Chantix - Does any one else feel a li...
terri

Saint Louis, MO

#1197 Feb 1, 2013
Research it wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
....thanks, Ian.
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1198 Feb 2, 2013
Hey no name

"... brain cells are not passive in the face of drugs like Chantix; in
response the cells change over time, through processes such as
desensitization and up-regulation. Because of genetic and
physiological diversity, one would expect different people to be
affected in different, idiosyncratic ways. Indeed, since it alters
dopamine signals and apparently serotonin signals Chantix would
be expected to have profound effects on mood and behavior...."

That came from te link you posted which is for Pfizer's attempt to block experts. It doesn't suppot your claim but does support the claim of chantix causing crazy.
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1199 Feb 2, 2013
As I stated previously, cytisine and morphine are both agonists. So how is chantix a partial agonist? What chemical made the only ones Pfizer published change their function? Reglan makes sense since it is a dopamine antagonist.

I know right now this information is a "trade secret". I have no need to prove it to you that reglan is contained in chantix. The scientist can't even agree as to whether too much or too little dopamine is the root cause of psychosis and other crazy conditions.

It is Pfizer who is conspiring to keep secrets and exposing their lies does take time and lots of $$$. The fact is Pfizer has lied in the past about many of their products and will continue to hide the truth in order to make $$$.

No wonder they settled the second case in lue of having the experts testify. Facts might just slip out and take chantix off the market. It is still making $$$ for them. Even with all the high priced law firms they hae on their side.

BTW, the law firm whose link I posted to support reglan in chantix is not the one who has represented either of the first 2 settled cases. You are confused. Maybe if you researched it you wouldn't be tripping over the facts.
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1200 Feb 2, 2013
terri wrote:
<quoted text>
....thanks, Ian.
Your comments went over its little head, lol!
Research it

Riverside, NJ

#1201 Feb 2, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
As I stated previously, cytisine and morphine are both agonists. So how is chantix a partial agonist? What chemical made the only ones Pfizer published change their function? Reglan makes sense since it is a dopamine antagonist.
I know right now this information is a "trade secret". I have no need to prove it to you that reglan is contained in chantix. The scientist can't even agree as to whether too much or too little dopamine is the root cause of psychosis and other crazy conditions.
It is Pfizer who is conspiring to keep secrets and exposing their lies does take time and lots of $$$. The fact is Pfizer has lied in the past about many of their products and will continue to hide the truth in order to make $$$.
No wonder they settled the second case in lue of having the experts testify. Facts might just slip out and take chantix off the market. It is still making $$$ for them. Even with all the high priced law firms they hae on their side.
BTW, the law firm whose link I posted to support reglan in chantix is not the one who has represented either of the first 2 settled cases. You are confused. Maybe if you researched it you wouldn't be tripping over the facts.
The first case settled after the court denied the plaintiff's motion to bar Pfizer from cross examining the decedent's brother about his years of lying about his military record. The second case settled after the court ruled that the plaintiff's doctor could not testify as an expert. Now, does that mean the cases settled because of those rulings? No. A lot of factors go in to deciding to settle, but it would be naive to think that the cases settled
because Pfizer's officers may have to testify.

Ingredients in a drug on the market are not trade secrets. Think about it. In addition to the fact that it can't get approved unless the ingredients are disclosed, anyone can have a lab analyze and determine the ingredients. The drug is protected by patents that are also public and that describe in detail all the ingredients.

The partial agonist is varenicline. There are more than 20 law firms representing the plaintiffs in the Alabama cases and that firm is not one of them. I suspect that they may have a marketing person writing the blog and that person got confused and said Chantix was made with Reglan. You are right about the scientists. One of the plaintiff's experts in the first case disagreed with another of the plaintiff's experts, saying that the first expert was really going down the wrong path.

Time to cross the pond,
Ian.
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1202 Feb 2, 2013
The only ingredent listed in chantix is varenicline tartrate. Pfizer made varenline from synthetic cytisine and morphine, that is all they are publishing. Neither of those two sustances ARE dopamine antagonist yet Pfizer states varenicline s a partial agonist. How is chantix a partial agonist by having properties that are also antagonist.

Pfizer hasn't said how they made it an antagonist. Can you reasearch it? You keep skirting the question.

