Louisiana sues Big Pharma for Medicaid fraud

(NaturalNews) Numerous U.S. states have or are in the process of filing lawsuits against drug companies for ripping off their state Medicaid programs, with one of the most recent being Louisiana. According to a recent Pharmalot report, Louisiana’s Attorney General Buddy Caldwell says that 18 drug companies deliberately lied in drug price information filings in order to bilk more money from the system, and he is going after them to recover it. “This is an egregious abuse of the Medicaid reimbursement system,” explained Caldwell in a official statement. “We believe Louisiana has lost hundreds of millions of dollars as a result of these drug companies’ fraudulent pricing schemes.” According to the same official statement, Louisiana doled out more than $850 million in taxpayer funds to drug companies to pay for drugs between 1991 and 2009. But a significant portion of this amount was most likely fraudulent because of the billing scheme drug companies utilize to get reimbursed. The way it works is drug companies report what are called the Average Wholesale Prices (AWPs) for drugs, and are subsequently reimbursed by state Medicaid programs for these amounts. But the lawsuit alleges that drug companies were marking up these costs as high as 6000 percent above actual costs. And since the drug companies themselves declare the AWPs and other wholesale prices, they can literally put whatever amounts they wish, even if those amounts bear no correlation to the actual cost. In 2008, NaturalNews covered a similar lawsuit in Texas filed by its Attorney General alleging that drug companies had abused the Medicaid system (http://www.naturalnews.com/024893_Texas_Medicaid_companies.html). And Kansas (http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/10/kansas-sues-13-drugmakers-over-medicaid-fraud/), Wisconsin (http://www.pharmalot.com/2008/12/amgen-to-pay-wisconsin-17m-for-medicaid-fraud/), Mississippi (http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/04/mississippi-can-sue-bayer-for-medicaid-fraud/), and 24 other states have all been involved in lawsuits against Big Pharma as well. Even the federal government has sued drug companies for reimbursement fraud. Sources for this story include: http://www.pharmalot.com/2010/11/louisiana-sues-18-drugmakers-for-medicaid-fraud/ http://www.ag.louisiana.gov/Article.aspx?articleID=446&catID=2

Animal microchips linked to causing cancer

(NaturalNews) Many veterinarians recommend them, and most animal shelters require them. Identification microchips injected into the necks of cats and dogs are touted as useful in recovering lost pets because the devices store owner and medical information. But are they safe? A new lawsuit against Merck and Co., Inc., maker of the HomeAgain pet microchip, says they are not, noting that they can cause cancer to develop in pets. Featured at www.ChipMeNot.org, a website launched to raise awareness about the harm caused to animals by microchips, the lawsuit alleges that Merck’s HomeAgain pet microchip induces cancerous tumors in pets. According to the suit, the defendant’s cat developed cancer after getting a chip implant, and according to reports, other animals have gotten cancer after getting chipped as well. “Based on the alarming number of microchip-induced cancers we’re discovering, I predict this lawsuit will be just the tip of the iceberg,” said Dr. Katherine Albrecht, a consumer advocate and expert on side effects associated with implantable microchips. “Merck and organizations that advocate pet chipping should take this lawsuit seriously and start warning pet owners of the risk of microchip-induced cancer.” According to the U.S. Food and Drug Administration, potential health risks associated with implantable microchips include “adverse tissue reaction”. Based on data from the British Small Animal Veterinary Association, this can include “swelling”, “infection”, “abscesses”, and “tumors”. Albrecht presented a paper on the subject called “Microchip-Induced Tumors in Laboratory Rodents and Dogs: A Review of the Literature 1990-2006″ (http://www.chipmenot.org/pdfs/P074.pdf) at the June conference of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers that documents the increasing number of animals being harmed by microchips. Currently, there is no repository of data on adverse events associated with microchips in the U.S., but Albrecht organization, CASPIAN, is filling that void by compiling such information and making it available to the public. To learn more about the dangers of animal microchips, visit: www.ChipMeNot.org Sources for this story include: http://www.chipmenot.org/mercksued.htm

