JANUARY 2007: News on SSRIs, other Psych Drugs and Related Issues

JANUARY 2007: News on SSRIs, other Psych Drugs and Related Issues

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

December 23rd, 2006, 2:44 pm #1

In this thread.  Plus testing the site changing to unicode and getting it back.

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

December 28th, 2006, 4:59 pm #2

<STRONG>In June 2004</STRONG>, after <STRONG><FONT size=4>years</FONT> </STRONG>of correspondence&nbsp;(first dating back to the late 20th Century) &nbsp;between David Healy&nbsp;(http://www.healyprozac.com/MCA/default.htm)&nbsp; and Charles Medawar&nbsp;&nbsp;of Social Audit (http://www.socialaudit.org.uk)&nbsp;on the one side (pointing out various faults with clinical trial data etc) and the MHRA on the other&nbsp;(<STRONG><EM>seemingly trying their hardest not to notice for as long as possible</EM></STRONG>), a piece of journalism gave the more optimistic people some hope - and the rest of us another <STRONG>"OH YEAH!&nbsp;AS IF!" </STRONG>moment.&nbsp;

After all, the MHRA are paid by the pharma industry.&nbsp; BUT they had to do SOMETHING to <STRONG>"Look Busy"</STRONG> because its a popular belief throughout the UK (except it seems amongst MHRA members) &nbsp;that it's <STRONG>THEIR</STRONG> <STRONG>JOB </STRONG>to regulate the safety of drugs&nbsp;made by those who pay their salaries, and it was becoming apparent that&nbsp; <EM><STRONG>'not noticing' </STRONG></EM>was starting to lack the efficacy they had become accustomed to.&nbsp; This&nbsp;was probably&nbsp;due to more public awareness which just WOULDN'T go away&nbsp;&nbsp;which in turn was helped along by factors such as&nbsp;BBC's Panorama&nbsp;that&nbsp;had highlighted one of the SSRIs (Seroxat / Paxil / Aropax)&nbsp; and Richard Brook of MIND spending time around them and that kind of thing.&nbsp; What with all the aforementioned correspondence, the spotlight and public awareness - they'd already taken a step far further than they wanted to (or intended to while they were <EM><STRONG>'not noticing the correspondence' </STRONG></EM>effectively) by barring SSRIs for children - except for <STRONG>Eli Lilly's prozac </STRONG>(which data on safety was as falsified as&nbsp;the data&nbsp;of two of their competitors,&nbsp; but presumably you can't displease ALL&nbsp;your biggest employers at the same time, otherwise who'd pay the salary?).

<STRONG>Anyway, here is 'that' June 2004 piece of journalism:</STRONG>

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/artic ... 20,00.html
"The Sunday Times June 06, 2004

<EM>"...Depending on its findings,<STRONG> the MHRA could choose to prosecute either Glaxo as a company or go after named individuals. </STRONG>If found guilty, the penalties could include fines <STRONG>or imprisonment</STRONG>..."</EM>

<FONT size=4><FONT size=3><STRONG>Some of us are still even now wondering </STRONG>(as we did at the time) whether the&nbsp;news reporters&nbsp;of that article actually believed that the MHRA were unaware of&nbsp; the harmful side effects of SSRIs and SNRIs, and<STRONG> </STRONG>believed instead that&nbsp;they&nbsp;were a&nbsp;righteously indignant group of&nbsp; pharmaceutically-paid drug regulators who, hurt and dismayed because of the harm done to the recipients of those drugs, would prosecute their 'employers' (what else can they be, the industry pays them) <STRONG>and even imprison them </STRONG>for misleading them so badly and causing so much suffering to people.&nbsp;&nbsp;&nbsp; <EM>What a quandry the MHRA and the industry&nbsp;must have been in working out how to get out of the annoying spotlight and who was to carefully blame who without inflicting too much harm on the other (f<STRONG>ines</STRONG> are pretty common and don't harm the industry much), and for how long!</EM></FONT></FONT>

<STRONG>THEN, in December 2004, came another "OH YEAH!&nbsp; AS IF!" moment</STRONG>...

An announcement&nbsp;appeared on the MHRA site seeking&nbsp; <STRONG><FONT size=4>our views (!) </FONT><EM>(a concept entirely new to us as they'd been ignoring our views consistently until that point, but perhaps they didn't mean anyone who'd experienced the bad side of their approved drugs?) </EM></STRONG>on a proposal to keep their naughty 'employers' from abusing their own&nbsp; innocence so badly.&nbsp; And this was it:

"... <FONT size=2><STRONG>24 December 2004
MLX 311: Proposals to introduce new criminal offences related to information provided to the Licensing Authority
</STRONG></FONT><FONT size=2><STRONG>MLX 311 - Word format (369KB)</STRONG></FONT>
<FONT size=2><STRONG>MLX 311- pdf format (228KB)</STRONG></FONT>

<STRONG><FONT size=2>MLX 311 seeks your views on proposals to introduce Regulations establishing new criminal offences of failing to provide or providing false or misleading information to the Licensing Authority in support of an application for the grant, renewal, or variation of a marketing authorisation for a medicinal product, and in specified circumstances during the currency of a marketing authorisation or in relation to the sale or supply of unlicensed medicinal products ('specials').
</FONT></STRONG><STRONG><FONT size=2>Comments on these proposals can be submitted online using the attached form</FONT></STRONG><FONT size=2><STRONG> or by post or e-mail as detailed in the letter.
The deadline for comments is 25 March 2005. </STRONG>...."</FONT>

Good idea?&nbsp; WELL there's a flaw or two as far as I can see.&nbsp; Probably ones that both the MHRA and their 'employees are aware of, but that my view.&nbsp; The flaw is this:

<STRONG><FONT size=2>Have in fact the industry actually failed to provide, or provided false or misleading, information to the MHRA/Licensing Authority?&nbsp; If they haven't then there can never be criminal charges laid against them for doing so.&nbsp; </FONT></STRONG>

<FONT size=2>So a proposal perhaps not worth the ink it was written&nbsp;in (or the wear on the keyboard). Should the proposal <STRONG>require a change of wording to include criminal offences against both&nbsp; companies who falsify information and regulators such as the MHRA&nbsp;who HAVE that information but&nbsp;DO NOT ACT ON IT, instead giving&nbsp; harmful drugs their 'expert' (therefore 'trusted') &nbsp;licensing 'seal of approval'&nbsp;?&nbsp; </STRONG>This doesn't only apply to SSRIs, or psychiatric drugs generally, BUT ACROSS THE BOARD.</FONT>

<STRONG><FONT size=2>NOW LETS MOVE UP a year to 2005.&nbsp; </FONT></STRONG>

<FONT size=2>In 2005 a Government <STRONG>Select Committee Report </STRONG>outlined the problems with the MHRA.&nbsp; <STRONG>Professor Blumsohn </STRONG>(who is <STRONG>not</STRONG> a psychiatrist and yet has similar concerns about the regulation of 'medical' drugs) sets this out well, and you can read about it here:&nbsp;

<FONT size=2>http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.c ... cting.html</FONT>
<FONT size=2>but first, I'll take a little from his summary to more clearly explain why perhaps we on THIS site question the MHRA's <STRONG>criminal action </STRONG>proposal above:</FONT>

<FONT size=2><STRONG>"...</STRONG>Criticisms include failure<EM> [of the&nbsp;MHRA]</EM>&nbsp;to properly <STRONG>scrutinise data </STRONG>before licensing drugs)...and an unhealthy inclination to accept "scientific" reports from companies with blind faith without reviewing <STRONG>or retaining </STRONG>raw data.&nbsp;<EM>&nbsp;</EM></FONT>

<FONT size=2><EM>&nbsp;[So the data WAS provided to them, presumably in its 'raw state' and without misleaing the MHRA?]</EM></FONT>

<FONT size=2><EM>"...</EM>practices have developed which act against the public interest." Page 4: The <STRONG>MHRA has failed to adequately scrutinise licensing data </STRONG>.... The organisation has been too close to the industry, a <STRONG>closeness </STRONG>underpinned by common policy objectives, agreed processes, frequent contact, consultation and interchange of staff..."

<EM>[So MHRA and INDUSTRY discuss the data from time to time between each other and agree the process of what to say/do, or not say/do, between moving jobs from one to the other?]</EM></FONT>

"...Page 31: The MHRA relies on company data, presented as a series of detailed assessment reports, in its decision whether or not to licence a drug. Raw data is very rarely analysed..."

<FONT size=2><EM>[It's the MHRA's responsibility to ANALYSE THE DATA, as they do, but 'rarely'.&nbsp; They CHOOSE not to analyse the data, and they CHOOSE to rely on the 'easy for&nbsp;both'&nbsp;way out, just to look at the assessment reports?]</EM></FONT>

<FONT size=2>"...Page 49: The consent forms do not inform patients that the raw data may be maintained by the industry, not made available to the general public or even reviewed by the regulatory authorities..."</FONT>

<FONT size=2><EM>[It isn't that the MHRA don't have ACCESS to the data, its just that they choose not to REVIEW the data]

<FONT size=2>"...Page 79: ..The evidence indicated that the MHRA examined primary (raw) data on drug effects only if it suspected some misrepresentation in the summary data supplied..."</FONT>

<FONT size=2><EM>[That's probably one of the 'agreed processes' - they are after all paid by the industry producing the data and the summaries]</EM></FONT>

<FONT size=2>For the rest of it, please check out <FONT size=2>http://scientific-misconduct.blogspot.c ... cting.html&nbsp; - I've only used a few.</FONT></FONT>

<FONT size=2>Despite that Government REPORT on the MHRA in 2005, was any action taken by the government, either then or in 2006, to revamp the MHRA,&nbsp; to make it more transparent, to make it independent of the industry it is meant to regulate, to make it...</FONT>


<STRONG><EM>And, at the start of 2007, do we have a 'New, Improved, MHRA?</EM></STRONG>


<FONT size=2><FONT size=3></FONT></FONT>&nbsp;

<FONT size=2><FONT size=3>Happy New Year!</FONT>

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

December 29th, 2006, 4:55 pm #3

In this thread.&nbsp; Plus testing the site changing to unicode and getting it back.
Lets look at their outstanding record.


<DIV class=post-body>
<DIV>"...USA Today reports that last year the pharmaceutical industry "faced the most product liability lawsuits of any other industry"-</DIV>
<DIV><STRONG><FONT size=5>17, 027 suits </FONT></STRONG></DIV>
<DIV>more than all other industries with significant liability suits combined: </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>3,236</STRONG> (Manufacturing); </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>2,875 </STRONG>(Chemicals); </DIV>
<DIV>2,717 (Construction); </DIV>
<DIV>2,636 (Financial services); and </DIV>
<DIV><STRONG>1,926 </STRONG>(Insurance).

"The lawsuits," says researcher Thomson West, "<STRONG><FONT size=4>raise questions about whether drugmakers and the FDA pay ample attention to patient safety. Since 2000, more than 65,000 product liability lawsuits have been filed against prescription drugmakers, the most of any industry." No one even knows how many people have died as a result.
The fact that <STRONG><FONT size=4>FDA does not prevent lethal drugs from being brought to market and that FDA allows such drugs to be aggressively advertised - even when their deadly effects are known to the FDA </FONT></STRONG>- have resulted in such lethal drugs to become the most profitable blockbusters. The profitability of lethal drugs has encouraged companies to market toxic drugs.

