Chantix - Does any one else feel a li...
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1174 Jan 22, 2013
Seriously wrote:
Be careful where you get information from. Reglan is not contained in chantix. Many of the things that are being claimed by one person on this thread are nearly ludicrous. If you don't have a medical degree, please shut your mouth. Chantix works for me. I have minor aches and pains and no neurological effects. Since our metabolisms are different, yes, chantix may affect you differently. I have a doctorate of pharmacy not a BS in BS like some of these people.
Read the facts ...

"A recent announcement that pertains to a Chantix lawsuit has stated that the CEO of Pfizer (the makers of the quit smoking drug) will be called to testify in the first of an estimated 2,500 claims against the company over the drug’s side effects.

Various users of Chantix are complaining about the side effects linked to Chantix, which is made with metoclopramide (generic Reglan). While some users have committed suicide after taking Chantix, others have suffered from neurological conditions. This is no surprise to Reglan users, many of whom have developed various different neurological conditions after taking Reglan."

http://www.druginjuryattorneyblog.com/2012/12...

Go ahead and take it and the risks which are NOW common knowledge. No wonder I don't listen to doctors who support deadly medicine over will power. They are full of sh@t.
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1175 Jan 22, 2013
USNBMC wrote:
<quoted text>
Thank you for your comment. Your point is what I've tried to express. Not all of are the same. If Chantix works, stay with it. Talk to your doctor to help with your problems. I'm smoke free still after 45 plus years and have been now for more than 7 months, and saved over $3,000.00!
Still aking chantix? Have any idea what taking Reglan for more then 12 weeks does?

"Metoclopramide may be the most common cause of drug-induced movement disorders.[6] The risk of extrapyramidal effects is increased in people under 20 years of age, and with high-dose or prolonged therapy.[2][3] Tardive dyskinesia may be persistent and irreversible in some patients. The majority of reports of tardive dyskinesia occur in people who have used metoclopramide for more than three months.[6] Consequently, the USFDA recommends that metoclopramide be used for short term treatment, preferably less than 12 weeks. In 2009, the USFDA required all manufacturers of metoclopramide to issue a black box warning regarding the risk of tardive dyskinesia with chronic or high-dose use of the drug."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metoclopramide

If you had will power you could have stopped smoking witout the drug risks now associated with chatix and BTW Pfizer settled the second case before going to court. Still don't get your point ... "Not all of are the same." ??? That isn't even a sentence!
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1176 Jan 22, 2013
Karen wrote:
I am so sorry that you all have had bad experiences with taking Chantix. I have been on it for almost 2 months and have experienced only a mild case of nausea if I do not eat and then take the pill. I have not noticed any change in my behavior or outbursts of anger. I do not know if I am an exception or if some of this stuff you all have experienced will come later. I definietly will keep myself aware.
Know that there is a problem with STOPPING chantix? I hope you are aware of all the junk Pfizer has formulated to make chantix ... some of this is just NOW coming out and even a self proclaimed pharmacy degree doesn't guarantee knowing these FACTS! They were a company secret ... Pfizer didn't tell the doctors in the fine print either.
USNBMC

Las Vegas, NV

#1177 Jan 22, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Still aking chantix? Have any idea what taking Reglan for more then 12 weeks does?
"Metoclopramide may be the most common cause of drug-induced movement disorders.[6] The risk of extrapyramidal effects is increased in people under 20 years of age, and with high-dose or prolonged therapy.[2][3] Tardive dyskinesia may be persistent and irreversible in some patients. The majority of reports of tardive dyskinesia occur in people who have used metoclopramide for more than three months.[6] Consequently, the USFDA recommends that metoclopramide be used for short term treatment, preferably less than 12 weeks. In 2009, the USFDA required all manufacturers of metoclopramide to issue a black box warning regarding the risk of tardive dyskinesia with chronic or high-dose use of the drug."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metoclopramide
If you had will power you could have stopped smoking witout the drug risks now associated with chatix and BTW Pfizer settled the second case before going to court. Still don't get your point ... "Not all of are the same." ??? That isn't even a sentence!
Your Rude.
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1178 Jan 23, 2013
USNBMC wrote:
<quoted text>
Your Rude.
Your or did you mean you are? Are you afraid you will end up like Sammie? If you think we are all sooooooo different then take chantix, the full dosage, and see if you do end up like Sammie.

