When do pharmaceuticals like lawsuits? When they can be used to silence critics.

Justinian Lane

When do pharmaceuticals like lawsuits? When they can be used to silence critics.

Here’s a rather disturbing update on the saga of Glaxo’s attempt to conceal the risks of their drug Avandia:

…For those who don’t recall, however, we will remind you that John Buse, a diabetes expert and professor at the University of North Carolina was systmetically threatened by Glaxo because he publicly expressed concerns that the Avandia diabetes pill may cause cardiovascular risks….

According to emails reviewed by the committee, Glaxo execs labeled Buse a “renegade” and silenced his concerns about Avandia by complaining to his superiors and threatening a lawsuit. “Even more troubling, documents reveal that plans to silence Buse involved discussions by executives at the highest levels of Glaxo, including then and current ceo Jean-Pierre Garnier. (Emphasis added.)

Pharmalot » Silence! The Intimidation Of An Avandia Critic

Glaxo doesn’t want people who were injured by Avandia to be able to sue for their injuries. But they want to be able to sue critics who attempt to warn people about the dangers of Avandia. That’s because to the "reform" movement, the civil justice system should belong only to wealthy corporations.

Posted at 12:57 PM, Nov 17, 2007 in Permalink | Comments (7) | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Everyone should read the linked post. I drew a different conclusion than the misleading, biased, left wing, lawyer gotcha author. Glaxo sought to correct mistaken allegations. It privately considered litigation. No formal demand letter went out.

The "mistaken allegations" have since been confirmed in further studies, and in a black box warning re: heart attacks was added to existing Avandia warnings about heart failure. Glaxo's internal memoranda are not about the facts; they are about controlling an "opinion leader."

No one can read the report and relevant correspondence (rationally) and not see that Buse felt he was the target of an intimidation campaign, not part of a search for scientific truth. He himself spoke of "caving" to those threats in his email to Nissen.

Henry: I feel "threatened" by your reply. Do I have any recourse against you?

SC: probably not, except for through the court of public opinion. :)

Kia: Seriously. Let's say, I have to give a speech in front of a conservative college group, for a fee, on a contract basis.

A group of left wing thugs cannot persuade anyone except by physical intimidation. They bust in, make noise, threaten to kick my butt, shove me around. I cannot deliver the performance of the contracted speech.

Can I sue the left wing thugs, their organization, their financial sponsors if they had knowledge of the intended disruption? For intentional interference with contract? How would the left wing biased, PC, lawyer lover court weigh their First Amendment rights?

That brings up a second question. What about the audience? As you know, First Amendment rights are like coins. Each has two sides. As I have a right to free speech, so does an audience have a protected right to hear free speech. Can the audience sue the left wing racketeering organization for 1) interfering with their contract to attend a speech, 2) interfering with their ability to listen to my speech?

You will never review, support, nor even acknowledge this use of torts to protect our freedoms. Why? This blog is not about civil justice. It is about the left wing agenda to transfer funds from the productive to the parasitic, especially, the land pirates funding the blog, and to usurp power and freedom from all entities that are not central government, a 99% run subsidiary of the criminal cult enterprise to which you owe all your allegiance above all others, foreign and domestic.