GM sugar beet scandal leads to lawsuit against USDA

(NaturalNews) Last month, U.S. District Court Judge Jeffrey White from California’s Northern District Court in San Francisco ruled that the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s (USDA) approval of genetically-modified (GM) sugar beets was unlawful, and that no further plantings were permitted to take place until a proper safety assessment is conducted. Several groups have announced, however, that they are filing a lawsuit against the USDA for violating the court ruling by permitting GM seed producers like Monsanto Co. to plant them anyway. According to a recent Reuters report, the USDA decided to begin issuing permits to GM sugar beet producers, allowing them to plant the “Frankencrops” as long as they do not flower. But the Center for Food Safety and the Sierra Club, two of the plaintiffs in the lawsuit, allege that this decision not only threatens to contaminate nearby fields, but violates the court ruling as well. Roughly 50 percent of U.S. sugar production currently comes from GM sugar beets. However according to the plaintiffs, the court ruling effectively banned all future plantings of GM sugar beets, allowing only those currently growing to be harvested. After harvest, the seeds must be culled and no longer used. That GM sugar beets were ever planted in the first place was ruled unlawful by the court, because the USDA lacked the conclusive safety evidence it needed to actually approve them in the first place. So the recent court ruling requires that the USDA formulate an Environmental Impact Statement showing that the crops are safe for human consumption. In the meantime, it is unclear what GM sugar beet farmers will be planting for next year’s crop, as some reports indicate that reverting back to non-GM sugar beets may not be feasible. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6885XA20100909 http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2010-09/56068500.pdf

PCBs found in 10 fish oil supplements

(NaturalNews) A California lawsuit is accusing several fish oil supplement manufacturers of selling fish oils that contain unsafe levels of polychlorinated biphenyl compounds, also known as PCBs. The state’s Proposition 65 requires products that may contain toxic ingredients above safe levels to have warning labels for consumer safety. Five supplement companies, CVS and Rite Aid drug stores, and Omega Protein, Inc., the world’s largest producer of omega-3 fish oil, are all named in the suit, which the plaintiffs hope will bring light to fish oil contamination problems. They also hope to see more accurate labeling of fish oils that includes specifics about contaminants like PCBs; that way, consumers will be able to make better decisions about which kinds are safe to buy. The PCB chemical family consists of 209 different chemical compounds, all of which were tested for in the lawsuit by a California lab. That same lab also tested each of the product samples for 12 of the most toxic PCB compounds. It then evaluated each sample in terms of daily exposure to PCBs overall, and daily exposure to PCBs in terms of toxicity. The brands tested included Nature Made, Twinlab, Now Foods, Solgar and GNC. Each brand included various types of fish oil, including cod liver, shark liver and salmon. Those that tested the lowest for PCBs contained one-70th the amount of those with the highest levels, indicating a significant difference in contamination among various brands, and types, of fish oil. According to David Roe, the man who filed the lawsuit in San Francisco’s Superior Court, the oils that tested highest exceed California’s daily limit for PCBs by a factor of ten in terms of cancer risk. On the same token, some of the oils tested very low, and are not of particular concern to consumers. Both Nature Made and Twinlab issued immediate responses to the lawsuit in defense of their respective brands’ safety. Erin Hlasney from the Council for Responsible Nutrition (CRN), a supplement industry trade group, also came to the defense of fish oils in general, explaining that they have been used safely for decades. But the plaintiffs contend that it is not enough to simply say that a product meets guidelines; consumers have a right to know how a product actually tests for contaminants once it arrives on store shelves. Many brands claim that their fish oils have been purified and treated to reduce or remove contaminants, but few actually explain to what extent these toxins have been removed. For complete details about the case and to view the fish oil test results, please visit www.fishoilsafety.com. Sources for this story include: http://www.mercurynews.com/ci_14501591?source=most_viewed http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/ConsumerNews/truth-fish-oil-concerns/story?id=9994049