I never claimed to know why the first 2 caes settled. Doesn't really matter to me why. What does matter is WHAT IS IN CHANTIX!

Reglan makes perfect sense to be HOW they added antagonist properties to varenicline. I don't believe the law firm was confused. I do believe the proof of chantix containing reglan will come in due time and raise the number of lawsuits in the process.
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1203 Feb 5, 2013
Research it wrote:
<quoted text>
The first case settled after the court denied the plaintiff's motion to bar Pfizer from cross examining the decedent's brother about his years of lying about his military record. The second case settled after the court ruled that the plaintiff's doctor could not testify as an expert. Now, does that mean the cases settled because of those rulings? No. A lot of factors go in to deciding to settle, but it would be naive to think that the cases settled
because Pfizer's officers may have to testify.
Ingredients in a drug on the market are not trade secrets. Think about it. In addition to the fact that it can't get approved unless the ingredients are disclosed, anyone can have a lab analyze and determine the ingredients. The drug is protected by patents that are also public and that describe in detail all the ingredients.
The partial agonist is varenicline. There are more than 20 law firms representing the plaintiffs in the Alabama cases and that firm is not one of them. I suspect that they may have a marketing person writing the blog and that person got confused and said Chantix was made with Reglan. You are right about the scientists. One of the plaintiff's experts in the first case disagreed with another of the plaintiff's experts, saying that the first expert was really going down the wrong path.
Time to cross the pond,
Ian.
Pfizer settled because they want to put off judgement day! They lie and fraud the general public by paying doctors to lie for them. Is it odd they bought Wyeth who made reglan? Reglan is a generic drug not patent protected. I have read the varenicline pre approval documents presented to the FDA and there was no mention of cytisine or morphine much less reglan. BTW, the chantix cases only have 2 law firms listed not 20.

http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/mdl-2092/MDL_209...

"The complaint charged that Pfizer sent doctors on all-expense-paid trips to resorts, gave out free massages, and paid kickbacks to doctors, all to get them to prescribe its drugs for off-label uses. Although it is legal for physicians to write such prescriptions, and a common practice, companies are barred from actually promoting their drugs for purposes other than those that have won Food & Drug Administration approval."

http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/c...
Research it

Riverside, NJ

#1204 Feb 5, 2013
Virginia Lee wrote:
<quoted text>
Pfizer settled because they want to put off judgement day! They lie and fraud the general public by paying doctors to lie for them. Is it odd they bought Wyeth who made reglan? Reglan is a generic drug not patent protected. I have read the varenicline pre approval documents presented to the FDA and there was no mention of cytisine or morphine much less reglan. BTW, the chantix cases only have 2 law firms listed not 20.
http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/mdl-2092/MDL_209...
"The complaint charged that Pfizer sent doctors on all-expense-paid trips to resorts, gave out free massages, and paid kickbacks to doctors, all to get them to prescribe its drugs for off-label uses. Although it is legal for physicians to write such prescriptions, and a common practice, companies are barred from actually promoting their drugs for purposes other than those that have won Food & Drug Administration approval."
http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/c...
Good evening, Virginia Lee. In the cases pending in Alabama (most of which are transferred from other states to consolidate the cases for court management purposes), there are more than 100 lawyers involved. I suspect that by referencing only two lawyers, you may be referring to the lawyer named as "lead counsel" and the lawyer named as "liaison counsel." In mass tort litigation like this, lead and liaison counsel is designated so that the court isn't inundated with letters and motions by a hundred or more lawyers and every court conference or hearing doesn't have to be scheduled around the calendars of 100 or more lawyers.

To get an idea of how many many lawyers are involved for the plaintiffs, look at the order entered in 2010 appointing lead counsel, the executive committee of plaintiffs' lawyers and a steering committee for the plaintiffs' lawyers.
http://www.alnd.uscourts.gov/mdl-2092/MDL_209...

About 20 firms are involved in this core group. So the plaintiffs are well represented against Pfizer.
Research it

Riverside, NJ

#1205 Feb 5, 2013
Virginia Lee, I was not able to open your links before I posted. So I now realize that your link identified one lawyer as lead counsel and another as liaison counsel. So sorry about the "suspected" part of my post.

