Go Back   Fighting Illini Forums > General > Track 5 Chat

3 Women win $72.6M from Pfizer

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Dec 6, 2011, 02:53 PM   #1
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,844
Amazing how stupid people are. Really, really stupid. The problem with schools isn't that teachers are bad. It is that the kids are incredibly dumb. Then they grow up and are too dumb to avoid jury duty and pull crap like this.

Quote:
Jurors in state court deliberated over two days before finding today that hormone-replacement drugs made by Pfizer’s Wyeth and Pharmacia Upjohn units were responsible for cancer in Susan Elfont, Bernadette Kalenkoski and Judy Mulderig. The panel awarded Elfont $20 million; Kalenkoski, $27.85 million; and Mulderig, $24.75 million.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...ury-rules.html

The jurors on this panel must be retarded jack asses. I really don't like to wish bad luck on people but man they make it hard not to.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2011, 08:28 PM   #2
-josh-
Calm, Collected, German.
-josh-'s Avatar
Location: The paign born and raised
Posts: 5,143
As much as i hate frivolous law suits and stupid jurors...I do like to see people stick it to the pharmaceutical industry.

__________________
http://youtu.be/i37uttMA6Mc?t=31s
Looks like it's the University of Illinois!
-josh- is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2011, 09:33 PM   #3
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by -josh- View Post
As much as i hate frivolous law suits and stupid jurors...I do like to see people stick it to the pharmaceutical industry.
Quote:
Then they grow up and are too dumb to avoid jury duty.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 6, 2011, 10:37 PM   #4
ILLINI4life1
Posts: 120
I used to think the same way about "frivolous law suits" until I saw Hot Coffee, the documentary. It talks about the McDonald's coffee suit first, but then goes into many different cases. It shows how many times the people in the cases actually don't end up getting the amount published because of different state laws that cap the amount. And you still need to pay for court costs, lost wages, health care bills, and most importantly the change in that person's quality of life, which may not be able to be fixed by money. Plus it's more about punishing a company to change its ways. And what's the best way for a corp. to change? It's all relative, billion dollar profits equals millions in punishment. I probably wouldn't change my ways if it was a 1 million dollar lawsuit if I made over $2 billion like the article said.

"Pfizer’s Wyeth and Upjohn units have now lost 10 of the 18 Prempro cases decided by juries since trials began in 2006. Pfizer announced in May that it had settled a third of the pending Prempro cases and had set aside $772 million to help resolve the claims."

Why are we supposed to feel sorry for Pfizer again? Pfizer has money to afford good attorneys, and they have lost 10 cases and have $772 mill set aside for this. Hmm stupid jurors or weak case? You don't know until you have been in someones shoes what actual damage has been done to their life. My mom had to stop her post breast cancer meds (as well as many other people she knew on it; not this drug) because the side effects were so horrible. She was a totally different person mentally and physically.

Not everyone can be doctors or pharmacists and as a result we put our trust and lives in the hands of them. As a result, they need to held to the highest standard.
ILLINI4life1 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2011, 06:06 AM   #5
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,844
More evidence for the jurors being stupid.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2011, 06:13 AM   #6
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,844
Surely you cannot all be this unenlightened? It is amazing that any of you are dumb enough to think that a 68 year old woman who develops breast cancer and took a medicine by choice that turned out unexpectedly to cause cancer could:

(a) link that cancer to that drug. Surely you realize how common breast cancer is. It doesn't require Prempro to develop it. At most Prempro increased the risk of breast cancer by a modest amount.

(b) award a 68 year old $20M+ for getting that cancer. It is the height of insanity and stupidity to think that is a justifiable award for any one person whose life was cut short by 10-15 years. Insanity.

(c) think that this will hurt anyone but yourself. For those of you simpletons thinking the drug industry deserves this (you know the industry that is the main reason for life expectancies on this planet being extended by 30+ years over the past century or so) when you pay your next healthcare premium and it is sky high simply STFU and be glad that you are paying this leach that much money. Because it is coming out of your pockets ultimately.

By the way, here were the findings:

Quote:
For this week's breast cancer analysis, researchers followed nearly 13,000 of the women for an average of eight years after they had stopped taking their pills. So far, about 1.3 extra breast cancer deaths per 10,000 women per year have occurred in those on Prempro.

In a statement, Prempro maker Pfizer said it is reviewing Chlebowski's data. "The increased risk of breast cancer compared to placebo has been included in Prempro's label since its introduction in 1995," the statement reads. "This analysis does not alter that risk, nor does it dispute hormone therapy's effectiveness."
http://www.usatoday.com/yourlife/hea...nes21_ST_N.htm

So these women willingly took drugs that were labelled to increase the risk of breast cancer. Then when they get it they are dumb enough to sue but smart enough to know that there are thousands of imbeciles to choose from in jury pools.

To put this risk into perspective, there is one fatality for every 35K miles driven on American roads. If you drive about 15K miles a year your risk of dying in an auto accident in 2 years is about the same as your risk of dying from taking Prempro for 1 year (not precisely but the magnitude is in the ballpark). Does anyone think that we should sue Ford if there car performs as expected and we die in a car accident? It is simply absurd.