7-year-old girl dies after Botox injections

(NaturalNews) A 7-year-old girl died after a Botox injection paralyzed her lungs, her family says, and they are suing pharmaceutical company Allergan for wrongful death. Botox is the trade name for the botulinim toxin, which is produced by the botulism bacteria. Botulinim toxin blocks nerve signaling, leading to muscle paralysis, and has been called the single most toxic protein known. In small doses, it is approved for use to smooth away facial wrinkles. Although it is not approved in the United States for the treatment of muscle spasms such as those caused by cerebral palsy, U.S. law allows doctors to prescribe drugs for unapproved uses if they wish. Kristen Spears began Botox treatment for cerebral palsy-related spasms at age six. In November 2007, Spears died from pneumonia and respiratory failure, which her family claims was caused when the botulinim toxin spread to her lungs and weakened her breathing muscles. Spears’ case is the first Botox-related wrongful death lawsuit to reach trial. The company claims that the drug actually improved Spears’ breathing, and that she died from complications of her underlying cerebral palsy. To counter this claim, the plaintiffs’ lawyers will seek to prove that the Botox spread beyond its injection site in Spears’ body. According to the nonprofit watchdog group Public Citizen, there have been at least 180 reported cases of serious side effects from Botox and at least 16 related deaths. Concern over these side effects led the FDA to mandate a “black box” label for Botox in April 2009, warning that improper injection may allow the toxin to spread to other parts of the body, with potentially fatal consequences. Records unsealed as part of the lawsuit show that as early as 2005, Allergan knew that serious side effects could result from use of the drug. Allergan makes $1.3 billion a year in Botox sales, $47 million from its use as a cerebral palsy treatment alone. Sources for this story include: www.ktla.com/news/landing/ktla-botox-death-kristen-spears,0,1334245.story; http://www.webmd.com/skin-problems-and-treatments/news/20090430/black-box-warning-for-botox.

Chevron hires twelve public relations firms to discredit indigenous Indians in Ecuador

(NaturalNews) In response to an environmental lawsuit filed against the oil giant, Chevron has fortified its defenses with at least twelve different public relations firms whose purpose is to debunk the claims made against the company by indigenous people living in the Amazon forests of Ecuador. According to them, Chevron dumped billions of gallons of toxic waste in the Amazon between 1964 and 1990, causing damages assessed at more than $27 billion. The company is being criticized by people and organizations from across the social and political spectrum for its unethical behavior in regards to the case. Originally filed in U.S. federal district court back in 1993, the lawsuit was eventually moved to courts in Ecuador at Chevron’s behest. Having initially lauded Ecuador’s legal system in an effort to have the case moved there, Chevron later changed its mind and began attacking the system when that system found the company liable for damages. Shareholders are also upset with Chevron for its gross mismanagement of the case in which it has sidestepped the rule of law and employed guerilla-style tactics in a last ditch effort to fend off an unfavorable ruling. Part of this includes hiring Hill and Knowlton, the same firm that represented the tobacco industry during its indictment over tobacco causing cancer, to perform the same task concerning toxic oil contaminants. Evidence presented at Chevron’s trial included over 50,000 chemical samples taken by the company itself which proved that all of its former oil drilling sites are contaminated with toxic byproducts that cause cancer. Many of these wells have contaminated rivers, streams, and other water sources which natives use for drinking water. Despite all the undeniable evidence, Chevron is working hard to cover up the facts and dismiss its responsibility in the matter. Speaking of responsibility, Chevron’s other hired firms are trying to claim that the company worked out a deal with the government in Ecuador back in the mid-1990s that released it from cleanup responsibility. However the terms expressed in the current case regarding cleanup are exempt from the former agreement which, in and of itself, was determined to be fraudulent. Two former Chevron lawyers and a handful of former government officials were indicted because of that agreement which makes it ludicrous to try to use the incident as a defense in the current case. A final ruling on the case is set to be made sometime this year. Most likely, Ecuadorian courts will find Chevron guilty as charged despite its lobbying efforts. Sources for this story include: http://chevrontoxico.com/news-and-multimedia/2009/1120-chevron-using-six-public-relations-firms-to-discredit-indigenous-groups-in-environmental-case.html