Yours truly ,
Didn't research it before posting.
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1206 Feb 6, 2013
You keep avoiding the real question! How did Pfizer make chantix's antagonistic propeties! I say the lawyers are correct and it is by adding REGLAN!
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1207 Feb 6, 2013
I am not the only one who thinks Pfizer settled to keep their CEO's off the stand!

"Pfizer keeps CEO off the stand with another Chantix settlement"

Read more: Pfizer keeps CEO off the stand with another Chantix settlement - FiercePharma http://www.fiercepharma.com/story/pfizer-keep...
Subscribe: http://www.fiercepharma.com/signup...
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1208 Mar 7, 2013
I guess Ian will be kept off the stand. LOL

Chicken!!!
Michelle C

United States

#1210 Apr 11, 2013
Started taking chantix 4-1 and smoked the full week and on 4-8 stopped smoking. Four days smoke free so far. It does work. I am foggy headed and that bothers me and a few dreams out of the ordinary. My mom took chantix 3 years ago with no side affects and is still smoke free. After reading the things I've read on many sites I've googled I'm seriously considering stopping. I believe I've made it through the hardest part of quitting and the risks of having more reaction to this doesn't seem worth it.
terri

Saint Louis, MO

#1211 Apr 12, 2013
Research it wrote:
<quoted text>
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!
...right wing???...left wing????....I don't pretend to know MUCH...nor am I ANY kind of activist....all I know is THIS: My personal experience FORCED me to open my eyes...and look beHIND the scenes as to how a new drug is brought to market. I USED to automatically beLIEVE in doctors. Those degrees on their walls impressed the HELL outta me!! Used to thank God for giving the "chosen" extra brain cells to protect the "rest."

It's not so much that I blame my doctor..., I blame big pharma for hiding what they knew before putting it out there to the "vulnerable" public. It's not just Pfizer and it's not just Chantix that leave a bitter taste. The crooked "ways" of people in power is disgusting! Who knows how much truth about ANYthing and/or EVERYthing is kept from us? Hidden files, dirty little secrets, the $$$$ paid to silence victims...so, they won't/CAN'T tell others what happened to them...and who knows what's goin on UNDER the table....it's sickening....

My point is....one which is probably laughable to those in the "know"...is that everyone has a price...and no one has your back...learned the HARD way...what a cold, extremely cruel, GREEDY, world we live in. Go ahead...laugh!! It IS kind of funny it took me THIS long to finally get it...
HumanSpirit

High Springs, FL

#1212 May 16, 2013
chris wrote:
the drug blocks your nicotine receptors so even though you were smoking you wern't feeling it. you were still on a nic fit.
No test for chemical imbalance of the brain.

........

APA Admits there is no test for "chemical imbalance"

American Psychiatric Association admitted it lied to the American Public

http://www.webwire.com/ViewPressRel.asp...

Biopsychiatry Illuminated

THE CANDLELIGHT PROJECT by Bob Collier

29 September 2003 Issue 61

This week, a few representative excerpts from an article that I discovered on my internet travels only a matter of days ago, concerning the area in which biopsychiatry has, it seems to me, most comprehensively misled the world at large.

Please go to the website linked to below the excerpts and read the complete article. Then you will not be bamboozled should a doctor, teacher, journalist, ad man, politician, family member, friend, some bloke in your local pub, or whoever, start waffling on at you about 'mental illness' being caused by 'chemical imbalances' in the brain. You will know better!

There Are No "Chemical Imbalances"

"The hypothetical disturbances of neurochemical function that are said to underlie "mental illness" are just that: hypothetical. No experiment has ever shown that anyone has an "imbalance" of any neurotransmitters or any other brain chemicals. Nor could any conceivable experiment demonstrate the existence of a "chemical imbalance," simply because no one, least of all the biopsychiatrists, has the slightest idea what a proper and healthy chemical "balance" would look like."

"...the views and beliefs of biopsychiatry have nothing to do with the answers to scientific questions in any case: the hunt for biological "causes" of "mental illness" is an entirely fallacious enterprise in the first place; the non- existence of data to support its assertions is quite beside the point."