The ignorance of those who don't take the full dosage or for the recommended length, according to Pfizer, have no idea what those who did and suffer know.
terri

Saint Louis, MO

#1179 Jan 23, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Your or did you mean you are? Are you afraid you will end up like Sammie? If you think we are all sooooooo different then take chantix, the full dosage, and see if you do end up like Sammie.
The ignorance of those who don't take the full dosage or for the recommended length, according to Pfizer, have no idea what those who did and suffer know.
You DO have all your facts correct, Virginia. I agree, that ALL those nay sayers out there, should TAKE Chantix, themSELVES!!!! If THAT'S what it would take to make believers out of them....GO for it!!! Before Chantix, I never had any negative side effects from a drug. But, two hospital stays plus a psyche unit...ROCKED ME TO THE CORE!!!!!!!!!!

Maybe I, too, would have doubts about a pill having the power to alter one's personality, dreams, thoughts and actions....had I not taken it myself...but, I did...and unfortunately, can assure any doubters, this drug is for REAL. The side effects...DISTURBINGLY real!! Seriously, if your doctor tries to prescribe this, run to the nearest exit!! Save yourself a trip to hell.
Uncommon sense

United States

#1180 Jan 23, 2013
Please don't take medical information from the web sites of bottom feeding lawyers. They seemed to have mixed their money grubbing lawsuits up and have some people believing their misinformation. Chantix does not contain Reglan.
Along those same lines - settling out of court is done all the time even by innocent parties - based on the determination of the cost benefit. Law suits are very expensive - even if you win. Companies, public institutions and individuals are encourages to settle by their lawyers all the time, it has nothing to do with guilt, just $. Isn't out legal system grand?
Check your so called facts with actual sources!
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1181 Jan 24, 2013
Uncommon sense wrote:
Please don't take medical information from the web sites of bottom feeding lawyers. They seemed to have mixed their money grubbing lawsuits up and have some people believing their misinformation. Chantix does not contain Reglan.
Along those same lines - settling out of court is done all the time even by innocent parties - based on the determination of the cost benefit. Law suits are very expensive - even if you win. Companies, public institutions and individuals are encourages to settle by their lawyers all the time, it has nothing to do with guilt, just $. Isn't out legal system grand?
Check your so called facts with actual sources!
Excuse me uncommon but just because the link I provided for the containment of REGLAN in CHANTIX came from a lawyer site does NOT mean it is NOT TRUE!!! If that were so the JUDGE would not have ORDERED the CEO's to testify. I certainly do not blame the ones who settled either. All it will take is someone who will NOT settle out of court.

If what I am stating is not true about metoclopramide aka Reglan, Pfizer can sue me for it, lol.

In my opinion, Pfizer is guilty. They are even more guilty by keeping this information SECRET!!!

Of course if you don't believe what I am posting ignore it and take chantix. You may find yourself eating your bottom feeding words instead of posting on a, "Does any one ELSE feel a lttle crazy on Chantix?" discussion board in the Healthcare Law forum.
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1182 Jan 24, 2013
terri wrote:
<quoted text>
You DO have all your facts correct, Virginia. I agree, that ALL those nay sayers out there, should TAKE Chantix, themSELVES!!!! If THAT'S what it would take to make believers out of them....GO for it!!! Before Chantix, I never had any negative side effects from a drug. But, two hospital stays plus a psyche unit...ROCKED ME TO THE CORE!!!!!!!!!!
Maybe I, too, would have doubts about a pill having the power to alter one's personality, dreams, thoughts and actions....had I not taken it myself...but, I did...and unfortunately, can assure any doubters, this drug is for REAL. The side effects...DISTURBINGLY real!! Seriously, if your doctor tries to prescribe this, run to the nearest exit!! Save yourself a trip to hell.
I called Pfizer and their medical professionals are not able to give out information they do not have. Seems Pfizer is hiding the Reglan connection from as many as possible. Might be because of all the precautions of using this drug are contraindicated for many customers. Hmmm let's see metoclopramide is a D2 antagonist ... could this be a reason for worsening mood? It sure says so here.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metoclopramide

Unfortunately Pfizer is still hiding so a healthcare professional cannot get a straight answer about the other substances in Chantix and therefore can NOT treat them properly.