The fact is the profits far outweigh the cost of defending against product liability law suits.

One also notices the high rate of recidivism among the companies that are repeatedly found in violation of federal and state laws-nothing is done to stop the (at times) criminal violations. <STRONG><FONT size=4>Why is this industry given so much privilege when its modus operandi cause preventable deaths and injury?
Dr. Aubrey Blumsohn, who blew the whistle on the <STRONG><FONT size=4>misrepresentation of clinical trial data</FONT> from Proctor & Gamble's osteoporosis drug, <FONT size=4>Actonel,</FONT></STRONG> has created an internet blog posting documents not usually seen by the public: [<STRONG><FONT color=#000066>Link</FONT></STRONG>]

The blog focuses on research misconduct and the collusion between the pharmaceutical industry, academia, government oversight agency, and scientific journals.

Among the documents posted, are graphs showing <STRONG><FONT size=4>how data vanishes from sight </FONT></STRONG>and from data analysis and a letter from the University of Sheffield where Dr. Blumsohn was a senior lecturer in metabolism. The letter from Professor Eastell was written in response to two letters from Dr. Blumsohn (also posted). The letter is a demonstration of shameful capitulation by a university to Big Pharma and the university's abdication of its foremost responsibility to protect the integrity of science. The letter 1. attempts to rationalize why it was appropriate for authors to be refused access to critical raw data 2. suggests that the first author (Blumsohn) would be removed even as a coauthor unless prepared to sign a journal declaration in the absence of data

The documents can be found on Dr. Blumsohn's blog is at: [<STRONG><FONT color=#000066>Link</FONT></STRONG>]

<A href=""><STRONG><FONT color=#000066>Earlier</FONT></STRONG></A>|<A href=""><STRONG><FONT color=#000066>Later</FONT></STRONG></A>|<STRONG><FONT color=#000066>Main Page</FONT></STRONG> "</DIV></DIV>

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 2nd, 2007, 6:56 pm #4

In this thread.&nbsp; Plus testing the site changing to unicode and getting it back.
See the <STRONG><FONT size=5>ZYPREXA</FONT></STRONG> and <STRONG><FONT size=5>ELI LILLY </FONT></STRONG>related posts with regard to their <STRONG><FONT size=5>INTERNAL DOCUMENTS </FONT></STRONG>and their atttempts to <FONT size=5><STRONG>SUPPRESS THE&nbsp;TRUTH</STRONG> </FONT>about those internal documents&nbsp;in last month's (<FONT size=5><STRONG>December 2006</STRONG></FONT>) thread...


<STRONG><FONT size=4>AFTER you've had a quick and easy listen to what might be described</FONT> </STRONG><EM>(in the absence of anything near&nbsp;honesty and integrity&nbsp;by Eli Lilly and in the presence of their desperate attempts by intimidation and court orders to hide their own data) </EM><STRONG><FONT size=4>as a guide to the&nbsp;scientific methodology of&nbsp;ELI LILLY'S&nbsp;psychiatric drug manufacturing techniques....</FONT></STRONG>

<SPAN name="Konabody"><FONT size=2></FONT>

<FONT size=6><STRONG><FONT size=6><STRONG>Listen Here&nbsp;</STRONG></FONT>

With&nbsp;what seems to be the voice of a 'yet to be determined' Eli Lilly funded psychiatrist, OR IS IT perhaps an industry-friendly courtroom judge,&nbsp;near the end?

If you recognise which one it is, please let us know by emailing any of the many incredibly well-read people across the world at:












<EM>Audio from: </EM><FONT size=1><A href="http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news ... html</FONT><EM></EM></A>

<FONT size=2>(With words by Bill Shakespeare from the UK<EM>)</EM></FONT>

Joined: January 1st, 1970, 12:00 am

January 2nd, 2007, 11:43 pm #5

In this thread.&nbsp; Plus testing the site changing to unicode and getting it back.
<P id=powered-by><A href="http://www.blogger.com/"></A>

<DIV id=main>
<DIV class=post><A name=3163717498428773178></A>
<H3 class=post-title><FONT color=#000066 size=3>http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/01/continuing-legal-efforts-to-suppress.html</FONT></H3>
<H3 class=post-title><FONT size=5>Continuing Legal Efforts to Suppress Zyprexa Documents</FONT></H3>
<DIV class=post-body>
<DIV><FONT color=#000066><IMG height=241 alt=freedom hspace=10 src="http://www.thejabberwock.org/blog/freedom.jpg" width=180 align=left vspace=10 border=0></FONT><STRONG>A "Federal Court Protective Order"......</STRONG>: The continuing efforts to suppress the web release of documents apparently detailing some aspects of Lilly's knowledge of Zyprexa are detailed here:

<STRONG><FONT color=#000066>http://www.zyprexakills.us/</FONT></STRONG>

The site also shows how websites currently mirroring the download have been shut down, and promises to show all current mirrors. Email correspondence supposedly from Lilly's legal team with one website owner is below. It is similar in spirit to the injuction received by this author (See <STRONG><FONT color=#000066>previous post</FONT></STRONG>). Smacks of desperation.

<FONT size=4>What did <STRONG>you</STRONG> do today to protect vulnerable patients honorable Judges ......?

Last edited by SSRIAdmin on January 9th, 2007, 1:43 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

January 4th, 2007, 5:22 pm #6

In this thread.&nbsp; Plus testing the site changing to unicode and getting it back.
<SPAN name="Konabody"><FONT size=2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<STRONG><FONT size=4>It would seem that it was when corruption paid so well that the powerful wealthy corrupt found they could easily buy lawmakers, lawyers and judges.</FONT></STRONG>


<STRONG>Sadly it seems that law and justice are in direct opposition.</STRONG>

<STRONG><FONT size=5>"JUSTICE"</FONT> </STRONG>represents:

<STRONG>Justness, honesty, integrity,&nbsp;decency, honour, virtue, goodness, impartiality,&nbsp;rectitude,&nbsp;fairness, right.</STRONG>

Whereas it would appear by examples of defence of corruption that

<STRONG><FONT size=5>"LAW" </FONT></STRONG>represents:

<STRONG>Unlawfulness, injustice, dishonesty, lack of integrity, dishonour, wrongdoing, fraud, partiality, corruption.</STRONG>


<STRONG>NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROFESSIONALLY PROUD OF, IS IT, although of course it does PAY well.&nbsp;Lawyers have CHOICES in how they behave and whether they choose to represent WHAT IS JUST or what is not. </STRONG>

Here in the Zyprexa&nbsp;matter&nbsp;is one of many examples of law being the opposite of justice:

The lawyers below&nbsp;must be aware of at least SOME of the contents of the Lilly Internal Documents,&nbsp;the&nbsp;deception involved in those documents,&nbsp;the corruption and the risks to lives.&nbsp;&nbsp; They, like us all have the freedom to choose whether to defend JUSTICE or act in upholding the LAW.&nbsp; They choose to take an active part in upholding a &nbsp;'law' which defends that corruption.

http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/01/contin ... press.html

"....Mr. Whalen - You are facilitating the violation of a Federal Court order. Please immediately remove the link to the file "ZyprexaKills.tar.gz" (or its mirror), including all cached materials, or we will take<STRONG> further legal action against your website

</STRONG>Sean P. Fahey Attorney at Law
<FONT size=5><STRONG>Pepper Hamilton LLP
</STRONG></FONT>3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799..."<STRONG>&nbsp; </STRONG>

A quick search on PEPPER HAMILTON's website and a listen to their podcast (see bottom of article) appears to&nbsp;confirm the lengths they <STRONG>seem to CHOOSE</STRONG> to go in <STRONG>USING LAW to DEFEND INDUSTRY FROM&nbsp; </STRONG><STRONG>JUSTICE:</STRONG>

http://www.pepperpodcasts.com/pepper_po ... .html#more

<FONT size=3>"Understanding the Changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure</FONT>
On <STRONG>December 1, 2006, </STRONG>the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing e-discovery became effective. <STRONG>The amendments mark the beginning of a new era in business litigation.</STRONG> The lesson is clear: <STRONG>e-discovery </STRONG>can no longer be an afterthought; business litigants and their counsel must consider <STRONG>e-discovery </STRONG>and the <STRONG>role of e-documents </STRONG>at the outset of the litigation.

Listen to this podcast with Matt Lund, <STRONG>a partner in the </STRONG><STRONG>Detroit office</STRONG><STRONG> of <FONT size=4>Pepper Hamilton</FONT></STRONG>, as he explains these changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure addressing e-discovery.

Click here to receive an electronic copy of a Special Litigation Report by Pepper Hamilton.&nbsp; This special report includes practical information that every client and lawyer should know about e-discovery, including the importance of an effective information management plan before potential litigation and the <STRONG>need to make e-discovery </STRONG>an essential part of your litigation plan in the event of litigation.

(Running Time: 11:14)
<IFRAME src="http://www.hipcast.com/playweb?audioid= ... layer=ap21" frameBorder=0 width=246 scrolling=no height=20> </IFRAME>
MP3 File&nbsp;..."

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

January 5th, 2007, 7:56 am #7

In this thread.&nbsp; Plus testing the site changing to unicode and getting it back.
<SPAN name="Konabody"><FONT size=2>&nbsp;</FONT>http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/business/04drug.html?pagewanted=2&n=Top%2fReference%2fTimes%20Topics%2fPeople%2fB%2fBerenson%2c%20Alex

<FONT size=5>Mother Wonders if Psychosis Drug Helped Kill Son </NYT_HEADLINE>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/JavaScript>function getSharePasskey() { return 'ex=157680000&en=54f90d3ce7d5cd53&ei=5124';}</SCRIPT>

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript type=text/JavaScript>
function getShareURL() {
return encodeURIComponent('http://www.nytimes.com/2007/01/04/business/04drug.html');
function getShareHeadline() {
return encodeURIComponent('Mother Wonders if Psychosis Drug Helped Kill Son');
function getShareDescription() {
return encodeURIComponent('Eli Lilly found that patients taking Zyprexa would be more likely to develop heart disease.');
function getShareKeywords() {
return encodeURIComponent('Schizophrenia,Medicine and Health,Suits and Litigation,Drugs (Pharmaceuticals),Liability For Products,Bipolar Disorder,Lilly&#44; Eli&#44; & Co');
function getShareSection() {
return encodeURIComponent('business');
function getShareSectionDisplay() {

return encodeURIComponent('');
function getShareByline() {
return encodeURIComponent('By ALEX BERENSON');
function getSharePubdate() {
return encodeURIComponent('January 4, 2007');

<DIV id=toolsRight>
<SCRIPT language=javascript>
function submitCCCForm(){
PopUp = window.open('', '_Icon','location=no,toolbar=no,status=no,width=650,height=550,scrollbars=yes,resizable=yes');
// -->

<FORM name=cccform action=https://s100.copyright.com/CommonApp/LoadingApplication.jsp target=_Icon>By <A title="More Articles by Alex Berenson" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/b/alex_berenson/index.html?inline=nyt-per">ALEX BERENSON</A></FORM></DIV></NYT_BYLINE>

At first, the psychiatric drug Zyprexa may have saved John Eric Kauffman’s life, rescuing him from his hallucinations and other symptoms of acute psychosis.

