating a new market demand for products to help you quit smoking.

Those are only the short term side effects revealed by 1 -2 years studies for safety and efficacy. The FDA gives it the stamp of approval and a product is on the medical market to be prescribed for multiple issues in many cases.

The long term effects are unknown!

I say no thanks. I'll LIVE FREE of meds or DIE with my problems.

[peterdbikes]

My biggest beef is with people who complain about "Big Drug Corporations" making "obscene" profits, yet they are on a drug(s) that cost many millions to R&D, which enable them to live longer and have a better quality of life!

[Slider]

If a large part of those profits come from mis-prescribed medications for, say, bi-polar children who are, in fact, totally normal, we need to find another approach.

Slider

[SofaKing Fast]

New proposal in the works. I am not sure if this is the outcome from the story in the first post. My company and others that operate ethically, have been not been on an even playing field with J&J and their scum bag tactics. I plan on attending one of the open hearings. I will keep you posted.

http://www.mass.gov/?pageID=eohhs2pressrelease&L=4&L0=Home&L1=Government&L2=Departments+and+Divisions&L3=Department+of+Public+Health&sid=Eeohhs2&b=pressrelease&f=081210_new_regs&csid=Eeohhs2

[agabriel]

j/c, has anyone here tried anything else like Acupuncture? I wasn't sure what to think of it at first, but I think it’s good and it has done a few good things for me without any side effects.

*disclaimer: my wife is an Acupuncturist

[Slider]

Lilly is paying up for their role in ******* up all those 'bipolar' kids. Any doctor who still prescribes the stuff for kids ought to be shot.

Slider
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

January 15, 2009
Lilly Said to Be Near $1.4 Billion U.S. Settlement on Drug
By GARDINER HARRIS
Eli Lilly, the drug company, is expected to agree as soon as Thursday to pay $1.4 billion to settle criminal and civil charges that it illegally marketed its blockbuster antipsychotic drug Zyprexa for unauthorized use in patients particularly vulnerable to its risky side effects.

The amount of the settlement is a record sum for so-called corporate whistle-blower cases, which are federal lawsuits prompted by tips from company employees or former employees. Details of the agreement were provided by people involved in the negotiations.

Among the charges, Lilly has been accused of a scheme stretching for years to persuade doctors to prescribe Zyprexa to two categories of patients — children and the elderly — for whom the drug was not federally approved and in whom its use was especially risky.

In one marketing effort, the company urged geriatricians to use Zyprexa to sedate unruly nursing home patients so as to reduce “nursing time and effort,” according to court documents. Like other antipsychotics, Zyprexa increases the risks of sudden death, heart failure and life-threatening infections like pneumonia in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis.

The company also pressed pediatricians and family practice doctors to treat disruptive children with Zyprexa, court documents show, even though the medicine’s tendency to cause severe weight gain and metabolic disorders is particularly pronounced in children. Over the last decade, Zyprexa’s use in children has soared.

The case is being prosecuted by the United States attorney’s office for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania. Patricia Hartman, a spokeswoman for the office, declined to comment.

Angela Sekson, a Lilly spokeswoman, said she could not comment on the status of the Zyprexa negotiations. Last fall, the company, anticipating a settlement, had set aside $1.4 billion for that purpose.

Lilly executives have for years insisted that the company’s Zyprexa marketing efforts were legal and appropriate. When asked whether she could repeat those assurances, Ms. Sekson said, “It would be inappropriate for me to comment further right now.”

It could not be confirmed on Wednesday whether the company would acknowledge wrongdoing as part of the settlement. Without a settlement, Lilly risks being barred from participating in the federal Medicaid and Medicare programs — a huge part of its business — even though such bans are almost unheard of for big drug makers because their products are considered so essential.

In the United States, most of Zyprexa’s sales are paid for by government programs because so many of those taking Zyprexa are indigent or disabled. Zyprexa had sales of $4.8 billion in 2007, making it the biggest seller by far for Lilly, whose revenue that year was $18.6 billion. Depending on dosage, the drug can cost as much as $25 for a daily pill.

The settlement may have little impact on how doctors actually use Zyprexa, because physicians are free to prescribe drugs as they see fit. But drug makers are barred from promoting drugs for uses not specifically approved by the Food and Drug Administration.

Zyprexa has F.D.A. approval only for the treatment of schizophrenia and the mania and agitation associated with bipolar disorder.

Just about every major drug company in recent years has pleaded guilty or is under investigation for urging doctors to use medicines beyond their approved uses. The Zyprexa case and others were brought by former drug company employees using a Civil War-era whistle-blower law to assert that the companies defrauded government health programs. The former employees usually share in the recovery.

The Zyprexa settlement would be the largest such recovery in history, surpassing the $900 million fine that Tenet Healthcare paid in 2006 to resolve whistle-blower assertions that it improperly billed Medicare. In 2001, TAP Pharmaceutical agreed to pay $875 million to resolve criminal and civil charges related to pricing and marketing of its cancer drug Lupron.

