West Palm Beach Personal Injury Lawyer - FDA & Prescription Drugs

Wyeth Must Pay for Practicing to Deceive

John Hopkins — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 16:27:38 GMT

Cases involving lawsuits against Wyeth (a division of Pfizer) are going to trial and juries are being permitted to hear all the evidence against Wyeth. The evidence is clear: Wyeth acted in a way that was negligent and at least one juror has characterized Wyeth’s conduct as “despicable”.

Studies now confirm that 200,000 women – our grandmothers, our mothers, our sisters and our wives – would not have suffered breast cancer but for their use of combination hormone therapy drugs.

The evidence has caused two juries to deliver verdicts for combined totals of over 10 million dollars in compensatory damages and over 100 million dollars in punitive damages. In a total of 10 jury trials, jurors have delivered verdicts to plaintiffs of over 30 million dollars in compensatory damages and over 160 million dollars in punitive damages.

Was Wyeth negligent in its placing Prempro on the market? Clearly, the evidence demonstrates and the jury verdicts ratify that Wyeth was negligent.

The evidence of Wyeth’s conduct in these cases is damning. As early as 1975, Wyeth was on notice that combination hormone therapy causes breast cancer. Wyeth did nothing and continued to market the drug and take in huge profits.

Wyeth took steps to try and downplay the risk of these drugs and made efforts to contain data from other institutions, which demonstrated the risk.

Wyeth sponsored a practice of “ghost writing” of medical literature that promoted combination hormone therapy like PremPro. In addition, Wyeth exaggerated the benefits of hormone therapy in these very same “authoritative” articles written by Wyeth employees or agents.

Wyeth failed to conduct further studies of HRT even after the FDA told them in 1983 that human clinical trials were the only way to ascertain the safety of their drug.

The trial of these cases and the verdicts after jury upon jury has heard the evidence is a classic illustration of the justice system as a method for consumer protection when no other system will accomplish it.

Wyeth would not listen to “the truth will set you free” and they now are paying for decades of profits gained “while practicing to deceive”.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Fighting the Good Fight -- Hormone Replacement Therapy Litigation

John Hopkins — Mon, 23 Nov 2009 09:53:49 GMT

They weighed profits against safety and profits won out. Women across the country lost and were forced to suffer with breast cancer. That is the conduct attached to Wyeth for their handling of hormone replacement therapy drugs (HRT).

In 1983, the Food & Drug Administration told Wyeth that human trials were necessary for the safe marketing of HRT medication, PremPro. Wyeth made the conscious decision to refuse doing the trials. Internal documents demonstrate that Wyeth refused to perform additional studies in order to conceal the risks associated with what they knew would be a drug, which would reap huge profits for Wyeth.

www.youtube.com/watch

Women such as Connie Barton and Donna Kendall demonstrated the courage to bring Wyeth into court to answer for their conduct. Jurors who have heard evidence related to Wyeth’s negligence and intentional failures have used terms such as “despicable” and "outrageous conduct” to characterize Wyeth’s behavior.

It was not until Wyeth was forced to admit the dangers of the HRT drugs that they finally took some action. When the study through the Women’s Health Initiative was terminated due to the development of breast cancer by participants, Wyeth’s hand was forced. What did Wyeth do? They “circled the wagons”; continued to deny their fault; and stone-walled women’s claims concerning the danger of their product.

Women such as plaintiffs, Connie Barton and Donna Kendall suffered the loss of their breasts and horrible consequences of cancer treatment because a corporation thought that profit was more important than patient safety.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

The Drug Business, Broadway, and Casper the Friendly Ghost

John Hopkins — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:13:35 GMT

“Ghost writing”: a person who writes books, articles, etc. for another who professes to be the author. Drug companies spend billions of dollars advertising drugs that neither I nor you can go to the store and buy.