<DIV id=articleInline>
<DIV id=inlineBox>
<DIV class=image>

<P class=caption>John Eric Kauffman maintained a normal weight in 2001, left, but his weight ballooned by October 2003, while he was taking Zyprexa. His mother believes the weight contributed to the heart disease that killed him.
<DIV class=image>
<P class=caption>Last month, Millie Beik talked about her son’s case because she considers it a cautionary tale about Zyprexa’s tendency to cause weight gain. She is angry that Eli Lilly played down the risks of Zyprexa.
</DIV></DIV></DIV><A name=secondParagraph></A>
But while taking Zyprexa for five years, Mr. Kauffman, who had been a soccer player in high school and had maintained a normal weight into his mid-30s, gained about 80 pounds. He was found dead on March 27 at his apartment in Decatur, Ga., just outside Atlanta.

An autopsy showed that the 41-year-old Mr. Kauffman, who was 5 feet 10 inches, weighed 259 pounds when he died. His mother believes that the weight he gained while on Zyprexa contributed to the <A title="Recent and archival health news about heart disease." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/heartdisease/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">heart disease</A> that killed him.

<A title="Eli Lilly" href="http://www.nytimes.com/mem/MWredirect.html?MW=http://custom.marketwatch.com/custom/nyt-com/html-companyprofile.asp&symb=LLY">Eli Lilly</A>, which makes Zyprexa, said in a statement that Mr. Kauffman had other medical conditions that could have led to his death and that “Zyprexa is a lifesaving drug.” The company said it was saddened by Mr. Kauffman’s death.

No one would say Mr. Kauffman had an easy life. Like millions of other Americans, he suffered from <A title="Recent and archival health news about bipolar disorder." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/bipolardisorder/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">bipolar disorder</A>, a <A title="Recent and archival health news about mental health and disorders." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/mentalhealthanddisorders/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">mental illness</A> characterized by periods of <A title="Recent and archival health news about depression." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/depression/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">depression</A> and mania that can end with psychotic hallucinations and delusions.

After his final breakdown, in 2000, a hospital in Georgia put Mr. Kauffman on Zyprexa, a powerful antipsychotic drug. Like other medicines Mr. Kauffman had taken, the Zyprexa stabilized his moods. For the next five and a half years, his illness remained relatively controlled. But his weight ballooned — a common side effect of Zyprexa.

His mother, Millie Beik, provided information about Mr. Kauffman, including medical records, to The New York Times.

For many patients, the side effects of Zyprexa are severe. Connecting them to specific deaths can be difficult, because people with mental illness develop <A title="Recent and archival health news about diabetes." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/diabetes/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">diabetes</A> and heart disease more frequently than other adults. But in 2002, a statistical analysis conducted for Eli Lilly found that compared with an older antipsychotic drug, Haldol, patients taking Zyprexa would be significantly more likely to develop heart disease, based on the results of a clinical trial comparing the two drugs. Exactly how many people have died as a result of Zyprexa’s side effects, and whether Lilly adequately disclosed those risks, are central issues in the thousands of product-liability lawsuits pending against the company, and in state and federal investigations.

Because Mr. Kauffman also smoked heavily for much of his life, and led a sedentary existence in his last years, no one can be sure that the weight he gained while on Zyprexa caused his heart attack.

Zyprexa, taken by about two million people worldwide last year, is approved to treat <A title="Recent and archival health news about schizophrenia." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/schizophrenia/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">schizophrenia</A> and bipolar disorder. Besides causing severe weight gain, it increases blood sugar and <A title="Recent and archival health news about cholesterol." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/cholesterol/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">cholesterol</A> in many people who take it, all risk factors for heart disease.

In a statement responding to questions for this article, Lilly said it had reported the death of Mr. Kauffman to federal regulators, as it is legally required to do. The company said it could not comment on the specific causes of his death but noted that the report it submitted to regulators showed that he had “a complicated medical history that may have led to this unfortunate outcome.”

“Zyprexa,” Lilly’s statement said, “is a lifesaving drug and it has helped millions of people worldwide with schizophrenia and bipolar disorder regain control of their lives.”

Documents provided to The Times by a lawyer who represents mentally ill patients show that Eli Lilly, which makes Zyprexa, has sought for a decade to play down those side effects — even though its own clinical trials show the drug causes 16 percent of the patients who take Zyprexa to gain more than 66 pounds after a year.

Eli Lilly now faces federal and state investigations about the way it marketed Zyprexa. Last week — after articles in The Times about the Zyprexa documents — Australian drug regulators ordered Lilly to provide more information about what it knew, and when, about Zyprexa’s side effects.

Lilly says side effects from Zyprexa must be measured against the potentially devastating consequences of uncontrolled mental illness. But some leading psychiatrists say that because of its physical side effects Zyprexa should be used only by patients who are acutely psychotic and that patients should take other medicines for long-term treatment.

“Lilly always downplayed the side effects,” said Dr. S. Nassir Ghaemi, a specialist on bipolar disorder at <A title="More articles about Emory University" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/e/emory_university/index.html?inline=nyt-org">Emory University</A> in Atlanta. “They’ve tended to admit weight gain, but in various ways they’ve minimized its relevance.”

Dr. Ghaemi said Lilly had also encouraged an overly positive view of its studies on the effectiveness of Zyprexa as a long-term treatment for bipolar disorder. There is more data to support the use of older and far cheaper drugs like lithium, he said.

Last year, Lilly paid $700 million to settle 8,000 lawsuits from people who said they had developed diabetes or other diseases after taking Zyprexa. Thousands more suits are still pending.

But Ms. Beik is not suing Lilly. She simply wants her son’s case to be known, she said, because she considers it a cautionary tale about Zyprexa’s tendency to cause severe weight gain. “I don’t think that price should be paid,” she said.

Mr. Kauffman’s story, like that of many people with severe mental illness, is one of a slow and steady decline.

Growing up in DeKalb, Ill., west of Chicago, he acted in school plays and was a goalie on the soccer team. A photograph taken at his prom in 1982 shows a handsome young man with a messy mop of dark brown hair.

But in 1984, in his freshman year at Beloit College in Wisconsin, Mr. Kauffman suffered a breakdown and was found to have the most severe form of bipolar disorder. He returned home and, after medication stabilized his condition, enrolled in Northern Illinois University. He graduated from there in 1989 with a degree in political science.

For the next year, he worked as a bus driver ferrying senior citizens around DeKalb. In a short local newspaper profile of him in 1990, he listed his favorite book as “Catch-22,” his favorite musician as Elvis Costello, and his favorite moment in life as a soccer game in which he had made 47 saves. A few months later, he followed his mother and stepfather to Atlanta and enrolled in Georgia State University, hoping to earn a master’s degree in political science.

“He wanted so much to become a political science professor,” Ms. Beik said.

But trying to work while attending school proved to be more stress than Mr. Kauffman could handle, Ms. Beik said. In 1992, he suffered his most severe psychotic breakdown. He traveled around the country, telling his parents he intended to work on a political campaign. Instead, he spent much of the year homeless, and his medical records show that he was repeatedly admitted to hospitals.

Mr. Kauffman returned home at the end of 1992, but he never completely recovered, Ms. Beik said. He never worked again, and he rarely dated.

In 1994, the <A title="More articles about Social Security Administration" href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/s/social_security_administration/index.html?inline=nyt-org">Social Security Administration</A> deemed him permanently disabled and he began to receive disability payments. He filed for bankruptcy that year. According to the filing, he had $110 in assets — $50 in cash, a $10 radio and $50 in clothes — and about $10,000 in debts.

From 1992 to 2000, Mr. Kauffman did not suffer any psychotic breakdowns, according to his mother. During that period, he took lithium, a mood stabilizer commonly prescribed for people with bipolar disorder, and Stelazine, an older antipsychotic drug. With the help of his parents, he moved to an apartment complex that offered subsidized housing.

But in late 1999, a psychiatrist switched him from lithium, which can cause kidney damage, to Depakote, another mood stabilizer. In early 2000, Mr. Kauffman stopped taking the Depakote, according to his mother.

As the year went on, he began to give away his possessions, as he had in previous manic episodes, and became paranoid. During 2000, he was repeatedly hospitalized, once after throwing cans of food out of the window of his sixth-floor apartment.

In August, he was institutionalized for a month at a public hospital in Georgia. There he was put on 20 milligrams a day of Zyprexa, a relatively high dose.

The Zyprexa, along with the Depakote, which he was still taking, stabilized his illness. But the drugs also left him severely sedated, hardly able to talk, his mother said.

“He was so tired and he slept so much,” Ms. Beik said. “He loved Shakespeare, and he was an avid reader in high school. At the end of his life, it was so sad, he couldn’t read a page.”

In addition, his health and hygiene deteriorated. In the 1990 newspaper profile, Mr. Kauffman had called himself extremely well-organized. But after 2000, he became slovenly, his mother said. He spent most days in his apartment <A title="Recent and archival health news about smoking." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/smoking/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">smoking</A>.

A therapist who treated Mr. Kauffman while he was taking Zyprexa recalls him as seeming shy and sad. “He was intelligent enough to have the sense that his life hadn’t panned out in a normal fashion,” the therapist said in an interview. “He always reminded me of a person standing outside a house with a party going on, looking at it.”

The therapist spoke on the condition that her name not be used because of rules covering the confidentiality of discussions with psychiatric patients.

As late as 2004, Mr. Kauffman prepared a simple one-page résumé of his spotty work history — evidence that he perhaps hoped to re-enter the work force. He never did.

As Mr. Kauffman’s weight increased from 2000 to 2006, he began to suffer from other health problems, including high <A title="Recent and archival health news about blood pressure." href="http://topics.nytimes.com/top/news/health/diseasesconditionsandhealthtopics/bloodpressure/index.html?inline=nyt-classifier">blood pressure</A>. In December 2005, a doctor ordered him to stop smoking, and he did. But in early 2006, he began to tell his parents that he was having hallucinations of people appearing in his apartment.

On March 16, a psychiatrist increased his dose of Zyprexa to 30 milligrams, a very high level.

That decision may have been a mistake, doctors say. Ending smoking causes the body to metabolize Zyprexa more slowly, and so Mr. Kauffman might have actually needed a lower rather than higher dose.

A few days later, Mr. Kauffman spoke to his mother for the last time. By March 26, they had been out of contact for several days. That was unusual, and she feared he might be in trouble. She drove to his apartment building in Decatur the next day and convinced the building’s manager to check Mr. Kauffman’s apartment. He was dead, his body already beginning to decompose.

An autopsy paid for by his mother and conducted by a private forensic pathologist showed he had died of an irregular heartbeat — probably, the report said, as the result of an enlarged heart caused by his history of high blood pressure.

Ms. Beik acknowledged she cannot be certain that Zyprexa caused her son’s death. But the weight gain it produced was most likely a contributing factor, she said. And she is angry that Eli Lilly played down the risks of Zyprexa. The company should have been more honest with doctors, as well as the millions of people who take Zyprexa, she said.