Merck Sat on Data Showing Vioxx Risks for Years Before Pulling Drug

(NaturalNews) A recent study published in the Archives of Internal Medicine has revealed that information about heart risks from pharmaceutical giant Merck’s Vioxx drug was available in 2000, four years before the Merck pulled the drug from the market. Because the information was not published and made public, Merck sat on it until a later clinical trial openly revealed that the drug was causing strokes and heart attacks. Dr. Harlan Krumholz, study author from the Yale University School of Medicine, noted that he obtained pertinent safety data about Vioxx only after a lawsuit was filed against Merck by those who had been injured by the drug. It was discovered that out of the 30 studies conducted by Merck prior to when Vioxx was withdrawn, only 18 of them had been published. Six were published after the drug was withdrawn and six were never published at all. After mulling through the study data, one trial at a time, Krumholz and his team clearly identified a link between Vioxx usage and increased heart attacks and strokes in patients. Based on when the studies were conducted, the connection was visible as early as December of 2000. Ron Rogers, a Merck spokesman, denied the claims that any link could be observed and decried the methods used by researchers to come to this conclusion, despite acceptance of the findings following a rigorous peer review process. Rogers stated that the company’s own extensive analysis showed no connection between Vioxx usage and increased cases of heart attack and stroke prior to the time when it was removed from the market, emphasized that the company had no prior knowledge of Vioxx’s dangers. However in 2004, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported that it had seen internal Merck emails exchanged between company executives that expressed concern over Vioxx’s tendency to increase the risk of heart attack. The entire series of emails clearly indicated that Merck knew about the dangers of Vioxx and was doing its best to conceal the information. Dating back to the late 1990s, early emails contained dialogues about how to craft a study that would minimize the truth about Vioxx. An email from March of 2000 sent by Merck’s research chief, Edward Scolnick, expressed clear affirmation that heart problems associated with Vioxx were “clearly there” and that it was a “shame.” When questioned about the emails, Merck once again denied the allegations, claiming that the emails were taken out of context. Merck never provided an explanation as to what the emails were referring to in their supposed proper context. Thousands of injured patients and company shareholders filed a class action lawsuit against Merck following its removal of Vioxx from the market. Merck appealed the lawsuit on the grounds that “sufficient” information about the drug’s risks were available when the drug hit the market. Merck succeeded in convincing a U.S. district judge to dismiss the lawsuit because it was filed after the two-year statute of limitations ended. However an appeals court in Philadelphia reversed the decision on behalf of the many shareholders who lost a great deal when Vioxx was suddenly removed from the market, which caused Merck’s stock values to plummet. Since it was determined that shareholders could not have known what was coming based on the information that was made publicly available, the Supreme Court is going to evaluate the case and make a decision on it next year. Merck also agreed to a $4.85 billion settlement, one of the largest in history, on behalf of the thousands who filed personal injury lawsuits against the company due to serious injuries caused by Vioxx. (These cases were different from the ones included in the initial class action suit). The drug giant said it agreed to the settlement because the litigation process would have taken countless years to resolve, most likely hurting the company’s reputation even further. At the very least, drug safety tracking once receiving approval from the FDA to go to market needs a major overhaul. Dr. Krumholz and his colleagues stressed this point following their Vioxx discoveries. When fraud and criminal behavior are involved, as has shown to be the case with Merck, justice must be served. The Vioxx scandal illustrates an important fact about the drug industry in general. Big Pharma continually gets away with massive impropriety. Its business practices, from research and development to marketing, are wrought with dishonesty, manipulation and downright fraud. There is arguably no other industry that gets away with its crimes as much as the pharmaceutical industry does. The consequences are also the most severe, costing millions of people their health and oftentimes their lives. Bringing the issue to light as often and loudly as possible will only go so far. Massive reform, in some way, shape, or form, must be implemented if there is ever going to be an end to the madness. Sources for this story include: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5AM4MV20091123, http://money.cnn.com/2004/11/01/news/fortune500/merck/index.htm

« Previous Page