Drug companies produce million dollar ad campaigns filled with beautiful fields of flowers; balloons flying around beautiful actors; and very sophisticated, successful, or just plain fun people who take the drug du jour, much to the better fulfillment of their lives. Then these same drug companies spend millions to market these drugs to physicians; ultimately the only class of people who can really open the gate to consuming of drug company products. Quite a long way around the block and a huge investment to sell a product.

On the direct marketing side, virtual Broadway productions are put together to convince consumers to ask their physician to prescribe this drug or that drug to cure the ills they have; or the ills they have finally realized they have after seeing the well heeled drug company ad. We are entertained and we are informed of all the symptoms we did not know we had; the diseases we might have; and the drugs available to treat one or the other.

Drug companies have traditionally justified the effectiveness of their drugs through “independent” research, usually funded by the drug company manufacturing the drug being researched. Once the research was conducted and the conclusions reached, the findings were published in responsible, self-regulating medical journals. These various articles served to demonstrate to the medical community, largely physicians, that the particular drug was a good one for patients.

We now find that at least some drug companies have been ghost writing supposed “independent” research articles for physicians, researchers, and experts. I am guessing that the way it works is Big Drug Company marketing person calls well established, expert physician and says something like:

“Gee, doc, we have this research we have done that leads us to the well founded conclusion that our new drug can cure the common cold. We need someone like you (an expert with a well heeled reputation) to sign off on the legitimacy of the research in an article we intend to submit to one of the well respected, self-regulated journals. What? Oh, of course its all true. We did this research entirely independently and our, er your conclusions are well supported. Yes, we stand to make a kazillion dollars on this one. Well, we can’t pay you a kazillion in fees, but maybe something in the high multiple figure range."

We then see a big production commercial about drugs and our learned physicians, for good reason, are forced to rely on Big Pharma’s Fairy Tales for evaluation of whether to prescribe a given drug.

Some publications like the Journal of the American Medical Association are questioning the real extent of ghostwriting, but frankly in my book, any is too much. The New England Journal of Medicine opines that maybe around 10% of articles involve some amount of ghostwriting.

Senator Charles Grassley has been spearheading Senate bill 309, Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009:

Physician Payments Sunshine Act of 2009 - Amends part A (General Provisions) of title XI of the Social Security Act to provide for transparency in the relationship between physicians and applicable manufacturers with respect to payments and other transfers of value and physician ownership or investment interests in manufacturers. Requires any manufacturer of a covered drug, device, biological, or medical supply that makes a payment or another transfer of value to a physician, a physician medical practice, or a physician group practice to report annually, in electronic form, specified information on such transactions to the Secretary of Health and Human Services. Requires any such manufacturer, or related group purchasing organization, also to report annually to the Secretary, in electronic form, certain information regarding any ownership or investment interest (other than in a publicly traded security and mutual fund) held by a physician (or an immediate family member) in the manufacturer or group purchasing organization during the preceding year. Prescribes administrative penalties for failure to comply with these requirements. Requires report submission procedures to ensure public availability of required information on a website.

So what can the consumer do? When you see your physician, be open and candid about your actual symptoms and your entire medical history. Your physician is trying to help you.

Ask questions about any tests your physician wants to do; what your physician expects the tests may show; and what your physician thinks you could be suffering from. Ask your physician where you might go to read about the tests and his or her differential diagnosis.

If your physician suggests prescribing drug treatment, ask questions:

What condition is he or she trying to treat?

What is the drug intended to treat?

What are the potential complications of taking the drug?

What adverse reactions from the drug are possible and what reactions are more likely than some of the others.

Is there a period of time before you will begin to experience the effects of the drug?

How long will you need to take the drug?

Are there alternative drugs to the one being prescribed? If so, why is your physician prescribing this particular drug?

Are there alternatives to taking any drug for the particular medical condition? If so, why is the physician recommending drug therapy?