Stupid people just want life to be perfectly safe and when it isn't they stupidly are happy to try to punish anyone when ultimately all they do is punish themselves. So if you are unemployed or uninsured because you cannot afford health insurance, a good heap of blame lies on people like these 3, their imbecilic jurors, their parasitic lawyers and their ignorant sympathizers.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison

Last edited by DaytonIllini; Dec 7, 2011 at 06:24 AM.
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2011, 08:05 AM   #7
ILLINI4life1
Posts: 120
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
Stupid people just want life to be perfectly safe and when it isn't they stupidly are happy to try to punish anyone when ultimately all they do is punish themselves. So if you are unemployed or uninsured because you cannot afford health insurance, a good heap of blame lies on people like these 3, their imbecilic jurors, their parasitic lawyers and their ignorant sympathizers.
Someone sounds a lil bitter this morning...
ILLINI4life1 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2011, 09:11 AM   #8
pizzaman
pizzaman's Avatar
Location: Northwoods of Wisconsin
Posts: 2,820
I think this is a prime example of why the judicial system with a jury of "peers" really doesn't work. The attorneys on both sides are presenting their side with (presumably) experts in the medical field and the decision is in the hands of 12 people randomly selected. What's the liklihood that the jury even begins to understand the scientific evidence presented?

I've testified numerous times as an expert in disputes involving building construction and the biggest issue I always face is connecting with a jury and getting them to understand my side of the case. I've never been cross examined by an attorney more knowledgable in my field than me but their lack of knowledge can create such a smokescreen that jurists simply tune out and eventually just reach a decision based on who they like more or who they think deserves compensation. Courts are a crapshoot and sometimes the best performers, most sympathetic and better looking people win, the hell with evidence.
pizzaman is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2011, 03:40 PM   #9
Illinell
'03 IMPE All Star
Illinell's Avatar
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by ILLINI4life1 View Post
Someone sounds a lil bitter this morning...
It's hard to find a doctor nowadays that's not. I am not saying I agree with Dayton, but I do think our healthcare, insurance, and legal system are a bit of a mess.

Any time you have doctors flying to other states to practice half of the week you know you have issues.
Illinell is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2011, 03:48 PM   #10
DaytonIllini
DaytonIllini's Avatar
Posts: 19,844
Quote:
Originally Posted by Illinell View Post
It's hard to find a doctor nowadays that's not. I am not saying I agree with Dayton, but I do think our healthcare, insurance, and legal system are a bit of a mess.

Any time you have doctors flying to other states to practice half of the week you know you have issues.
What part would you disagree with?

When you take a drug that has a known side effect and you get that side effect, why should you be able to sue? Why should you win? And how on Earth can you award that kind of money?

It isn't complex science here. We have known that these drugs cause cancer for decades. It is right there on the warning label.

Right now you have about a 1/10000 chance of dying from a Cat scan of the abdomen. Should GE be paying out billions of dollars? Or should we recognize that people take chances in life to obtain potential benefit and sometimes they will lose. You are not supposed to get a lottery windfall from someone just because you got unlucky.

__________________
No nation can preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.
-- James Madison
DaytonIllini is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 7, 2011, 09:34 PM   #11
illini80
Location: Forgottonia
Posts: 2,986
I am completely in Dayton's corner on this one. If you want medicine with no risk, then you want no medicine at all. Make your choice and live with it. But don't screw up the system with lawsuits so that the rest of us don't have that option.
illini80 is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2011, 06:33 AM   #12
IntenselyOrange
Posts: 7,264
Quote:
Originally Posted by illini80 View Post
I am completely in Dayton's corner on this one. If you want medicine with no risk, then you want no medicine at all. Make your choice and live with it. But don't screw up the system with lawsuits so that the rest of us don't have that option.
Me too. The assault on the pharma industry is unreal in my opinion. Idiotic lawsuits like this are only one aspect of the ignorance of the public when it comes to therapeutic development.
IntenselyOrange is offline Reply With Quote
Old Dec 8, 2011, 06:49 AM   #13
Illinell
'03 IMPE All Star
Illinell's Avatar
Location: Brooklyn, NY
Posts: 582
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaytonIllini View Post
What part would you disagree with?

When you take a drug that has a known side effect and you get that side effect, why should you be able to sue? Why should you win? And how on Earth can you award that kind of money?

It isn't complex science here. We have known that these drugs cause cancer for decades. It is right there on the warning label.

Right now you have about a 1/10000 chance of dying from a Cat scan of the abdomen. Should GE be paying out billions of dollars? Or should we recognize that people take chances in life to obtain potential benefit and sometimes they will lose. You are not supposed to get a lottery windfall from someone just because you got unlucky.
I don't disagree with any of it either. I don't consider myself educated enough on this issue to take a hard line.

Wasn't trying to start anything.
Illinell is offline Reply With Quote
Reply


« Previous Thread | General Chat | Next Thread »
Thread Tools

Forum Jump