Anything that blocks your dopamine receptors will certainly change your thoughts, actions, dreams and personality! Seriously that is common sense, yet uncommon knowledge lol.
uncommon sense

United States

#1183 Jan 27, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Excuse me uncommon but just because the link I provided for the containment of REGLAN in CHANTIX came from a lawyer site does NOT mean it is NOT TRUE!!! If that were so the JUDGE would not have ORDERED the CEO's to testify. I certainly do not blame the ones who settled either. All it will take is someone who will NOT settle out of court.
If what I am stating is not true about metoclopramide aka Reglan, Pfizer can sue me for it, lol.
In my opinion, Pfizer is guilty. They are even more guilty by keeping this information SECRET!!!
Of course if you don't believe what I am posting ignore it and take chantix. You may find yourself eating your bottom feeding words instead of posting on a, "Does any one ELSE feel a lttle crazy on Chantix?" discussion board in the Healthcare Law forum.


Wow - so many errors in one post. Of course I wouldn't rely on a link from your post for information. Besides having far greater knowledge and understanding of the subject, I did a simple search and used reference material to confirm your error. I only looked at the link in your post to try to determine where your misinformation came from.

My post was in no way supporting Chantix use - simply clarifying that Reglan not one of the contents of the drug. Nor did I say weather or not I had taken or plan to take Chantix.

Why I read or post on this board is none of your business - nor do I care to know why you post here. It is a public board and anyone may read or post here. That is kind of the point.
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1184 Jan 28, 2013
uncommon sense wrote:
<quoted text>
Wow - so many errors in one post. Of course I wouldn't rely on a link from your post for information. Besides having far greater knowledge and understanding of the subject, I did a simple search and used reference material to confirm your error. I only looked at the link in your post to try to determine where your misinformation came from.
My post was in no way supporting Chantix use - simply clarifying that Reglan not one of the contents of the drug. Nor did I say weather or not I had taken or plan to take Chantix.
Why I read or post on this board is none of your business - nor do I care to know why you post here. It is a public board and anyone may read or post here. That is kind of the point.
OK you go me there ... you know more about crazy then I do, lol!

If you are such a good researcher then post the article for how Pfizer created chanix.

I believe chantix contains reglan and that knowledge has been an industry secret. I added a link to substain this ... where are your links?

You probably don't believe chantix was made from a morphine molicule and cytisine either. Actually you sound more like one of those people who promote Pfizer's lies. So how does chantix act as a dopamine antagonist? Neither ctisine nor morhine does so how can chantix partially block dopamine release if not by containing metoclopramide?
Research it

Willingboro, NJ

#1185 Jan 28, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
I called Pfizer and their medical professionals are not able to give out information they do not have. Seems Pfizer is hiding the Reglan connection from as many as possible. Might be because of all the precautions of using this drug are contraindicated for many customers. Hmmm let's see metoclopramide is a D2 antagonist ... could this be a reason for worsening mood? It sure says so here.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metoclopramide
Unfortunately Pfizer is still hiding so a healthcare professional cannot get a straight answer about the other substances in Chantix and therefore can NOT treat them properly.
Anything that blocks your dopamine receptors will certainly change your thoughts, actions, dreams and personality! Seriously that is common sense, yet uncommon knowledge lol.
Virginia, anyone with access to a lab can take a Chantix pill and determine its ingredients. Where is one lab report or one expert report that Chantix contains metoclopramide? It makes no sense Pfizer could be hiding the actual ingredients. If you or a friend have a Chantix pill leftover, you can get a lab analysis done and find out the ingredients. The lawyers in the MDL in Alabama - who are looking to get millions in fees and who certainly can afford a lab analysis--have never made this claim in any of the court papers. Nor have any of the experts they retained. Pfizer's CEO had a 5 hour deposition and no one asserted during the deposition that Chantix had a hidden ingredient. There's a blog called Pharmalot that follows cases like the Chantix MDL and gives links to the actual court documents. You can also go on to the court's website and see copies, but it costs .10 per page. Court opinions are free.