"The latest edition of one pharmacology text has this to say about the status of depression as a disease: "Despite extensive efforts, attempts to document the metabolic changes in human subjects predicted by these [biological] hypotheses have not, on balance, provided consistent or compelling corroboration." This is a long-winded way of admitting that not even a scrap of evidence supports the idea that depression results from a "chemical imbalance." Yet patients are told every day - by their doctors, by the media, and by drug company advertising - that it is a proven scientific fact that depression has a known biochemical origin. It follows directly that millions of Americans are being lied to by their doctors; and people surely can't give informed consent for drug treatment when what they're being "informed" by is a fraud.... To sum up: there is no evidence whatsoever to support the view that "mental illness" is biochemical in origin; in other words, things like "Unipolar Disorder" and "Attention Deficit Disorder" simply do not exist."

Read the complete article, There Are No "Chemical Imbalances" by Eaton T. Fores, at the Eaton T. Fores Research Center:

http://www.etfrc.com/ChemicalImbalances.htm

http://www.adhd-report.com/biopsychiatry/bio_...
Glenn

Baltimore, MD

#1213 May 18, 2013
I smoked 38 yrs.., was up to 4 packs of CIG.a day.Someone sent me some Chanix and tried it.I got my precription and in 2 month I was able to quit.I didn't , have to chew gum , or eat all the time or nothing and I smoked til I started to forget to smoke it was amazing after on month on chantix I quit, there was no snapping at people or being nervous or chewing your finger nails or nothing.I am happy to say after 38 yrs. I don't smoke any more I've been quit 5 & havle yrs .Who cares what's in it, you only take 2 months, and it works. Nobody said anything to the Cigerrett company's when they nicotine in it to start with.the CIG
company's are the ones putting barriers , so people can't use this drug I think that's bunch of crap
I hope the ciggerett company go bank rup my self they had in the Washington post about a law suit on them do raising the nicotine level 35 % between 1998 & 2004.Anyway I beat them, and they kiss my ass.So everybody's about the drug company's who has found a cure
Glenn

Baltimore, MD

#1214 May 18, 2013
So everybody's worried about what the drug company's, use you better be worried about the cigerrett company. At least the drug company's did find a cure, the ciggerett company's are getting despertat.you know CIG. are not inspected by the government , no USDA inspectors to control how much nicotine is put in
That's what people better start worrying about thanks!
Virginia Lee

Petersburg, VA

#1215 Jun 4, 2013
Ahhhh Glenn, nicotine in naturally in tobacco. Since the government stepped in to limit lawsuits on tobacco companies, the agreement of 1998 has done just that, limit lawsuits and allowed tobacco companies to spike nicotine levels. But go ahead and trust them. You can't spell cigarette after using them for 38 years and never read the lable ... why listen to warning lables now? Chantix is only a substitute for nicotine duh! One that might cure of the pleasures of living.
Michael

Elm City, NC

#1216 Sep 1, 2013
I just finished taking Chantix about three days ago. No real bad side effects while on it.. but now that i am off of it, it is horrible. Crazy thoughts, depression. I would much rather kill myself smoking than deal with this.
Carrie

United States

#1217 Sep 20, 2013
This medicine is crazy. I've been on it for 2 weeks now. And I feel totally different, and not in a good way.
Morning Show wrote:
Hello all,
I am a Production Assistant for a nationally broadcast television morning show. We are looking for someone (either patient or Dr.) who opposes Chantix because of its side effects, and a lot of posts on this website seem to relate to the direction of our segment.
If you have a story about Chantix, or are an expert in the field, and would like to talk about it on TV, please email me at morningshowmatt@hotmail.com.
Thank you so much
Best,
Matt

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
Weird Dreams While Taking Chantix (Aug '07) 7 hr Joe 598
Any side effects while on Chantix? (Jul '07) 12 hr Izzy 1,747
News Millions more Americans were uninsured in 2017 16 hr notfromhere 1
News Indiana bill would allow nine more opioid treat... Tue CureAll 1
Has anyone heard of Pfizer's Chantix (Dec '06) Mon CowboyLawyer 70,595
News Winnebago Mental Health Institute plagued by ne... (Sep '07) Jan 14 Rockinreg 60
chantix - problems after quitting or weaning (Jun '07) Jan 12 nancy 6,520
More from around the web