Ask anything else you want an answer to and insist on clear, understandable answers. It’s your body and your healthcare decisions to make with the guidance of a trusted physician.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Loss of Sight Due to Possible Contamination of Ocular Drug-- Hyaluronidase

John Hopkins — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 16:14:32 GMT

Wydase (hyaluronidase) was manufactured by Wyeth until 2001 and was successfully used in various ocular surgeries to potentiate the effectiveness of anesthetics. Bupivicaine and Lidocaine are reportedly more efficacious when combined with hyaluronidase.

In 2001, Wyeth made the economic decision to stop manufacturing Wydase and subsequent manufacture of hyaluronidase based compounds were taken over by other manufacturers.

When Wyeth discontinued its manufacture of Wydase (hyaluronidase), ophthamologists were so entrenched in its use that many turned to compounding pharmacies to create the appropriate compound for them. Compounding pharmacists are supposed to be skilled in the actual combining of ingredients on premises for specific drug compounds. The FDA maintains jurisdiction over compounding pharmacies to the extent they are prohibited from compounding (combining ingredients) drugs without a patient-specific request from a physician. In addition, the FDA controls many of the ingredients compounding pharmacies use in arriving at their final product.

Fellow blogger, Cal Warriner, has discovered a potential contamination of hyaluronidase; believed to be specially prepared by a compounding pharmacy. In this instance I understand that hyaluronidase in a surgical procedure may have been the cause of the complete loss of sight in a patient.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Pfizer Bigger and More Profitable--Victims Wait for Justice

Brenda Fulmer — Thu, 15 Oct 2009 09:17:55 GMT

Pfizer’s $68 billion merger with Wyeth should be completed on October 15, 2009, following recent approval by the Federal Trade Commission. The merger was approved by the European Union in July of 2009.

Wyeth and Pfizer have been embroiled as co-defendants in litigation over hormone replacement therapy products for many years now. It is unknown how the merger may affect the upcoming trials that need to be scheduled for nearly 13,000 women who developed breast and ovarian cancer after long-term use of the artificial hormones.

Wyeth, who touts itself as a leader in women’s health, manufactured both Premarin and Prempro. Pfizer was the manufacturer of Provera, a drug that was taken in combination with Premarin to avoid the risks of endometrial cancer that was first noted with regard to Premarin more than 30 years ago.

Premarin, Provera, and Prempro were the hormone replacement therapy drugs ingested by most of the 13,000 plaintiffs whose cases are pending in state and federal courts in Arkansas, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, Minnesota and elsewhere. Many of these lawsuits have been pending for more than five years, with less than fifteen trials completed so far and only a handful of cases confidentially settled. Several thousand of these women recently prevailed in an appeal to the highest court in Minnesota, after the drug manufacturers sought to dismiss their lawsuits as being barred by various state’s statues of limitations periods. Depositions and other discovery have been taken in a number of cases (known collectively as PPO #9 cases), which should be included in the first wave of remands from the multi-district litigation proceedings pending in Little Rock, Arkansas. An appeal of the Plaintiff’s verdict in the Scroggins trial is currently pending, and remands of federal cases are anticipated once that appeal is resolved. More than a dozen women who developed breast cancer after taking Premarin in combination with Provera or Prempro will present their cases to jurors in Philadelphia in the coming months, with the first verdict expected before the end of October. These cases are part of the state court coordinated mass torts proceedings pending in Philadelphia before Judge Moss.

Following completion of the merger, Pfizer will be the largest pharmaceutical company in the world. Pfizer posted earnings of $48.3 billion in 2008, while Wyeth reaped $23 billion in revenue. The irony that this merger would be completed during Breast Cancer Awareness Month is not lost on many of us. One can only hope that as Wyeth and Pfizer begin this new chapter, the companies will take responsibility for the lives of so many breast cancer victims and survivors who have suffered as a result of their drugs and work towards a quicker resolution of the HRT litigation.

For more information in connection with how you can be a part of the solution to help victims of breast cancer, visit the Susan G Komen site.