Think about it. Do you think the lawyers are going to call Pfizer's CEO at trial and ask him if metroclopramide is in Chantix? When he says he has no idea what is in the thousands of drugs made by Pfizer or he says no, it isn't, do the lawyers just sit down and say oh well? If this was a claim in the case, it would be in the expert reports already exchanged by the parties. The issues in these cases aren't the ingredients, it is whether the known ingredients caused the complained of side effects and if Pfizer should have known of a link to these side effects before the black box warnings. Don't take my representations at face value. Look at the court documents. Many are posted online for free.
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1186 Jan 29, 2013
What do you think a Pfizer CEO is the one who broke the news that chantix contains metoclopramide? You think because I have not provided a link to a court paper or lab report one does't exsist? You can't provide any explaination for why the judge granted the law firms request to FORCE the CEO's to testify. I can ... they lied and did not reveal chantix containing metoclopramide until a lawyer asked them point blank with a lab report in hand. Since the law firms HAVE done their job, why should I pay to prove it to you no name? You really are ignorant if you think the CEO's are being forced to testify and have no knowledge that chantix contains metoclopramide. A judge would not order them to do so if she had seen no proof!
Reserch it

Willingboro, NJ

#1187 Jan 30, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
... You can't provide any explaination for why the judge granted the law firms request to FORCE the CEO's to testify. I can ... they lied and did not reveal chantix containing metoclopramide until a lawyer asked them point blank with a lab report in hand. Since the law firms HAVE done their job, why should I pay to prove it to you no name? You really are ignorant if you think the CEO's are being forced to testify and have no knowledge that chantix contains metoclopramide. A judge would not order them to do so if she had seen no proof!
No need to provide an "explanation," it's all there in black and white on the publicly available court's website. I don't know why someone is misleading you. As I said before, don't take my word for it, go to the court's website and read the judge's decisions and the pleadings filed by the parties. Or just ask your lawyer to forward them to you. The case that you are referring to is the Whitely case. There was no claim in that case or any of the MDL cases in Alabama that Reglan is in Chantix. There is no issue at all as to what is in Chantix in any of these cases. Here is a link to the form complaint that is being filed in these cases. It has not changed since its last amendment in 2010. The complaint has no allegations about the ingredients in Chantix or that it contains Reglan, morphine and cystine.(Yes, I do know all about the history of cystine and the attempts to mimic its properties.)
http://op.bna.com/pslr.nsf/id/jstg-8xkgr9/ $File/chantix3.pdf
The order regarding Ian Read has nothing to do with the ingredients in Chantix. The plaintiff isssued trial subpoenas for Read and other Chantix executives. Read and the executives filed motions to quash because they live more than 100 miles from the courthouse, already had videotaped depositions that could be used at trial and that attending trial would be a hardship. The 100 mile reference pertains to a federal court rule limiting who can be compelled to appear at a trial. The court ruled that officers and directors were not subject to the 100 mile limit and denied the motion to quash, except as to one executive who had retired. The next post will have the full opinion issued by the court. As you will see, it makes no reference to the ingredients in Chantix, becasaus, again, that is not an issue in the case. The Whitely case, as with others in the MDL, is all about when warnings should have been issued.
Research it