Instead Lilly has marketed Zyprexa as safer and more effective than older drugs, despite scant evidence, psychiatrists say.

Ms. Beik notes that Stelazine — an older drug that is no longer widely used even though a federally financed clinical trial showed it works about as well as Zyprexa — stabilized Mr. Kauffman’s illness for eight years without causing him to gain weight.

“He was on other drugs that worked,” she said"

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

January 5th, 2007, 8:12 am #8

In this thread.&nbsp; Plus testing the site changing to unicode and getting it back.
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/business/ ... ement.html

<P class=rdheadline><STRONG><FONT size=5>Eli Lilly settling more Zyprexa suits</FONT></STRONG>

<P class=rdbyline>By WALLACE WITKOWSKI
NEW YORK -- <STRONG>The drugmaker Eli Lilly and Co. said Thursday it will settle more liability lawsuits for its anti-psychotic medication Zyprexa for less than $500 million.</STRONG>

<STRONG>The settlement covers more than 18,000 claims that the company did not adequately warn patients taking the medication of a heightened diabetes risk. The Indianapolis-based company did not disclose the exact dollar amount of the new settlement.</STRONG>

<STRONG>In June 2005, Lilly settled more than 8,000 similar claims for a little less than $700 million.</STRONG>

About 1,200 claims would still be outstanding after the latest round of settlements, and the first of those could go to trial this spring.

Lilly spokeswoman Tarra Ryker said in an interview that the new settlement covered more plaintiffs for less money as these particular cases were less viable <STRONG>because a 2003 Zyprexa labeling change addressed a possible diabetes risk.</STRONG>

Lilly will record a settlement charge in the fourth quarter. Analysts surveyed by Thomson Financial expect fourth-quarter earnings per share of 82 cents.

<DIV style="PADDING-LEFT: 10px; FLOAT: right; TEXT-ALIGN: center">
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
<!-- ---------- Advertising.com Banner Code -------------- -->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
var bnum=new Number(Math.floor(99999999 * Math.random())+1);
document.write('<SCR'+'IPT LANGUAGE="JavaScript" ');
document.write('SRC="http://servedby.advertising.com/site=72 ... /SCR'+'IPT>');

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript src="http://servedby.advertising.com/site=72 ... "></SCRIPT>
<!-- ---------- Copyright 2000, Advertising.com ---------- -->
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1 src="http://ads.nwsource.com/RealMedia/ads/a ... "></SCRIPT>

<SCRIPT language=JavaScript><!-- if (parseFloat(navigator.appVersion) == 0) { document.write('<IFRAME WIDTH=300 HEIGHT=250 MARGINWIDTH=0 MARGINHEIGHT=0 HSPACE=0 VSPACE=0 FRAMEBORDER=0 SCROLLING=no BORDERCOLOR="#000000" SRC="http://ads.nwsource.com/RealMedia/ads/a ... "></iframe>'); } // --> </SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript1.1>
var TFSMFlash_VERSION=6;
var TFSMFlash_WMODE="transparent";
var TFSMFlash_OASCLICK="http://ads.nwsource.com/RealMedia/ads/c ... 6530366630";
var TFSMFlash_SWFCLICKVARIABLE="?clickTAG=http://ads.nwsource.com/RealMedia/ads/c ... ites/wwtd/";
var TFSMFlash_SWFFILE="http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/800/14845/11 ... CKVARIABLE;
var TFSMFlash_IMAGEALTERNATE="http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/800/14845/11 ... mr_1a.jpeg";
var TFSMFlash_OASALTTEXT="Click Here";
var TFSMFlash_OASTARGET="_blank";
var TFSMFlash_OASPROTOCOL="http://";
var TFSMFlash_OASDIM="WIDTH='300' HEIGHT='250'";
var TFSMFlash_OASADID="ad_banner";

document.write('<scr'+'ipt src="http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/800/14845/11 ... /scr'+'ipt>');

<SCRIPT src="http://a248.e.akamai.net/7/800/14845/11 ... "></SCRIPT>
<SCRIPT language=VBScript>
on error resume next
MM_FlashCanPlay = ( IsObject(CreateObject("ShockwaveFlash.ShockwaveFlash." & MM_contentVersion)))
"While we remain confident that these claims are without merit, we took this difficult step because we believe it is in the best interest of the company, the patients who depend on this medication, and their physicians," Sidney Taurel, chief executive and chairman, said in a statement.

<STRONG>Ryker said the company plans to go to trial and vigorously defend itself against the 1,200 remaining claims beginning in April. Ryker said these claims are not being settled for "various reasons."</STRONG>

Zyprexa sales accounted for <STRONG>28 percent of Lilly's $3.86 billion in revenue in the most recent quarter.</STRONG>

In December, The New York Times reported Lilly has played down safety data on Zyprexa. Lilly countered that the Times was using illegally obtained documents leaked by a plaintiff lawyer and was using internal memos out of context.

Lilly shares slipped 6 cents to $52.19 in early trading Thursday on the New York Stock Exchange. They have traded in a 52-week range of $50.19 to $59.24."

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

January 9th, 2007, 1:55 pm #9

<SPAN name="Konabody"><FONT size=2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<STRONG><FONT size=4>It would seem that it was when corruption paid so well that the powerful wealthy corrupt found they could easily buy lawmakers, lawyers and judges.</FONT></STRONG>


<STRONG>Sadly it seems that law and justice are in direct opposition.</STRONG>

<STRONG><FONT size=5>"JUSTICE"</FONT> </STRONG>represents:

<STRONG>Justness, honesty, integrity,&nbsp;decency, honour, virtue, goodness, impartiality,&nbsp;rectitude,&nbsp;fairness, right.</STRONG>

Whereas it would appear by examples of defence of corruption that

<STRONG><FONT size=5>"LAW" </FONT></STRONG>represents:

<STRONG>Unlawfulness, injustice, dishonesty, lack of integrity, dishonour, wrongdoing, fraud, partiality, corruption.</STRONG>


<STRONG>NOT SOMETHING TO BE PROFESSIONALLY PROUD OF, IS IT, although of course it does PAY well.&nbsp;Lawyers have CHOICES in how they behave and whether they choose to represent WHAT IS JUST or what is not. </STRONG>

Here in the Zyprexa&nbsp;matter&nbsp;is one of many examples of law being the opposite of justice:

The lawyers below&nbsp;must be aware of at least SOME of the contents of the Lilly Internal Documents,&nbsp;the&nbsp;deception involved in those documents,&nbsp;the corruption and the risks to lives.&nbsp;&nbsp; They, like us all have the freedom to choose whether to defend JUSTICE or act in upholding the LAW.&nbsp; They choose to take an active part in upholding a &nbsp;'law' which defends that corruption.

http://ahrp.blogspot.com/2007/01/contin ... press.html

"....Mr. Whalen - You are facilitating the violation of a Federal Court order. Please immediately remove the link to the file "ZyprexaKills.tar.gz" (or its mirror), including all cached materials, or we will take<STRONG> further legal action against your website

</STRONG>Sean P. Fahey Attorney at Law
<FONT size=5><STRONG>Pepper Hamilton LLP
</STRONG></FONT>3000 Two Logan Square Eighteenth and Arch Streets
Philadelphia, PA 19103-2799..."<STRONG>&nbsp; </STRONG>

A quick search on PEPPER HAMILTON's website and a listen to their podcast (see bottom of article) appears to&nbsp;confirm the lengths they <STRONG>seem to CHOOSE</STRONG> to go in <STRONG>USING LAW to DEFEND INDUSTRY FROM&nbsp; </STRONG><STRONG>JUSTICE:</STRONG>

http://www.pepperpodcasts.com/pepper_po ... .html#more

<FONT size=3>"Understanding the Changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure</FONT>
On <STRONG>December 1, 2006, </STRONG>the amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure addressing e-discovery became effective. <STRONG>The amendments mark the beginning of a new era in business litigation.</STRONG> The lesson is clear: <STRONG>e-discovery </STRONG>can no longer be an afterthought; business litigants and their counsel must consider <STRONG>e-discovery </STRONG>and the <STRONG>role of e-documents </STRONG>at the outset of the litigation.

Listen to this podcast with Matt Lund, <STRONG>a partner in the </STRONG><STRONG>Detroit office</STRONG><STRONG> of <FONT size=4>Pepper Hamilton</FONT></STRONG>, as he explains these changes to the Rules of Civil Procedure addressing e-discovery.

Click here to receive an electronic copy of a Special Litigation Report by Pepper Hamilton.&nbsp; This special report includes practical information that every client and lawyer should know about e-discovery, including the importance of an effective information management plan before potential litigation and the <STRONG>need to make e-discovery </STRONG>an essential part of your litigation plan in the event of litigation.

(Running Time: 11:14)
<IFRAME src="http://www.hipcast.com/playweb?audioid= ... layer=ap21" frameBorder=0 width=246 scrolling=no height=20> </IFRAME>
MP3 File&nbsp;..."
it acts in the interests of vulnerable patients and the doctors caring for them,&nbsp; or in the interests of Eli Lilly and its secrecy and deception regarding Zyprexa.&nbsp; Hopefully Judge Weinstein, who certainly sounds&nbsp;fair in the transcript below,&nbsp;will make a good and just decision once he had all the facts in his possession.&nbsp;

<SPAN name="Konabody"><FONT size=2></FONT></SPAN>&nbsp;

<SPAN name="Konabody">Emphasis in text added.</SPAN>

<SPAN name="Konabody"><FONT size=1>http://ssri-uksupport.com/davin.html</FONT>

3 - - - - - - - - - - - - - X
5 - - - - - - - - - - - - - X&nbsp; MDL No. 1596
6 United States Courthouse
7 Brooklyn, New York
8 <STRONG>January 3, 2007</STRONG>
11:00 o'clock a.m.
20 Court Reporter: Burton H. Sulzer
225 Cadman Plaza East
21 Brooklyn, New York (718) 613-2481
22 Proceedings recorded by mechanical stenography, transcript
23 hproduced by computer-aided transcription.

1 (Open court-telephone call placed.)
2 <STRONG>A Voice:</STRONG> David Cohen.
3 <STRONG>MR. COHEN:</STRONG> Yes. I'm here in Philadelphia,
4 Pennsylvania.
5 <STRONG>A Voice:</STRONG> Mr. Chabasinski.
6 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> Ted Chabasinski. I'm here in
7 Berkeley, California.
8 <STRONG>A Voice:</STRONG> John McKay.
9 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> John McKay in Anchorage, Alaska.
10 <STRONG>A Voice:</STRONG> George Lehner.
11 <STRONG>MR. LEANER:</STRONG> George Lehner in Washington, D.C.
12 <STRONG>A Voice:</STRONG> Peter Woodin.
13 <STRONG>MR. WOODIN:</STRONG> Peter Woodin in New York.
14 <STRONG>A Voice:</STRONG> Judge, can you hear all the voices
15 clearly?
16 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> I can hear you.
17 Call the case, please.
18 (Case called-appearances noted.)
19 <STRONG>THE CLERK:</STRONG> Civil cause for motion, in re Zyprexa
20 Products Liability Litigation.
21 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Can you hear, gentlemen?
22 (Parties answer in the affirmative.)
23 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> There was an order signed by Judge Cogan
24 on December 29, 2006. Have you all received copies of it?
25 Anybody on the line who has not?

