Utah sues Lilly over Zyprexa

Zyprexa promotion

Eli Lilly makes billions on diabetes treatment and also gets $4.2 billion a year in sales of their biggest cash cow Zyprexa which has been scandalized as *causing* diabetes as a major side effect.

Zyprexa off label promotion scandal is all over the news now.
Lilly drug reps are alleged to have called their marketing ploy,"Viva zyprexa".

There are now 7 states (and counting) going after Lilly for fraud and restitution.

Daniel Haszard

Imagine that! Folks, when there's that much smoke, there's gotta be a fire somewhere.

There's a big fire, poorworking4lilly. Half the states are investigating filing suit against Lilly. West Virginia wants compensation to care for people who survived the drug but now have diabetes and other permanent, chronic conditions.

I hope for your sake that you can find another job, and not have to "represent" this crooked scam of a company. For myself, I am looking forward to the House and Senate hearings, when each body confronts Lilly with the evidence of its own words, i.e., they knew (shown in writing) that the drug could cause diabetes, hyperglycemia, and death.

My son died of this drug. I believe the only real justice is to send the Lilly execs who knew to prison for manslaughter or second degree murder. Thousands have died, and Lilly STILL denies that the drug causes diabetes.

Go girlfriend, THEY KNEW WHAT THE DRUG WOULD DO!!!!! That is why they are SAYING they have paid us. If the Attorney General would just blow them outta the water they would really be paying. So far all I have seen is a bunch of LAWYERS AND JUDGES get paid to Hush everybody up so ELI-LILY can keep making BILLIONS !!!!. And what the hell happen to the FDA that TESTED and APPROVED the ZYPREXA?????

Wonder how much THEY got paid !

And yet another state jumps on the lawsuit gravy train. In their all out effort for revenue, who's left to sue after gun makers, cigarette makers, and drug companies? Alcohol manufacturers would seem to be next in line with fast food companies waiting in the wings.

Just the price we pay for the bulk of society not wanting to take responsiblity for their own actions. Help. Protect me from myself.

Dead on the Money wrote:

And yet another state jumps on the lawsuit gravy train. In their all out effort for revenue, who's left to sue after gun makers, cigarette makers, and drug companies? Alcohol manufacturers would seem to be next in line with fast food companies waiting in the wings.
Just the price we pay for the bulk of society not wanting to take responsiblity for their own actions. Help. Protect me from myself.

Yes, protect you for yourself.....Lilly put NO WARNING on the label from 1996 - 2004 and gave no warning to the doctors. A dirty, lethal secret was what they kept. Do you think anyone in their right mind, seeing a black box warning,would try this drug? Or if they were pushed by their doctor, be VERY CAREFUL? It's YOU that is the idiot here.

Anna Jones wrote:

<quoted text> Yes, protect you for yourself.....Lilly put NO WARNING on the label from 1996 - 2004 and gave no warning to the doctors. A dirty, lethal secret was what they kept. Do you think anyone in their right mind, seeing a black box warning,would try this drug? Or if they were pushed by their doctor, be VERY CAREFUL? It's YOU that is the idiot here.

Idiot? A poor ending to a potentially reasoned and intelligent response. Give it another shot. Convince me this isn't just another group that sees big, easy dollars from an industry with deep pockets. I've got an open mind. Do you?

You infer that Lilly absolutely knew of severe issues with the product and not only hid them, but sold the drug knowing that deaths would likely occur? Has there been hard evidence to prove this or is the assumption that since there were terrible issues with a drug that the manufacturer had to have known about them but chose not to disclose them? Would you consider the possibility that drugs as potent as this may have side effects that could never be determined in any amount of clinical trials or with any government approval process? Despite not have a specific warning, wouldn't common sense tell you a drug designed to treat mental illness might have potentially severe side effects?

For damn sure. They knew what the drug would do, and still try to cover it up. I was put on this drug for years and the damage done cannot be corrected. And by the grace of god I am still here to say ELI-LILY knew and has Known from the beginning what Zyperxa would do and you can bet from the beginning they have continued to be sued over this drug. When all is done everyone will see they knew all along and decided making the money was in their best interest, after all just pay out a little to make a lot. That is how I see it.

And now all the other drug companys will also benefit from all the medications and surgery we will need thurout our lives. Hey, anybody won't to open a drug company? The way I see it get the president to sit on the board and we wont have to worry. Is he even paying attention or what? And this person is running a country.