Willingboro, NJ

#1188 Jan 30, 2013
FILED
2012 Oct-04 PM 03:27
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:10-cv-01463-IPJ Document 217 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 4
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE: CHANTIX
(VARENICLINE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
Plaintiff: Judy Ann Whitely, as
trustee for the next-of-kin of Mark
Alan Whitely, deceased
This Order Relates To:
CASE NO: 2:10-CV-1463-IPJ
Master File No.: 2:09-CV-2039-IPJ
MDL No. 2092
ORDER
Pending before the court are the motion of Ian Read, Diana Hughes, Carl
Wilbanks, and defendant to quash trial subpoenas (doc. 176), the motion to
quash trial subpoena of former Pfizer employee Joseph Feczko, M.D.(doc. 178),
and the plaintiff’s response to said motions (doc. 184).
These motions raise the issue of the court’s subpoena power under Rule
45, Fed.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 45 states in relevant part as follows:
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must
quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a
party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from
where that person resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person--except
that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person
may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling
from any such place within the state where the
trial is held;
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other
protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by
a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or
modify the subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial
information;
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or
information that does not describe specific
occurrences in dispute and results from the
expert's study that was not requested by a party;
or
(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's
officer to incur substantial expense to travel
more than 100 miles to attend trial.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45(c)(3).
Clearly, Rule 45 distinguishes, in multiple places, between parties, parties’
officers, and non-parties. According to defendant, this distinction is
meaningless, and the limitation against requiring any potential witness to travel
more than 100 miles applies in spite of the language set forth above. However,
“[‘t]he majority of courts interpret [the Rule 45] provisions together to mean that
a court may compel the trial testimony of a party or a party’s officer even when
the person to be compelled resides beyond the 100–mile range for subpoenas.” In
re Levaquin Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 4867407,*1
(D.Minn.2010), citing Lyman v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 719,
2
Case 2:10-cv-01463-IPJ Document 217 Filed 10/04/12 Page 2 of 4
733 (E.D.Wis.2008). The Minnesota district court also noted that “in MDLs,
courts are even less likely to prescribe territorial restrictions since such
restrictions could hinder litigation and the intent of an MDL is to make litigation
more efficient.” In re Levaquin Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL
4867407,*1 (D.Minn.2010) citing In re Vioxx Products Liab. Litig., 438
F.Supp.2d 664, 667 (E.D.La.2006)(noting “the realities of modern life and
multi-district litigation”).
Research it

Willingboro, NJ

#1190 Jan 30, 2013
First part of the decision:
FILED
2012 Oct-04 PM 03:27
U.S. DISTRICT COURT
N.D. OF ALABAMA
Case 2:10-cv-01463-IPJ Document 217 Filed 10/04/12 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA
SOUTHERN DIVISION
IN RE: CHANTIX
(VARENICLINE) PRODUCTS
LIABILITY LITIGATION
Plaintiff: Judy Ann Whitely, as
trustee for the next-of-kin of Mark
Alan Whitely, deceased
This Order Relates To:
CASE NO: 2:10-CV-1463-IPJ
Master File No.: 2:09-CV-2039-IPJ
MDL No. 2092
ORDER
Pending before the court are the motion of Ian Read, Diana Hughes, Carl
Wilbanks, and defendant to quash trial subpoenas (doc. 176), the motion to
quash trial subpoena of former Pfizer employee Joseph Feczko, M.D.(doc. 178),
and the plaintiff’s response to said motions (doc. 184).
These motions raise the issue of the court’s subpoena power under Rule
45, Fed.R.Civ.Pro. Rule 45 states in relevant part as follows:
(3) Quashing or Modifying a Subpoena.
(A) When Required. On timely motion, the issuing court must
quash or modify a subpoena that:
(i) fails to allow a reasonable time to comply;
(ii) requires a person who is neither a party nor a
party's officer to travel more than 100 miles from
where that person resides, is employed, or
regularly transacts business in person--except
that, subject to Rule 45(c)(3)(B)(iii), the person
may be commanded to attend a trial by traveling
from any such place within the state where the
trial is held;
(iii) requires disclosure of privileged or other
protected matter, if no exception or waiver
applies; or
(iv) subjects a person to undue burden.
(B) When Permitted. To protect a person subject to or affected by
a subpoena, the issuing court may, on motion, quash or
modify the subpoena if it requires:
(i) disclosing a trade secret or other confidential
research, development, or commercial
information;
(ii) disclosing an unretained expert's opinion or
information that does not describe specific
occurrences in dispute and results from the
expert's study that was not requested by a party;
or
(iii) a person who is neither a party nor a party's
officer to incur substantial expense to travel
more than 100 miles to attend trial.
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 45(c)(3).
Clearly, Rule 45 distinguishes, in multiple places, between parties, parties’
officers, and non-parties. According to defendant, this distinction is
meaningless, and the limitation against requiring any potential witness to travel
more than 100 miles applies in spite of the language set forth above. However,
“[‘t]he majority of courts interpret [the Rule 45] provisions together to mean that
a court may compel the trial testimony of a party or a party’s officer even when
the person to be compelled resides beyond the 100–mile range for subpoenas.” In
re Levaquin Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL 4867407,*1
(D.Minn.2010), citing Lyman v. St. Jude Medical S.C., Inc., 580 F.Supp.2d 719,
2
Case 2:10-cv-01463-IPJ Document 217 Filed 10/04/12 Page 2 of 4
733 (E.D.Wis.2008). The Minnesota district court also noted that “in MDLs,
courts are even less likely to prescribe territorial restrictions since such
restrictions could hinder litigation and the intent of an MDL is to make litigation
more efficient.” In re Levaquin Products Liability Litigation, 2010 WL
4867407,*1 (D.Minn.2010) citing In re Vioxx Products Liab. Litig., 438
F.Supp.2d 664, 667 (E.D.La.2006)(noting “the realities of modern life and
multi-district litigation”).
Research it