1 (No response.)
2 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> It indicated that the injunction signed
3 by Judge Cogan would remain in full force and effect until
4 January 3rd, at which time the Honorable Jack B. Weinstein
5 will hear further argument from any interested parties.
6 The interested parties named were Lilly, of course,
7 <STRONG>Terri Gottstein, Jerry Winchester, Dr. Peter Breggin, Dr</STRONG>.
8 <STRONG>Grace Jackson, Dr. David Cohen, Bruce Whittington, Dr. Stephen</STRONG>
9 <STRONG>Kruszewski, Laura Ziegler, Judi Chamberlin, Vera Sherav,
</STRONG>10 <STRONG>Robert Whittaker, and Will Hall</STRONG>
11 Yesterday, when I was informed of this order for a
12 temporary mandatory injunction, I issued an order of my own
13 setting this hearing at 11 o'clock a.m. today.
14 I take it all of you present by telephone or
15 otherwise have received that order; is that correct?
16 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> No. I didn't receive the actual
17 order, but I was made aware of it by one of your staff.
18 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Sorry you didn't receive a copy.
20 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Who is this talking?
21 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> This is Ted Chabasinski in
22 California, representing Judi Chamberlin.
23 I was made aware of it by your staff. Unless there
24 was some information other than the fact that you set the
25 actual hearing, I have no problem with it. If there was

1 something on that document indicating more information, I
2 would appreciate knowing what it is now.
3 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> No, it merely, as I recall, set the
4 hearing for today.
5 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> That was it, your Honor?
8 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> I think my staff was asked to try to
9 contact everyone that might be involved.
10 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> For the record, we did serve the order
11 on Mr. Chabasinski's client via e-mail, which was the method
12 that we had been given by Mr. Gottstein in terms of contacting
13 him.
14 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> I can barely hear what is being
15 said.
16 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Give your name.
17 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> This is Sean Fahey. I just said that
18 the order the court had asked us to provide, the court order
19 to the individual recipients -- we used the e-mail provided to
20 us by Mr. Gottstein to communicate that order. It was the
21 same method of communication of the December 29th order of
22 temporary mandatory injunction.
23 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> I think that the business for the moment
24 is to determine whether the order signed by Judge Cogan on
25 December 29, 2006 at 4:00 p.m. should be extended, modified,

1 or limited in any way.
2 I think probably -- unless there is an objection --
3 the best way to proceed is to have Lilly speak and then have
4 the others present -- the plaintiff present -- and then the
5 people listed in the order, in the order that they are listed,
6 I'll call their roll.
7 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> Thank you, your Honor. This motion, the
8 <STRONG>emergency motion, was brought on Friday before New Year's Eve</STRONG>,
9 <STRONG>was brought on behalf of both Eli Lilly & Company and their</STRONG>
10 <STRONG>law firms as members of the PSC</STRONG>.
11 We brought the motion based on some developments
12 which occurred since Judge Cogan issued his first order in
13 this matter of December 18th.
14 In that order, Judge Cogan, after hearing from
15 Mr. Gottstein and his attorney, found Mr. Gottstein had
16 deliberately and knowingly aided and abetted Dr. Egilman's
17 breach of the CMO, the CMO in this case.
18 The order further required Mr. Gottstein to take
19 immediately take steps to retrieve any documents that he
20 disseminated after receiving them from Dr. Egilman and return
21 them to Special Master Woodin.
22 The people that are listed in the temporary
23 mandatory injunction are the recipients that Mr. Gottstein
24 identified in his certification to Mr. Woodin as recipients of
25 the documents.

1 Mr. Gottstein, on December 22nd, informed the
2 parties that he had spoken with all the recipients of the
3 documents and that no one had refused to return them.
4 Unfortunately, at this point only two individuals
5 have returned them, and what we learned, which led to the need
6 for the temporary mandatory injunction, was that a number of
7 the recipients were taking active steps to disseminate this
8 information via the Internet.
9 There has been discussion about whether these have
10 been widely disseminated or not. The Internet is a very large
11 place, your Honor, but we can tell you that we see no evidence
12 of widespread dissemination. The fact is that as soon as we
13 learned of Websites that attempted to disseminate this
14 information, <STRONG>we have had them shut down.
</STRONG>15 One of the parties on the phone is representing an
16 individual from the MindFreedom.org organization, and I just
17 want to read to you one of the statements that they have
18 posted on a list serve on December 30th, which is after the
19 date of your Honor's order -- I'm sorry, of Judge Cogan's
20 order -- requiring the parties to not disseminate the
21 information and to remove them from Websites.
22 It says, as follows: Someone said -- I'm quoting --
23 someone said that they thought the tore down load link on the
24 Wiki, W-I-K-I, which is a Website that facilitates
25 information, downloads information, was working. It is not as

1 of now. It goes nowhere. So it's apparently conclusive: I
2 no of no source for anyone to download these documents at this
3 time.
4 Now, despite these statements that there is no place
5 for anyone to download on the Internet, <STRONG>at least a number of
</STRONG>6 <STRONG>the individuals that are listed in this mandatory injunction</STRONG>
7 <STRONG>were taking active steps to continue to try to facilitate the</STRONG>
8 <STRONG>downloading of the information by providing information about</STRONG>
9 <STRONG>where these documents may be found</STRONG>.
10 The current information on these Websites all link
11 to Websites that do not provide access anymore because they
12 have been shut down. What we are simply asking the court is
13 to provide relief of enforcing the original order of December
14 18th, which required the return of the documents in the
15 possession of these recipients to Special Master Woodin and to
16 avoid further dissemination of them via any means, including
17 the Internet.
18 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Do the plaintiffs wish to be separately
19 heard?
20 MR. MEADOW: Yes, your Honor. Richard Meadow from
21 the Lanier law firm. As a member of PSC, and on behalf of the
22 Lanier law firm, we join in the application made by Lilly.
23 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Terri Gottstein, do you wish to be
24 heard?
25 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Thank you, your Honor. This is John

1 McKay appearing on behalf of Terri Gottstein. Miss Gottstein
2 is the wife of James Gottstein, who is the party referred to
3 in Mr. Fahey's remarks.
4 I would ask, since you are just coming into this
5 case after being gone while this came up, I would ask your
6 indulgence. I understand from a letter that I received, sent
7 by Mr. Fahey after 8 o'clock last night, that he's made an
8 application to you which we may want to address further
9 concerning an order to show cause.
10 I would simply ask at this point that you entertain
11 the possibility that there may be two sides to the story and
12 that the facts as portrayed in the letter may not be the final
13 word -- at least there may be, at there often is, another side
14 to the story when there is a chance to be heard on this.
15 With respect to the order that Judge Cogan entered,
16 Mr. Gottstein has concerns and reservations about a number of
17 things related to securing the order, including questions of
18 <STRONG>due process</STRONG>.
19 As Mr. Fahey indicates, Mr. Gottstein was on the
20 phone during that hearing, as was I. At the same time I
21 indicated that I was on the phone, having just been contacted
22 by Mr. Gottstein as the hearing was beginning. <STRONG>He did not</STRONG>
23 <STRONG>have an opportunity to consult with counsel </STRONG>or to review this
24 matter in advance or have any notice.
25 I'm not trying in this hearing to raise those

1 questions, your Honor, other than to say that this is a
2 serious matter. Mr. Gottstein has taken this seriously.
3 When Eli Lilly's attorney, Mr. Jameson, sent him a
4 letter advising him of Lilly's objections, no further
5 distribution was made by him, he voluntarily complied with the
6 order to.
7 He complied with the order -- began complying with
8 the order before it was signed, issued a certificate of
9 compliance outlining in great detail the steps that he has
10 taken.
11 There was a hearing before Judge Cogan, which
12 addressed in detail the steps that he has taken. My
13 understanding is a daily transcript had been ordered somewhat
14 routinely in this case.
15 I don't believe there is a transcript that is in the
16 record of that hearing, the most recent hearing of Judge
17 Cogan, but if you do have access to that, you will see that
18 Mr. Gottstein has been diligently complying.
19 So in terms of this request, your Honor,
20 Mr. Gottstein's believes -- and we can take this up at a
21 further time, I assume -- that he acted appropriately, did not
22 act inappropriately. We understand that there is room for
23 disagreement there, but the point is that once the order was
24 issued, he has fully complied.
25 He has contacted the individuals to whom he gave it.

1 I believe that more than two people have returned the
2 document. I know that Mrs. Gottstein represented that, in
3 responding to the order immediately provided her copy back to
4 him, as did another individual. Those are both listed as
5 distributed, and I believe at least one or more of the other
6 parties have done so to Master Woodin. He could respond on
7 that.
8 In any event, Mr. Gottstein does not object to the
9 provision. He believes that the documents -- <STRONG>that the public</STRONG>
10 <STRONG>interest is served by disclosure of these documents, but that
</STRONG>11 <STRONG>in complying with the court's order, he has taken appropriate
</STRONG>12 <STRONG>steps to comply</STRONG>, so that I don't know if Mr. Fahey is
13 requesting a continuation of the December 29th order -- it
14 sounds like he is -- but we understand the desirability of the
15 parties to the case to continue the order and preserve that
16 status quo while issues are being resolved.
17 We're not asking for that, but we understand that,
18 and it's completely consistent with what Mr. Gottstein has
19 done to date since the order was issued and before.
20 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> By Mr. Gottstein, you mean James
21 Gottstein?
22 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Yes, your Honor. James Gottstein is the
23 attorney in the Alaska case who subpoenaed the documents from
24 Dr. Egilman, which kicked off this controversy, your Honor.
25 <STRONG>There is something that I assume will be taken up at
1 <STRONG>an appropriate time, but Dr. Egilman was subject to a</STRONG>
2 <STRONG>protective order issued by this court, which required that he</STRONG>
3 <STRONG>give notice to Lilly, and a reasonable opportunity for Lilly's
</STRONG>4 <STRONG>counsel to object</STRONG>.
5 <STRONG>He did give notice to Lilly the day that he received</STRONG>
6 <STRONG>the subpoena from Mr. Gottstein and then, after some days had</STRONG>
7 <STRONG>passed, released the documents and he has not received an
</STRONG>8 <STRONG>objection from Lilly's counsel.</STRONG> Lilly believes, I'm
9 confident, that he did not wait a reasonable time. <STRONG>He
</STRONG>10 <STRONG>believes that he did</STRONG>. That's a factual question. In the
11 meantime, Lilly obtained these orders.
12 On behalf of Terri Gottstein, the spouse, who
13 received a copy and is subject to this order, I can tell that
14 you she is fully compliant with the court's order. In terms
15 of James Gottstein, if there's going to be some discussion
16 about continuing an order, I guess I would ask your Honor that
17 if any further order is continued that there be some
18 opportunity to revisit the issue of findings that were made
19 without any adequate notice or opportunity to <STRONG>respond or
</STRONG>20 <STRONG>address those, including findings that Mr. Fahey has commented</STRONG>
21 <STRONG>about willful violations</STRONG>.
22 Mr. Gottstein has not had an opportunity to address
23 that, and <STRONG>the allegation that he willfully aided and abetted
</STRONG>24 <STRONG>the violation by Dr. Egilman in part seems premature when
</STRONG>25 <STRONG>there has been no finding that Dr. Egilman, who, to my
1 <STRONG>knowledge, has not been deposed or been the subject of any
</STRONG>2 <STRONG>evidentiary hearing, that Dr. Egilman himself violated this
4 I understand Lilly's position that he did. I
5 understand Mr. Gottstein -- Mr. Egilman -- Dr. Egilman's
6 position that he did not.
7 I understand the desire to maintain the status quo
8 and prevent further dissemination of the documents while these
9 issues are sorted out, but I would ask that there be some
10 opportunity to address, really for the first time in any
11 meaningful fashion, <STRONG>whether there was in fact a violation</STRONG>.
12 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> There will be full opportunity, should
13 it be necessary.
14 The reason I asked about James and Terri is that I'm
15 interested in who you represent, James Gottstein, or Terri
16 Gottstein, or both.
17 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Your Honor, to date I have represented
18 James Gottstein, who is the attorney in the Alaska case that
19 we just discussed.
20 This hearing, as I understand it, was to discuss the
21 December 29th order of Judge Cogan that was to expire today.
22 <STRONG>James Gottstein is not a party, a respondent to that order.
</STRONG>23 The way it was framed, it was addressed to the recipients of
24 the document, to people who received documents from him.
25 In the course of responding fully to that