Or does Lily just not want to accept responsibility? When you are in a position of needing immediate help(depression and anxiety), you are not thinking clearly. You put your life in the doctor's hands. But, oh, the doctors were receiving "gifts" from the manufacturers. How dare you say it was our fault for contracting this(diabetes) disease.

wasnt this the same issue with neurontin? the drug reps were pusing it for everything under the sun and they got caught - if lilly has been doing this with zyprexa then they should explain this all in court

Know this Lilly apologist,in nearly every state Zyprexa ($2.50 pill) is in the top ten medicaid prescriptions and in many states in the top 3

The drug has as much as a ten times greater risk of causing life-long diabetes in a patient group already on medicaid.
So the states are freaking out on recouping losses and saving face with voters.

Getting the picture now?

Moreover,Lilly is stonewalling payouts to victims like myself who in turn go and post bad PR for them in forums like this one?

It was Eli Lilly that said we have "settled" (past tense) our zyprexa claims for $1.2 billion and then go and ignore the issue.

So don't shoot the messengers.

Daniel Haszard www. zyprexa-victims.com

Daniel Haszard wrote:

Know this Lilly apologist,in nearly every state Zyprexa ($2.50 pill) is in the top ten medicaid prescriptions and in many states in the top 3
The drug has as much as a ten times greater risk of causing life-long diabetes in a patient group already on medicaid.
So the states are freaking out on recouping losses and saving face with voters.
Getting the picture now?
Moreover,Lilly is stonewalling payouts to victims like myself who in turn go and post bad PR for them in forums like this one?
It was Eli Lilly that said we have "settled" (past tense) our zyprexa claims for $1.2 billion and then go and ignore the issue.
So don't shoot the messengers.
Daniel Haszard www. zyprexa-victims.com

You ask "Getting the picture now?" then go on to indicate states are "freaking out on recouping losses and saving face with voters". Yes.....I get that picture. Sounds suspiciously like politicians looking to appease voters by appearing to get tough with big, bad business. Same thing happens with oil and insurance industries. Can't deal with gas prices, well then it's got to be price gouging. Don't want to pay higher premiums despite living in an area that is hit by a hurricane every other year, then have the State decree premiums cannot rise and policies cannot be cancelled. These companies are in business for charity after all.

Do you really think posting your comments in a forum read by tens of people constitutes "bad PR"?

I'm still open to believing Lilly has done wrong here, but you seem to be too emotionally involved with the situation to present a detached argument. Best of luck with your claim.

Dead on the Money wrote:

<quoted text>
You ask "Getting the picture now?"

You missed the point it's Lilly that pushed a profit on the states at $2.50 a pill that for many was ineffective and caused diabetes

Do you really think posting your comments in a forum read by tens of people constitutes "bad PR"?

Actually I have over TEN THOUSAND pages up google "Daniel Haszard zyprexa

make more everyday

I am just one victim WOW!

http://www.google.com/search...

http://news.google.com/news...

60% of the world at large will get it's Lilly zyprexa news here

This includes investors,patients...

Dead on the Money is the only impartial person posting so far.
Everyone wants a magic pill and gobbles these things up like Pac-Man without pausing to ask your doctor about complications. A black box warning will not stop people from taking anything that they think can help. Drugs are $2.50 a pill because it takes 10 to 15 years from discovery to market and once they get there prepare to be sued on every other product. Then you have a really good one and the patent runs out too early so the generic companies make it without doing any work.
There, you got 2 rants for the price of 1.

Danny Haszard wrote:

http://news.google.com/news?hl =en&ned=us&q=zyprexa &ie=UTF-8
60% of the world at large will get it's Lilly zyprexa news here
This includes investors,patients...

Fact 1: 60% or the world can read english.
Fact 2: That same portion of the populous has internet access.
Fact 3: Sidney Taurel, Lilly CEO, put a gun to Danny Haszard's head and made him take zyprexa.
Fact 4: Zyprexa is made of puppy hearts...those evil bastards.

A black box warning will not stop people from taking anything that they think can help

The warning went on too late mate,long after I started in 1996 I took zyprexa for 4 years.It DID give me diabetes that i am stuck with and will shorten my life.

Hello!

There is no black and white defense for Lilly it's too complex, you can't just blow off all claimants as greedy sharks.