We encourage you to take time to care and make a difference in someone's life.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brenda Fulmer

Yaz Ads Were Deceptive and Profitable

Brenda Fulmer — Wed, 07 Oct 2009 13:41:11 GMT

Bayer was recently sued by a union’s health insurer in Pennsylvania who alleges that the German manufacturer of one of the top-selling birth control pills engaged in deceptive trade practices and a three-year racketeering scheme in order to sell its drugs to young women and induce their health insurers to pay for them. This latest lawsuit focuses on the time period from March 17, 2006, through March 31, 2009 and alleges that Bayer misled doctors, patients and others regarding the safety risks associated with Yaz and Yasmin. The health insurer seeks to disgorge profits made during that time period, when sales of Yaz and Yasmin grew 17% to approximately $1.8 billion according to Bloomberg.

You may recall some of the advertising employed by Bayer early on in their marketing of Yaz; they looked more like commercials for a wonder drug than a contraceptive:

www.youtube.com/watch

In the past several months, Bayer has faced the following:

Establishment of MDL 2100 for the national coordination of lawsuits in federal court over Yaz and Yasmin with hundreds if not thousands of lawsuits expected to be filed by women and young girls who suffered pulmonary emboli, DVT, heart attacks, strokes, or gallbladder disease while taking the popular birth control pills
Publication of an article in the British Medical Journal that notes significantly increased risks of blood clotting adverse events in women using Yaz and Yasmin, especially in the months following first use of the products.
Investigation by Swiss authorities into the September 2009 death of a young woman who suffered a fatal pulmonary embolism after taking Bayer’s Yaz for approximately 10 months.
Reached $20 million settlement with the California Attorney General over claims of deceptive advertising for Yaz, which includes requirement that Bayer run corrective advertising to correct previous misleading claims. Similar agreements have been reached with 29 other states as well.

In response to the union health insurer lawsuit, Bayer spokeswoman Rose Talarico commented in the Law 360 Product Liability Reporter: “Bayer reaffirms and stands behind the safety of its drospirenone-containing oral contraceptives.”

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brenda Fulmer

All That Yaz is Dangerous

John Hopkins — Mon, 05 Oct 2009 14:12:35 GMT

The US Drug Watchdog group has now issued a press release warning women who have taken the birth control drug, Yasmin or Yaz of the very serious side effects of these drugs. Our firm has been warning consumers for some time. The group points out that the manufacturer, Bayer, has done a poor job in informing women who may have taken these drugs of the potential side effects. The watchdog group goes so far as to characterize this situation as possibly “the most important pharmaceutical initiative” in which they have ever been involved. Yaz and Yasmin contain a synthetic progestin called drospirenone, which has never before been used in a birth control pill before. Bayer paid for a study that demonstrated Yaz a safe, but at least one other study sets forth that Yaz and Yasmin can cause a whole host of problems, including:

Venous thrombosis
Arterial thrombosis
Thromboembolic events
Myocardial infarction
Heart attack
Stroke
Thromboembolism
Hepatic neoplasia
Gallbladder disease
Hypertension
Blood clots
Deep Vein Thrombosis
Pulmonary embolism
Death

In October of 2008 the FDA sent Bayer one of the most strongly worded warning letters I have seen. Although that letter largely dealt with the advertising being used by Bayer, it chastised Bayer for making claims about the conditions for which Yaz was demonstrated as being effective. In addition, it warned Bayer that its advertising failed to sufficiently disclose the potential risks of Yaz. Bayer apparently has a penchant for overstatement. Complaints have been filed by various groups including, with the Federal Trade Commission, Better Business Bureau, and, as said, the FDA. Bayer has been accused of making claims without real foundation. For example, it claimed that its One-A-Day WeightSmart vitamins could help with weight loss; reportedly without any true scientific basis. They also claimed that their One-A-Day vitamins could prevent prostate cancer; again without true science. Bayer was told to stop advertising its All-Day-Energy vitamin as “All-Day”, because it likewise is not demonstrated to scientifically perform All-Day. Yaz and Yasmin advertising cost Bayer $20 million in corrective ads they are required to put on the airwaves. You have seen the ones; where the actress in a snazzy bar seems less than repentant about Yaz’s advertising and that, well, shucks, maybe we didn’t tell you guys everything quite as clearly as we could have about Yaz. She says that the FDA wants them to clear a few things up. Unfortunately, in my opinion, the corrective ad campaign cleared little up and the action taken to inform the public about Yaz was lackluster at best.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by John Hopkins