But while the fines in such cases involving drug makers have been substantial, they generally recover only a fraction of the costs associated with unapproved drug uses.

Zyprexa, for instance, has generated more than $39 billion in sales since its approval in 1996, making it one of the biggest-selling drugs in the world. As much as half of Zyprexa’s use is estimated to be for unapproved or “off label” use, the $1.4 billion fine — punishment for years of illegal marketing efforts — represent less than one year of off-label sales of the drug.

And despite mounting concern about Zyprexa’s risks and the negative publicity surrounding the legal case, sales were $3.5 billion for the first nine months of 2008, 2 percent higher than in the first nine months of 2007.

Zyprexa was initially received as a significant advance over an earlier generation of antipsychotics. But a series of landmark studies in recent years have cast doubt on that long-held view and suggested that Zyprexa was no better than older drugs that sell for far less.

A government study published in September, for instance, found that Zyprexa was no more effective in children than an older medicine but caused more serious side effects. The children receiving Zyprexa gained so much weight during the study that a safety monitoring panel ordered that they be taken off the drug.

In December 2006, The New York Times published articles detailing hundreds of internal Lilly documents and e-mail messages among top company managers that showed how the company sought for years to play down Zyprexa’s tendency to cause severe weight gain and metabolic disorders, including diabetes, while promoting unapproved uses.

One 2000 e-mail message, for instance, described how a group of diabetes doctors that Lilly had retained to consider potential links between Zyprexa and diabetes had warned the company that “unless we come clean on this, it could get much more serious than we might anticipate.”

The government’s case will remain sealed until at least Thursday, when a judge is expected to approve the settlement. People involved in the negotiations say that prosecutors pressed for a resolution in the waning days of the Bush administration to avoid having to get another set of approvals from new bosses at the Justice Department in Washington.

While the settlement is intended to resolve all pending government claims, it is unclear whether all states, which are parties to the case through the federal-state Medicaid program, have agreed to terms.

Some of the claims and evidence in the government’s case are similar to those made in a pending California state whistle-blower lawsuit in which Jaydeen Vicente, a former Lilly sales representative, described years of what she said were illegal Zyprexa marketing efforts.

Ms. Vicente asserted, for instance, that Lilly paid kickbacks to doctors who prescribed large amounts of Zyprexa by hiring them to educate other doctors through a “speaker’s program” or by sending doctors to posh resorts where they were trained to be speakers.

“The speaking engagements were frequently a mere sham,” Ms. Vicente’s lawsuit states. “Lilly-paid speakers were even paid to give pointless presentations to their colleagues at the health care facility with which they were affiliated.”

The drug industry continues to hire tens of thousands of doctors to serve as part-time marketing representatives, although medical schools and societies increasingly frown on the practice.

Ms. Vicente was hired in 2000 to join a 160-person “Long Term Care” sales team that focused on nursing homes “despite the lack of any clinical trials or F.D.A. approval for the use of Zyprexa in the elderly,” the lawsuit states.

Ms. Vicente and other Lilly sales representatives distributed a Lilly study contending that elderly patients who were prescribed the drug “required fewer skilled nursing staff hours than patients prescribed other competing medications” and reduced “caregiver distress,” the lawsuit states. Zyprexa often induces sleep in patients.

“In truth, this was Lilly’s thinly veiled marketing of Zyprexa as an effective chemical restraint for demanding, vulnerable and needy patients,” the lawsuit states.

In October, Lilly agreed to pay $62 million to 32 states and the District of Columbia to settle consumer protection claims related to Zyprexa. It paid Alaska $15 million and agreed to pay $1.2 billion to 31,000 Zyprexa plaintiffs. Some private Zyprexa claims remain unresolved.

[dbkaczor]

its all about $. you have to educate and protect yourself.

[SteveC]

It's sad. Problem is that we are not meant to sit and pay attention to boring stuff all day. Medicated evolution isn't the answer. Better techniques are, IMHO.

-Couch
I don't usually troll the otb topics, but......
I couldnt have said it better.
SC

[Mr_Cheeze]

The answer:

[/URL][URL]http://www.bodyexerciser.com/benefits.cfm (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://www.bodyexerciser.com/images/e_stimulation2.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.bodyexerciser.com/benefits.cfm&usg=__qRJJ2EuCG5vHAn0CVYZqgH1pIGg=&h=131&w=125&sz=6&hl=en&start=14&um=1&tbnid=MrneAsN8l2C5pM:&tbnh=91&tbnw=87&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dmuscle%2Bstimulator%26um%3D1%26hl%3De n%26safe%3Doff%26client%3Dfirefox-a%26rls%3Dorg.mozilla:en-US:official%26hs%3DpaO%26sa%3DN)