1 injunction, one of the people that was disclosed as a
2 recipient of those documents was his wife.
3 She simply got a copy of a DVD. She never looked at
4 it. As soon as she was asked for it, she returned it, but
5 because she is a respondent, I have entered -- I have appeared
6 on her behalf today. But I generally represent James
7 Gottstein.
8 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> All right. You will explain to your
9 clients the possible conflict, but I<STRONG> see no reason why you</STRONG>
10 <STRONG>should not be permitted today to appear on behalf of James
</STRONG>11 <STRONG>Gottstein and Terri Gottstein</STRONG>, and your appearance is noted on
12 behalf of both of them.
13 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Thank you, your Honor.
14 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Jerry Winchester. Not present.
15 <STRONG>Dr. Peter Breggin.</STRONG> Not present.
16 <STRONG>Dr. Grace Jackson.</STRONG> Not present.
17 <STRONG>Dr. David Cohen.</STRONG> Not present.
18 <STRONG>Bruce Whittington.</STRONG> Not present.
19 <STRONG>Dr. Stephen Kruszewski.</STRONG> Not present.
20 <STRONG>Laura Ziegler.</STRONG> Not present.
21 <STRONG>Judi Chamberlin.</STRONG>
22 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> Ted Chabasinski representing Miss
23 Chamberlin. I would like to point out to the court <STRONG>that I in
</STRONG>24 <STRONG>fact probably had more notice than anyone else of this
</STRONG>25 <STRONG>hearing, which is perhaps three-quarters of the day, and I
1 <STRONG>come to this hearing in a state which I have never been in
</STRONG>2 <STRONG>before; that is, I'm not very prepared because this is very
</STRONG>3 <STRONG>short notice </STRONG>and I don't think I've really received -- right
4 now I know that there is a temporary injunction in effect,
5 which was obtained ex parte, as it's supposed to be, and if
6 you extend that, I assume it has a -- there is a date beyond
7 which it can't be extended without more of a hearing, am I
8 correct?
9 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Normally, if it's considered a temporary
10 restraining order, it would be, as I recall, a ten-day limit.
11 Do you want a hearing on it?
12 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> I don't want a hearing on this
13 restraining order because I don't think that I can give any
14 good arguments today and, clearly, you have to make a decision
15 today because it expires on to its face today.
16 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Excuse me. I am prepared to hear
17 argument why it should not be extended.
18 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> I don't feel that I'm really
19 prepared to give a coherent argument, your Honor. I need to
20 have more time to prepare some arguments.
21 It has been brought to my attention that there is a
22 <STRONG>Rule 65 that might very well cover this situation</STRONG>, but I don't
23 have access to a law library, it was closed yesterday, and in
24 order to -- I don't think, obviously, there is anything much
25 we can do about this TRO, but I think if you're going to give

1 them something -- give the defendant something more than a
2 temporary injunction -- there has to be more of a hearing than
3 there is today, which I appreciate to have any hearing at all
4 of course, you're not required to. But I do ask --
5 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Excuse me. I'm perfectly willing to set
6 a hearing date. I will extend it until that hearing date.
7 What date do you want?
8 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> A date as far in advance as
9 possible so I can prepare better arguments than I'm prepared
10 to do today.
11 I'd like to have to as much notice as possible so I
12 can be heard in a fashion where I'll actually have something
13 relevant to say.
14 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> What date do you want?
15 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> What is the maximum date that the
16 TRO can be extended to?
17 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> It can be extended by consent
18 indefinitely.
19 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> It doesn't have my consent to do
20 that.
21 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Well then it will be extended for ten
22 days from the date it was issued.
23 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> That's the 29th -- that's only the
24 8th.
25 I would not object to an extension beyond, I think

1 it would be the 8th, would make it ten days, am I correct, or
2 the 7th --
4 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> And I would prefer to have more
5 time, so I would not object to an extension perhaps to the
6 15th of January.
7 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> January 15th?
9 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> That is a Monday. It's a holiday. How
10 about the 16th?
11 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> Fine. The more notice the better,
12 your Honor.
13 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> All right. So you consent to an
14 extension of Judge Cogan's order to <STRONG>January 16th at 2 o'clock</STRONG>
15 p.m. to take care of -- I take it, you would prefer the
16 afternoon, 2:00 p.m. Eastern?
17 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> 2:00 p.m. would be an excellent
18 time for me.
19 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> 2:00 p.m. on January 16th. I will issue
20 an order -- that's subject to hearing from others, of course.
21 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> I assume that your aide will
22 provide us with a different number for us to call in I assume?
23 Or I'll take care of that --
24 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Yes. Miss Lowe will handle that. We
25 want your fax number, Mr. Chabasinski, what is it?

1 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> My fax number? Unfortunately my
2 fax is out of order. I can provide that to your staff later.
3 You can fax me things at the MindFreedom office and I'll be
4 able to retrieve them.
5 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> What is the fax number?
6 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> Wait a second. Perhaps I can find
7 it. I'm sorry, your Honor. I'm going to have to provide it
8 to your staff. I promise that I will do that.
9 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Call Miss Lowe, please, at your earliest
10 convenience.
11 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> What would the number be for that
12 other aide you're mentioning?
13 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> (718) 613-2523.
14 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> It's the same. I will call them
15 just as quickly as I can after the hearing today.
17 Vera Sherav. Not present.
18 Robert Whittaker. Not present.
19 Will Hall? Not present.
20 All right, Lilly will provide an order extending
21 Judge Cogan's order of December 29th, on consent, to
22 January 16th, at which time a hearing will be held at 2 p.m.
23 in-person in this court by anyone who wishes to appear, or by
24 telephone conferencing by whoever wishes to appear in that
25 way.

1 Lilly will, upon receipt of the signed order, make
2 sure that all interested parties, including those who aren't
3 present here today, are notified.
4 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> Can I just ask for one clarification?
5 Two of the Websites that are associated with people that are
6 linked in this order, the MindFreedom.org --
7 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Could you speak a little louder, please.
8 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> www.mindFreedom.org and www.ahrp.blogspot.com are currently
9 as we speak, <STRONG>still providing</STRONG>,
10 <STRONG>despite the order on the 29th, still providing information</STRONG>,
11 <STRONG>links and such, to what they believe to be the documents</STRONG>, and
12 I would ask that at least until the parties can be heard on
13 January 16th that that information be removed.
14 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> I don't think that's true, your
15 Honor. <STRONG>MindFreedom does not have any way to disseminate this
</STRONG>16 <STRONG>document.
</STRONG>17 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Then there is no objection to expanding
18 the order to that extent. Provide that and we'll expand the
19 order and you'll have to give notice to those organizations.
20 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> Thank you, your Honor.
21 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> That takes care of the temporary
22 mandatory injunction issue, which will be extended until we
23 can have a hearing at the earliest possible date, which is
24 January 16th. I think that complies with Rule 65, no
25 objection having been heard.

1 I also have here an order to show cause, which was
2 provided by Lilly, issued to Mr. Gottstein. Did
3 Mr. Gottstein's attorney get a copy of this?
4 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I did, your Honor. Mr. Fahey sent one
5 by e-mail at 8 o'clock time last night. I have reviewed it.
6 I would like to speak to it, if I might.
7 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Yes, I would like to hear you. Although
8 I've signed the order, I have some reservations about it. It
9 calls, for example, for the appearance, as I read it, at a
10 deposition within five days in New York City. I don't
11 understand that my authority under Rule 45 extends beyond 100
12 miles from New York.
13 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I'm surprised that you signed the order.
14 I would appreciate it if there's an opportunity to address
15 things without the assumption this order is in place.
16 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> The order is in place because an order
17 to show cause is merely a device for placing a motion before
18 the court at an early date. It's not an order for you to
19 appear or to do anything.
20 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I understand the difference, your Honor,
21 but I assumed there would be some opportunity to respond to
22 the request for an order to show cause.
23 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Yes, <STRONG>I'm giving you an opportunity now.</STRONG>
24 <STRONG>I'm prepared to modify the order to show cause based upon our</STRONG>
25 <STRONG>discussion this morning.
1 You may proceed.
2 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Thank you. Your Honor, I do apologize
3 for being less familiar with the procedures in your court.
4 I had assumed when they sent you a letter stating
5 that they intended to seek an order to show cause that I would
6 have an opportunity to respond in writing <STRONG>with something more</STRONG>
7 <STRONG>than a couple of hours notice</STRONG>.
8 In fact, your Honor, what I was going to ask, before
9 I understood just now that you are taking this up now, is that
10 I have an opportunity to address this later in the month.
11 I realize this is a lengthy extension I'm
12 requesting. Mr. Gottstein is on a long scheduled family
13 vacation. He's not in the state. He's not available for me
14 to either meaningfully discuss this with him or, for that
15 matter, certainly to prepare for anything in terms of -- even
16 if the deposition were to be held in Anchorage, it would still
17 take an opportunity to prepare, to go through documents,
18 addressing privilege questions and so on.
19 I think Lilly is aware that Mr. Gottstein is on
20 vacation, not in the state. Lilly has, in the Alaska case
21 that gave rise to this issue, Lilly has agreed that, as I
22 understand it, that further response from Mr. Gottstein will
23 not be required, until I believe, it's February 2nd, which
24 would be about a week and a half or two weeks after
25 Mr. Gottstein returns to the state.