Willingboro, NJ

#1191 Jan 30, 2013
The plaintiff attached the portions of Ian Read's deposition to support the opposition to the motion to quash. That is exhibit 5 to the opposition. Let me know if you want me to post it, it will take up a full page or two. No references at all are made to any lab reports or the ingredients of Chantix.
Virginia Lee

Hopewell, VA

#1192 Jan 31, 2013
No name a link would suffice but you are full of BS and the runny kind too! The lawsuits filed PREVIOUSLY are all about chantix and anything that is in it is PART of what makes up chantix. Since the fact metrocloprmide is part of what makes up chantix and this was just revealed; only an idiot would look in an already settle case. Think time line next time you post a bunch of irrelevent court documents. These all came before the link I posted about chantix containing metoclopramide aka reglan.

Only someone who makes $$$ from chanix would be interested in trying to keep the reglan content quiet!
terri

Saint Louis, MO

#1195 Jan 31, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
No name a link would suffice but you are full of BS and the runny kind too! The lawsuits filed PREVIOUSLY are all about chantix and anything that is in it is PART of what makes up chantix. Since the fact metrocloprmide is part of what makes up chantix and this was just revealed; only an idiot would look in an already settle case. Think time line next time you post a bunch of irrelevent court documents. These all came before the link I posted about chantix containing metoclopramide aka reglan.
Only someone who makes $$$ from chanix would be interested in trying to keep the reglan content quiet!
....GIVE it to him, Virginia!!!!!
Research it

Willingboro, NJ

#1196 Jan 31, 2013
terri wrote:
<quoted text>
....GIVE it to him, Virginia!!!!!
Darn right, Terri! Virginia should never let the facts get in the way of a good conspiracy theory.
Only those who are not among the select few (or is it two?) who know and fully understand the vast conspiracy (right wing? left wing?)are interested in the facts. I didn't give a link for the judge's opinion because only some of the filings are accessible for free and the judge's opinion wasn't one of them. Virginia, you already said you weren't going to spend a buck or two to look at the actual court filings, so I posted it for free. Yes, that case settled. So did the Bedsole case which also settled and which is the case mentioned in that lawyer's blog regarding Reglan. But a little fact you overlooked, Virginia: the Bledsoe case invoved the same deposition of Ian Read taken in 2011 and involved an almost identical motion to quash. In fact,
Bedsole's attorneys attached the judge's prior opinion (the same one that I posted) to their opposition papers. They also attached portions of Ian Read's transcript. And no, he wasn't confronted with any lab report regarding Reglan.

But the actual issues in the pending cases are oh so boring. You go get 'em Virginia!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Healthcare Law Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News Planned Parenthood is not the key to womena s h... Thu huey goins 95
News Second state audit blasts Health Connector for ... Wed Joe Balls 2
News Standing up to hysteria and right-wing deceit -... (Aug '09) Wed leticia 180
News Therapists share success, needs with Kelly Sep 1 Joe to sleep 2
News Brattleboro: Retreat under investigation by Att... Sep 1 Juliet 2
News Patent-Law Change Would Raise Medical Costs Sep 1 fatbacksx 1
News Supporters of Ohio charter-school reforms urge ... Aug 29 Doc 2
More from around the web