Yaz Problems Continue to Arise

Laurie Briggs — Fri, 02 Oct 2009 16:13:00 GMT

Lawsuits against Bayer, the manufacturer of Yaz, continue to be filed across the United States by women who have suffered serious health issues, which may have been caused by the drug. Yaz is a combination hormone contraceptive containing the hormones ethinyl estradiol (estrogen) and drospirenone which is a synthetic form of progestin. In the drug world, Yaz is commonly referred to as “fourth generation” birth control pill, because of its composition, and is markedly different from its earlier counterparts because it contains drospirenone.

These lawsuits follow warning letters from the Food and Drug Administration to Bayer in 2008 concerning false claims being made in their advertising (Bayer agreed in February 2009 to spend $20 million on a corrective ad campaign to address the FDA concerns), admonishments to fully disclose risks associated with the use.

While Bayer vigorously defends its product (why wouldn’t it, when Yasmin, Yaz and Yasminelle contraceptives brought in $1.86 billion for Bayer in 2008 alone), their legal woes continue to mount. Yaz has recently been tied to an increase in the risk of several health issues, including blood clots (deep vein thrombosis and pulmonary embolism), gallbladder problems, heart attacks and strokes for women using the pill.

Many of the lawsuits have been filed by women who have suffered from blood clots; gallbladder problems including gallstones, infection, inflammation (cholecystitis), obstructions and even gallbladder removal (cholecystectomy) are being more frequently reported in recent months. Symptoms of gallbladder disease include abdominal pain, chest pain under the breastbone, fever and chills, heartburn, nausea and vomiting.

It is still unknown whether it is the combination of estrogen and drospirenone which is causing the problem or it if is the drospirenone itself which is the culprit. While it has long been known that the use of oral contraceptives can lead to an increased risk in clotting, the reports from women who have experienced health issues while taking Yaz are arising in otherwise healthy women with no other risk factors and the problems are appearing following a relatively short period of use.

Two medical research studies, conducted in the Netherlands and Denmark and recently published in the British Medical Journal, appear to support the hypothesis that use of oral contraceptives leads to increased risk of blood clots – particularly where the levels of estrogen are higher. The only study which contradicts the conclusions of these researchers is one sponsored by, and paid for, by Bayer itself. Yaz uses drospirenone as its progesterone ingredient and the Dutch study found that there was a 6.3-fold increase in VT risk for drospirenone.

The problems associated with Yaz are not limited to women in the United States. The death of a Swiss woman, who died from complications arising from a pulmonary embolism while taking the birth control pill Yaz, is being investigated by the government of Switzerland. Swissmedic, the central supervisory authority for therapeutic products in Switzerland, making it the Swiss equivalent to our Food and Drug Administration, announced earlier this week that it is investigating the “sudden” death of a woman who had been taking the contraceptive for less than one year.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Laurie Briggs