1 I would ask that the same opportunity be given here
2 to file a response to the order to show -- the request for an
3 order to show cause, and we could address those specific
4 issues about where and when a deposition would be taken.
5 I believe that, under the circumstances, that I
6 understand Lilly's desire to inquire of Mr. Gottstein on some
7 of these issues. Many of them are covered already by the
8 certificate of compliance that has been filed with this court.
9 <STRONG>Some of them are clearly overreaching, you know,
</STRONG>10 <STRONG>having him send his office computer to Philadelphia, having</STRONG>
11 <STRONG>him show up in New York for a deposition when they have
</STRONG>12 <STRONG>counsel in Anchorage and so on oh, but I would like a chance
</STRONG>13 <STRONG>to address those matters.
</STRONG>14 There is no emergency at this point, your Honor.
15 Mr. Gottstein has fully and diligently and in good faith
16 complied with both the orders of Judge Cogan, the letter
17 request of Lilly -- he's done so without waiting for orders to
18 be entered in many respects, so there is no need for any undue
19 haste or emergency treatment at this point, <STRONG>and I would to ask
</STRONG>20 <STRONG>that he be allowed to respond in this case at the same
</STRONG>21 <STRONG>timetable that Lilly is agreeing that he can respond in the
</STRONG>22 <STRONG>underlying Alaska case</STRONG>.
23 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> What date do you want?
24 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I believe the -- well, I would suggest
25 February 2nd, I believe that is the date. It gives us a week

1 and a half or two weeks after he returns, and I'm able to sit
2 down and talk with him and go through documents and respond.
3 I believe that is the date that Lilly has agreed to
4 in the Alaska litigation. I would agree to the same date in
5 this case, and I'd be happy to work with Mr. Fahey in the
6 meantime if there is something we can do after he comes back
7 to address some of the questions that are raised by this so
8 that we can present to you only issues that might be in actual
9 dispute.
10 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> This is Sean Fahey. We were told
11 Mr. Gottstein went on vacation. He was supposed to have gone
12 on vacation on September 22nd. Since then he has been sending
13 letters, he has been appearing in the press, he has been
14 quoted about this, and so our position is that if he has
15 enough time to be doing all those other things, this is a lot
16 different from the case up in Alaska, which has a different
17 time line.
18 There is an emergency reason for needing this
19 information. <STRONG>We will go to wherever Mr. Gottstein is</STRONG> on
20 vacation if that's what he wants, but we need to have this
21 information. It's going to be relevant to the hearing we have
22 on January 16th, and it's relevant to the proceedings that we
23 have with Dr. Egilman, and it's relevant to the proceedings we
24 have against him.
25 <STRONG>We need to find out the information about where this
1 <STRONG>information has been disclosed, to whom it's been disclosed</STRONG>,
2 <STRONG>and what knowledge he has about the efforts of the
</STRONG>3 <STRONG>organization that Psych Rights and he have been working in
</STRONG>4 <STRONG>concert with in connection with the dissemination of these
</STRONG>5 <STRONG>documents.
</STRONG>6 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> What date would you suggest?
7 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> I would suggest that if we're going to
8 have an argument on the order to show cause, we can have that
9 on January 5th with Mr. McKay.
10 It may take some time for Mr. Gottstein to peruse
11 the documents, but I don't see any reason to go out into
12 February. I think the middle of January is more than
13 sufficient. He returns, as I understand it, you know, based
14 on his own description of his vacation, on January 15th. If
15 we have a deposition that following week, I think that is
16 appropriate.
17 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I think we're talking about the
18 difference in scheduling a deposition, as I understand it, of
19 one week between what Mr. Fahey is suggesting and what I have
20 suggested as time for us to respond.
21 I'd be happy to try and accommodate the concerns by
22 addressing some of these points, but the issue is not -- we'd
23 have to address -- as I said, I'm not suggesting that
24 Mr. Gottstein would oppose having his deposition taken, I
25 think that Lilly is entitled to do that. <STRONG>There is a question</STRONG>

1 <STRONG>of whether it's premature in light of the issue of
</STRONG>2 <STRONG>Dr. Egilman, but I think that really is a matter for them to
</STRONG>3 <STRONG>address.
</STRONG>4 If there are any questions about where -- I take it
5 from Mr. Fahey's remarks <STRONG>that he has no objection to doing it
</STRONG>6 <STRONG>in Anchorage.
8 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Apparently <STRONG>he's willing to go to Hawaii
</STRONG>9 <STRONG>to do it but not Anchorage. They have local counsel up here</STRONG>
10 <STRONG>already. If he's willing to travel to Hawaii, I assume he
</STRONG>11 <STRONG>could just as well travel to Anchorage</STRONG>, but I think that we
12 can take that up and see if we can come to some sort of
13 agreement on that.
14 Your Honor, I will need some time when Mr. Gottstein
15 returns to be able to go through documents with him and
16 formulate a response.
17 I appreciate Mr. Fahey's remarks that even though
18 he's on vacation he ought to, you know -- if he chooses to
19 give any thought to this matter, which Lilly has been keeping
20 very active while he's on vacation -- that he should be
21 somehow held accountable and not allowed to conclude his
22 vacation.
23 I think in fairness, this is something that has been
24 planned for a year. If there is no emergency on this, if
25 there is a concern about the January 16th hearing, which I

1 assume there is not, since it was set a week after that, we
2 could agree to extend the TRO for another two weeks, so that
3 isn't a problem.
4 <STRONG>There is nothing preventing them from taking
</STRONG>5 <STRONG>Dr. Egilman's deposition, which would help establish whether
</STRONG>6 <STRONG>there is even a violation in the first place</STRONG>, and I would ask,
7 your Honor, that the deposition be scheduled no sooner than
8 the first week of February and that we would address in the
9 meantime, within the week after Mr. Gottstein returns, any
10 questions about documents.
11 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> For the convenience of the parties, I'm
12 going to amend the order to show cause, as requested, by
13 making it returnable on January 16, 2007 at 2 p.m.
14 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> January 16th, your Honor?
16 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> That would be the date on which I would
17 file an opposition or response to the order to show cause?
19 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> So you would expect in that filing to
20 hear our position on whether there should be a deposition,
21 where it should be, what documents should be provided so on?
22 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> That is correct. The request is that
23 the deposition take place within five days of the 16th, but
24 I'll hear you on the 16th.
25 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> So I understand what you're saying, that

1 is the request, but there has been no determination made that
2 it would occur then?
3 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> That's right.
4 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I appreciate your Honor's consideration
5 on this. I would ask that I be given more than a day.
6 I believe that Mr. Gottstein gets in sometime on the
7 15th -- that is my understanding. Assuming that it's at all
8 during the day, that would give us less than one day -- if I
9 could even be given two days after he gets back to address
10 this with him, I would appreciate it. If you're willing to
11 give me, say, until the 18th, I would appreciate that.
12 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> We'll make it January 16th. The court
13 takes judicial notice of the full communication service
14 between the 49th and the 50th States admitted to the Union.
15 On the 16th you will be prepared to argue.
16 Now I've just accepted the order to show cause as
17 drafted, but I have not agreed that under Rule 45 of General
18 Practice the court has the power or the desire to bring
19 Mr. Gottstein into New York City for this purpose. I expect
20 the parties to brief it.
22 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> He's <STRONG>not a party to any action </STRONG>as it now
23 stands. I would suppose Rule 45 would apply.
24 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> Judge Cogan found that he had
25 jurisdiction directly over Mr. Gottstein <STRONG>based on his aiding
1 <STRONG>and abetting the breach of the protective order </STRONG>--
2 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> You better brief it on both sides.
3 There is a question of whether I can bring<STRONG> a nonparty into New</STRONG>
4 <STRONG>York City when he's up in Alaska</STRONG>.
5 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Your Honor, I will first attempt to
6 resolve --
7 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Excuse me. Don't interrupt me, please.
8 I haven't finished.
9 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I apologize, your Honor.
10 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> So there's a problem of where the
11 deposition should take place. Then there's <STRONG>the problem of
</STRONG>12 <STRONG>whether there is jurisdiction over him in-person</STRONG>, should you
13 want to proceed against him as a party.
14 That will have to be thoroughly briefed. <STRONG>I haven't
</STRONG>15 <STRONG>had any briefs with respect to the nature of this whole</STRONG>
16 <STRONG>proceeding. It is a rather unusual proceeding.
</STRONG>17 I can give you my preliminary view so you understand
18 how I come to the case having read only the transcripts that
19 have been available to me and the written documents that are
20 available to all who are present here today.
21 There are some precedents and there is some
22 authority on violation of orders of this kind. The matter
23 gets very complex once the information is out. There is the
24 precedent of the Tobacco papers, which were widely available
25 after Congress released them. Congress returned the papers in

1 the instant case, which was unusual, but, of course, they
2 could subpoena them at any time.
3 The order of Judge Cogan remains in effect against
4 all the named persons, and that includes Terri Gottstein and
5 it also includes James Gottstein.
6 I don't think it's necessary to expand it to the
7 expert, but if you want to, you may reframe this order to show
8 cause and expand it to the expert as well so there will be no
9 doubt about it.
10 The order will remain in effect against all of those
11 persons, the persons listed in the draft, plus the expert and
12 Mr. Gottstein, since they may be involved in future contempt
13 procedures. If so, the proceeding should be as simple as
14 possible, and I don't want them engaged in further expanding
15 the number of people who receive the documents preventing
16 further dissemination by others except for the two that Lilly
17 mentioned.
18 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> Actually three. The other was
19 WWW.PBWIKI.com, which is affiliated with those two.
20 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> I object to that. <STRONG>I have no idea who
</STRONG>21 <STRONG>these people are</STRONG>. He's not affiliated with anyone that has
22 been mentioned in this case.
23 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> I'm not finding that they are
24 affiliated, but I will issue the order as to those three. I
25 do not wish to issue orders as to others besides those three

1 and all I've listed in the draft order and the two people we
2 have added to that because it seems impracticable to do that.
3 <STRONG>The court takes no position on whether and how they</STRONG>
4 <STRONG>can be used by others who received them from other sources.</STRONG>
5 <STRONG>After all, the New York Times has disseminated them. This</STRONG>
6 <STRONG>court is not going to issue an order telling the New York</STRONG>
7 <STRONG>Times to return the documents.</STRONG>
8 <STRONG>So everybody has access to them. It takes no
</STRONG>9 <STRONG>position on whether and how they can be used by others who may</STRONG>
10 <STRONG>have them from other sources or from any sources, and on</STRONG>
11 <STRONG>whether and how Lilly can protect itself against such use.</STRONG>
12 But I don't want to be put in a position, as representative of
13 the court, of issuing <STRONG>futile injunctions. So I'm going to</STRONG>
14 <STRONG>limit the order to those who I've mentioned.</STRONG>
15 <STRONG>Is that clear to everyone?</STRONG>
16 I make <STRONG>no findings of fact </STRONG>with respect to whether
17 <STRONG>any violation of any order of this court has ever been made</STRONG>.
18 I have heard no evidence on the point and I'm not prepared to
19 draw any inferences from any of the materials before me.
20 Is there anything further anybody wishes to be heard
21 on?
22 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> Your Honor, there's one point of
23 clarification. One of the Websites that had a link to the
24 documents was a member of MindFreedom, and the current
25 injunction would apply to that person. I just want to make

1 sure --
2 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> List him personally and add him to the
3 list.
4 <STRONG>MR. FAHEY:</STRONG> Thank you, your Honor.
5 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Does everybody understand where we are
6 now?
7 <STRONG>MR. CHABASINSKI:</STRONG> Not completely, your Honor, but
8 there are going to be minutes of this, I assume, and we'll
9 receive them in a fax?
10 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Yes. Lilly will order immediate copy of
11 the minutes and see that they are presented to all who have
12 appeared as well as all who are mentioned.
13 That is the three Websites and one person -- the
14 person who is listed in your draft order to show cause -- the
15 expert, and Mr. Gottstein.
16 Is that is clear to everyone now?
17 <STRONG>MR. McKAY:</STRONG> Yes, your Honor, this is John McKay.
18 May I ask whether Lilly is going to order or has ordered a
19 transcript of the last hearing before Judge Cogan?
20 <STRONG>THE COURT:</STRONG> Order a copy. See that is disseminated
21 as is this one. <STRONG>Yes, you're entitled to that.
</STRONG>22 Is there anything else anybody wishes to present? I
23 hope to have the pleasure of having you before me on to
24 January 16th at 2:00 p.m..
25 We would like to have any documents, briefs, and

1 other material as soon as possible since <STRONG>the problem is a
</STRONG>2 <STRONG>vexing one,</STRONG> and I would like to I would like to consider it
3 with the aid of all eminent counsel now before me.
4 If there is nothing further, the hearing is
5 adjourned and I wish you all a happy new year.
6 Lilly should make sure that the order that they
7 present today will indicate that the order that was signed at
8 10:00 a.m. this morning is withdrawn. Thank you everyone."

Joined: April 19th, 2005, 7:01 pm

January 9th, 2007, 1:59 pm #10

<SPAN name="Konabody"><FONT size=2>&nbsp;</FONT>
<STRONG><FONT size=4>(Not ALL lawyers USE/ABUSE the Law to defend LAWLESSNESS)</FONT></STRONG>


<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=4 width="100%" border=0>
<TD vAlign=top width="80%"><FONT face=Verdana size=2>January 4, 2007 at 04:08:24</FONT>

<P class=articletitle>Criminal Prosecution of Lilly Sought Over Zyprexa

<P align=left><FONT face=Verdana size=2>by Evelyn Pringle</FONT>
<P align=left><FONT face=Verdana size=1><A href=""></A></FONT>
<TD vAlign=top width="20%">
<DIV align=center></DIV>

<DIV style="MARGIN-TOP: 8px" align=center>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
document.write ('<a href="http://www.populum.com/tellafriend.php?page='+location.href)
document.write ('" target="_blank">')
<A href="http://www.populum.com/tellafriend.php?page=http://www.network54.com/Forum/182310/message/1167985348/Attorney+calls+for+CRIMINAL+PROSECUTION+of+LILLY+EXECUTIVES+re+ZYPREXA" target=_blank><A href="http://www.populum.com/tellafriend.php?page=http://www.opednews.com/articles/genera_evelyn_p_070104_criminal_prosecution.htm" target=_blank><IMG height=16 alt="Tell A Friend" src="http://www.populum.com/tellafriend.gif" width=85 border=0>
<SCRIPT language=JavaScript>
document.write ("</a>")
</A></A></DIV></TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE><FONT face=Verdana size=2>California Attorney, Ted Chabasinski, is calling for the <STRONG><FONT size=4>criminal prosecution of Eli Lilly executives for hiding the adverse effects of Zyprexa,</FONT></STRONG> based in part on articles last month in the New York Times which quote internal company documents that revealed that Lilly knew about the adverse effects for a decade but kept the information hidden.

Mr Chabasinski, appeared by teleconference in US District Court for the Eastern District of New York, on January 3, 2007, before Judge Jack Weinstein, on behalf of MindFreedom, a non-profit human rights organization, in response to a motion by Lilly basically filed to keep the incriminating information hidden, to defend the public's right to know the contents of the secret Lilly documents concerning Zyprexa.

Mr Chabasinski told the judge that the documents are evidence of Lilly executives' "criminal behavior" and "willingness to kill people for profit."

The court granted MindFreedom's request for more time to respond to Lilly's motion, and another hearing is set for January 16, 2007. Meanwhile Judge Weinstein said that he was taking "no position" about those people who were not named but who already have copies of the Lilly files on Zyprexa.

Prior to the hearing, in a letter to the judge, Mr Chabasinski pointed out that while the underlying case in which the documents were under seal is civil, the documents reveal criminal behavior on the part of Lilly's executives. "They have chosen a course of action," he told the judge, "lying about and hiding the real effects of Zyprexa, that they knew would lead to the injury and death of literally thousands of people."

"If this isn't criminal," he stated, "I don't know what is."

The company documents also show that Lilly engaged in a massive illegal off-label marking campaign to get primary care physicians to prescribe Zyprexa for uses never approved by the FDA to increase profits.

The whole saga began when Dr David Egilman, MD, MPH, revealed the documents to Alaskan attorney, Jim Gottstein. Dr Egilman reviewed the documents and learned of Lilly's illegal conduct a few years ago when he served as an expert in a lawsuit. However, the case was settled out of court, and Dr Egilman was effectively muzzled when the judge granted Lilly's request to keep the documents secret with a court order.

To settle the lawsuit, Lilly agreed to pay close to $700 million to roughly 8,000 Zyprexa victims or their family members, with the provision that each person would sign a confidentiality agreement not to discuss Zyprexa or the terms of the settlement agreement in return for the money.

Being Lilly obviously planned to keep the information about Zyprexa a secret, as a physician, Dr Egilman likely found himself between a rock and a hard place. If he did not find a way to warn the public, at best he would be guilty of negligence, and at worst considered complicit in Lilly's elaborate scheme to use the court system to keep the information hidden so as not to effect the booming sales of its top selling drug bringing in over $4 billion a year.

Mr Gottstein obtained the documents for use in another lawsuit, and after seeing that Lilly knew 10 years ago that Zyprexa caused drastic weight gain and diabetes and realizing the extent of the off-label marketing of the drug, he turned the documents over to the New York Times, obviously in hope that the Times would warn the public and medical professionals who were prescribing Zyprexa for every ailment known to mankind, without knowledge of the serious health risks associated with the drug.

Since the New York Times' articles were published, Lilly's legal team has been working day and night right through the holiday season trying to use the court system to muzzle the messengers and get the incriminating information back under seal.

In reviewing all the legal paperwork including letters, injunctions, and motions flying around on the internet, its worth noting that not once do Lilly attorneys, or the judges handling the case, refer to the underlying illegal conduct disclosed in the documents that Lilly is working so hard to keep hidden.

The drug maker has been able to obtain injunctions ordering Mr Gottstein to return the documents and requiring him to provide the names of all persons and organizations that he provided them to or discussed them with. The injunctions bar further disclosure and specifically name individuals and organizations who are believed to have copies of the documents.

Mr Chabasinski is representing author, Judi Chamberlin, and MindFreedom International, who are both named in a December 29, 2006, temporary injunction. "As everyone is aware at this point," Mr Chabasinski says, "there are thousands of copies of the documents in question circulating on the Internet and in the hands of innumerable people."

He says Lilly knows full well that any attempt to recover the documents is a "futile gesture" and there is no way to keep them secret. "While the injunction purports to be an attempt to recover the documents," Mr Chabasinski wrote in the letter to the judge, "it is clear that its real purpose is to intimidate Lilly's critics, and the court should refuse to cooperate with this."

As for Lilly's payment of $700 million to settle the lawsuit, Mr Chabasinski told the judge, "when a company is making billions of dollars from some drug, a few hundred million
dollars is simply a cost of doing business."

"But if drug company executives know they may face long prison terms for their willingness to kill people for profit," he states, "they will think more than twice about what they do."

"If executives can go to prison for stealing their companies' money," he told the judge, "surely those who steal people's lives deserve at least the same fate."

Mr Chabaskinski says Lilly's biggest worry is that the documents will be reviewed by some prosecutor and that the real purpose of the injunction is to frighten people into giving up their First Amendment right to petition the government for redress of grievances, "which in this situation," he says, "means putting these documents into the hands of as many potential prosecutors as possible."

He points out that Lilly has created a massive public health problem by convincing doctors to prescribe Zyprexa to many thousands of people, whose drug-caused disabilities will now drain the public health system for years to come. "It is not in the public interest," he told the court in the letter, "to keep documents secret when it will have the effect of making it much more difficult to prevent the disability of thousands of people."

The pursuit of Mr Gottstein by Lilly attorneys could almost be likened to being chased around the country by a group of terrorists. Lilly wants the court to charge him with criminal contempt complete with sanctions.

Their conduct is clearly an abuse of the legal system, funded by the ill-gotten profits of Zyprexa, to run up costs for Mr Gottstein, by harassing him and anyone that he may associate with. At the court hearing on January 3, 2007, Lilly attorneys asked the judge to issue an order requiring Mr Gottstein to travel to New York City for a deposition within 5 days, and:

"Requiring Mr Gottstein to immediately produce ... copies of any and all documents and information including, but not limited to, all computer(s), hard-drives, other electronic storage media, hardcopy documents, emails, e-documents, text messaging, instant messaging, phone records and voice mails, that refer or relate to Zyprexa".

And talk about chilling the freedoms of the First Amendment, Lilly wants the court to force Mr Gottstein to produce: "Communications he had with anyone relating to these documents, including but not limited to, his dissemination of or discussions relating to the documents".

Lilly also asked for the order to include individual reporters and the top experts on psychiatric drugs in the US, in demanding that Mr Gottstein's disclose his communications with "any person, organization or entity who received these documents including, but not limited to, Terrie Gottstein, Jerry Winchester, Alex Berenson, Dr. Peter Breggin, Dr. Grace Jackson, Dr. David Cohen and Bruce Whittington, Dr. Stefan Kruszewski, Laura Ziegler, Judy chamberlin, Vera Sherav, robert Whitaker, Steve Shaw, Will Hall, Singeha Prakash, or anyone associated with the Alliance for Human Research Protection or MindFreedom; and his efforts to retrieve these documents from the individuals to whom they were improperly disseminated."

Lilly is also requesting that if anything responsive to their request has been deleted or destroyed in computers, that Mr Gottstein be required to haul "any and all relevant computers" to New York City for the deposition, and permit "forensic examination and recovery of such documents."

In addition to the big bucks being made by thinking up ways to harass Mr Gottstein, Lilly attorneys at the Pepper Hamilton Law Firm are making money hand over fist by scouring the internet looking for more people to harass. On December 30, 2006, they were apparently working overtime on the Saturday of the biggest holiday weekend of the year, when they began threatening a private citizen, Eric Whalen, in emails ordering him to remove the Lilly documents from his web site stating:

"You are facilitating the violation of a Federal Court order. Please immediately remove the link to the file "ZyprexaKills.tar.gz" (or its mirror), including all cached materials, or we will take further legal action against your website."

In another email, they told Mr Whalen, "You have been on notice now for several hours that you are operating in violation of a Federal Court Order, and you have thus far, refused to assure your compliance."

"You must take the link down immediately," they wrote, "or we will take further legal action to shut down your website, and seek all available remedies."

In his own defense, Mr Whalen replied to the emails and stated: "The documents linked to on my website were downloaded from an anonymous source. As far as I know I'm not under any court order. Dissemination of the contents of the documents is clearly in the public interest. Is there a legal basis for you[r] request?"

To avoid having my name added to the dastardly list above and the risk of being subjected to the harassment tactics of Lilly attorneys, I hereby declare for the record, that I did not receive copies of the Lilly documents from Mr Gottstein.

Evelyn Pringle