Pain Pump Manufacturers Trials and Tribulations for 2010 and 2011

Brenda Fulmer — Thu, 01 Oct 2009 11:47:06 GMT

Jurors from around the country will be let in on a dirty little secret in 2010. In state and federal courtrooms across the country next year, jurors will hear testimony about how the seemingly-innocuous use of a pain pump following minor joint surgery has turned the worlds of many young, athletic patients upside down. A number of plaintiffs have filed individual lawsuits against pain pump (I-Flow, Don Joy, Stryker, Moog, Breg, and others) and anesthetic drug manufacturers (Astra-Zeneca, Abbott, and others) after suffering catastrophic cartilage damage as a result of intra-articular injection of pain medications. The post-operative pain pumps were commonly, but not exclusively, used in shoulder surgeries from 1999 through 2007. In 2006 and 2007, a number of physicians and scientists (sadly, not the manufacturers) started raising concerns about post-operative destruction of cartilage. These scientists noted a direct association between the use of the pumps and anesthetic drugs such as Marcaine, bupivacaine, and ropivacaine, with symptoms emerging about six to eight months post-operatively in their patients. Pain pump-induced cartilage damage is now known as chondrolysis and is referred to as Post-Arthroscopic Glenohumeral Chondrolysis (or PAGCL) when it involves the shoulder joint. This condition usually results in multiple, otherwise unnecessary, surgeries and, ultimately, joint replacement.

Evidence gathered in the pain pump cases demonstrates that the manufacturers aggressively promoted use of the post-operative pain pumps for shoulder as well as other joint surgeries, such as knee, ankle, and foot surgeries, and even went so far as to provide instructions to physicians as to how to word their operative reports and code their billing statements in order to obtain the highest level of reimbursement from insurers. The primary selling point for intra-articular use of the pain pumps was that it would avoid a patient taking narcotic pain medications for a few days after surgery. Given the devastating injuries now known to be caused by use of the pain pumps, this trade-off seems inconceivable.

The evidence shows that pain pump manufacturers conducted no meaningful investigation or evaluation of the long-term safety risks to patients who used these devices for joint surgeries. Even basic research at the time, however, would have shown that bathing a joint with anesthetic drugs that were already known to be toxic to chondrocytes would likely result in the destruction of healthy cartilage. Now, the manufacturers are trying to use their failure to conduct FDA-required testing to argue that they could not have foreseen the devastating injuries inflicted on patients, especially in light of the concerted efforts that were made to bury their heads in the sand when evidence of chondrolysis were brought to their attention. The manufacturers are also trying to avoid liability by arguing that the current state of the scientific evidence is insufficient to demonstrate the relationship between chondrolysis and the pain pumps, yet this alleged lack of science appears to be more of an issue within the courtroom as opposed to outside the courtroom, where the medical community, scientists, the medical literature, and even medical textbooks now have concluded that intra-articular injection of anesthetics by pain pumps into joints causes chondrolysis or cartilage destruction.

Trials against pain pump and anesthetic drug manufacturers have been scheduled or will shortly be scheduled in the following venues:

Approximate Trial Date	Pain Pump and Drug Manufacturer Defendants	Venue
1/6/2010	I-Flow	Oregon
1/11/2010	I-Flow and DJO	Oregon
4/5/2010	I-Flow	Mississippi
4/06/2010	I-Flow	Ohio
4/13/2010	I-Flow	Ohio
4/20/2010	I-Flow	Ohio
4/27/2010	I-Flow	Ohio
5/04/2010	I-Flow	Ohio
7/7/2010	McKinley, Curlew and Moog; Hospira and Abbott	North Carolina
7/26/2010	Sorenson and Zimmer	Mississippi
9/13/2010	Stryker	California
9/14/2010	Stryker	Tennessee
9/14/2010	SMI; Hospira and Abbott	California
9/28/2010	Stryker, McKinley and Moog	Tennessee
10/18/2010	McKinley, Curlew and Moog; Hospira and Abbott	Arizona
12/13/2010	McKinley, Curlew and Moog	North Carolina
1/24/2011	I-Flow and APP	Indiana
4/25/2011	Stryker	Utah

A number of additional lawsuits have been filed in state and federal courts across the nation and should be scheduled for trials shortly. The Defendants rejected early efforts to coordinate the litigation at the national level, which has permitted the Plaintiffs to obtain a number of trial settings in numerous jurisdictions. No pain pump case has yet gone to verdict, with confidential settlements being reached in the first cases set for trial.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Brenda Fulmer

Epidemic of Fraudulent Marketing -- Eager to Believe

Alyssa DiEdwardo — Wed, 30 Sep 2009 12:38:04 GMT

On the heels of the largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in history why is it that so many of us are still so eager to blindly believe ads and product promises? We believe because we want the latest, greatest cure; the new drug that will take away our pain; the panacea which will ease our suffering. In a recent article in the New York Times it was suggested that the “Industry” preys on insecurities and spin off products to respond to what has become an epidemic of a multitude of conditions or health concerns that have created a state of high anxiety and a false hope for "the" cure.

In September 2009 the Justice Department announced the largest criminal and civil health care fraud settlement in history. Big Pharma giant, Pfizer, agreed to pay $1.2 billion in criminal fines for its acts of fraudulent marketing involving its product, Bextra and other medications.

“The size and seriousness of this resolution, including the huge criminal fine of $1.3 billion, reflect the seriousness and scope of Pfizer’s crimes,” said Mike Loucks, acting U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. “Pfizer violated the law over an extensive time period. Furthermore, at the very same time Pfizer was in our office negotiating and resolving the allegations of criminal conduct by its then newly acquired subsidiary, Warner-Lambert, Pfizer was itself in its other operations violating those very same laws. Today’s enormous fine demonstrates that such blatant and continued disregard of the law will not be tolerated.”

Under the False Claims Act The United States Department of Justice cited six whistleblowers who will split $102 million for participating in the investigation leading to the criminal charges that uncovered the fraud and "off-label" use of the Pfizer drug products.

A statement made by Tony West, Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Division set forth that:

"Illegal conduct and fraud by pharmaceutical companies puts the public health at risk, corrupts medical decisions by health care providers, and costs the government billions of dollars, this civil settlement and plea agreement by Pfizer represent yet another example of what penalties will be faced when a pharmaceutical company puts profits ahead of patient welfare."

However Fraudulent Marketing is not restricted to just the formal Pharmaceutical Industry.

In another arena, consumer group The Center for Science in the Public Interest (CSPI) filed a class action lawsuit in U.S. District Court in the Northern District of California, against Coca-Cola Co, accusing the company of making false health claims about “Vitaminwater”.

According to CSPI "Coke markets Vitaminwater as a healthful alternative to soda by labeling its several flavors with such health buzz words as 'defense,' 'rescue,' 'energy' and 'endurance, In fact, according to CSPI nutritionists, the 33 grams of sugar in each bottle of Vitaminwater do more to promote obesity, diabetes and other health problems than the vitamins in the drinks do to perform the advertised benefits listed on the bottles," while Coca Cola claims VitamanWater reduces the risk of chronic disease and eye disease.

Coca Cola was also warned by the FDA last December after claiming Diet Coke Plus that includes a variety of vitamins and mineral violating U.S. policy against “marketing soda and other snack foods as more nutritious.” Coke adamantly denies these allegation claiming that their product follows FDA rules and provides adequate product labeling.

In the Dietary Supplement Industry Tony Pham, owner of Techmedia Health, in July 2009 pled guilty in Federal Court that he used the company to repackage, sell market and distribute unapproved new drugs and misbranded drugs over the internet. Pham and his collaborators are now facing a $12 Millon dollar fine. Pham admitted he used Techmedia to market supplements to be backed by clinical testing on various websites claiming to treat or prevent diseases such as diabetes, irritable bowel syndrome, gout, high cholesterol, high blood pressure, heartburn and diarrhea.

“Under federal statutes, Pham is subject to a sentence of up to 25 years in federal prison without parole, plus a fine up to $500,000 or twice the gross gain. A sentencing hearing will be scheduled after the completion of a presentence investigation by the United States Probation Office,” said the office of Acting United States Attorney for the Western District of Missouri, Matt Whitworth, in a statement.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alyssa DiEdwardo