Hello trumlawfirm,
Thank you for your question.
My search first uncovered this page on Dick's Guide to Xanax:
http://dicksguides5.com/Xanax99.htm
"Is Xanax, (Alprazolam) addictive?
"Xanax, (Alprazolam) ... definitely causes addiction without being
mixed with other sedatives. Steinberg estimates that one in ten
patients receiving Xanax, Alprazolam will become addicted. * (Based on
an estimated fifteen million people receiving Xanax, Alprazolam each
year in the United States, Steinberg concludes that 1.5 million Xanax,
Alprazolam addicts are produced each year.)" From Toxic Psychiatry by
Peter R. Breggin "The number of drugs available for treatment of
psychiatric disease has increased exponentially, as has the number of
pharmacological categories ascribed to them. Perhaps the most
dangerous are those which temporarily allay anxiety and phobias
(benzodiazepines and their congeners.) For instance, alprazolam
(Xanax) is one of the most popular drugs, and coincidentally the
greatest financial earner for the UpJohn Pharmaceutical Company. This
drug clearly has an important addictive property. Incidentally, the
same company, UpJohn, received notoriety by promoting Halcion, a
sedative, later removed from the American market. It is important to
note that the phenomenon of the introduction of new miracle cures,
which later prove addictive, and which are replaced by new miracle
cures, has gone on since 1890 when morphine was touted by the proto-
psychiatrists of the last Century as a cure for anxiety, and in fact
as a cure for addictive problems." Source:
http://www.morethanconquerors.simplenet.com/MCF/dorman.htm#Pharmacology
..."
They do mention a class action, but regarding pricing policies, rather
than addiction:
"...Is it possible to buy Xanax, Alprazolam outside of the USA? What
is the likely quality of such purchases? Will I need a prescription
to buy outside the USA? A question like this is a sad reflection on
America's politicians and there willingness to be bought by
pharmeceutical companies. "The possibility of predatory pricing of
pharmaceuticals, while virtually unmentioned in the case law warrants
discussion due to its relative ease to accomplish. Legal rules
currently do not sufficiently discourage predatory pricing of
prescription drugs." Source: http://www.lectlaw.com/files/ant07.htm
In 1998, "Pharmacia & Upjohn, Rhone-Poulenc Rorer, Abbott
Laboratories and Hoechst Marion Roussel settle(d) class-action suit by
agreeing to pay $342 mil and modifying (their) pricing policies."
Source: http://hoovers.transium.com/hoovers.html?ticker=PNU&id=11570&q=&qi=%2bkco%3a%22Pharmacia%20%26%20Upjohn%22&page=6&r=1.tbusref.R02258754&stag=%2da
..."
Another page at Dick's addresses the possibility that Upjohn may have
hid the negative affects of this drug:
http://dicksguides.com/CorpUpjohn.html
Dick's Guide to Upjohn's role in hiding the effects of Xanax
"Judge Madeleine Flier refused to allow plaintiff to present evidence
that Upjohn was well-aware of the dangers of Xanax as early as the
1970s in the Mitchell v. Upjohn trial. Madeline thinks that because a
government agency, the FDA, approved Xanax, it must be safe. Madeline
is a woman and not very logical. She is also a lawyer, and may simply
have been bought off by Upjohn. Many lawyers are thieves and crooks.
Upjohn, is also the manufacturer of Halcion, another dangerous product
it unloaded on an unsuspecting public. Xanax, in 1998, was on trial in
a Los Angeles court room. Terri Mitchell took Upjohn to court for
failure to warn about the dangers of Xanax, that it is more addictive
than other benzodiazepines, produces a protracted withdrawal that must
be treated in the hospital, causes permanent brain damage and creates
suicidal urges in its victims. The female lawyer Judge, Madelyn, has
insisted on keeping any evidence to prove this, secret. The judge
strongly supports Upjohn's ability to keep this information from
consumers, on the pretense that FDA approval must mean that such side
effects do not exist. Upjohn has already admitted that Xanax may not
be safe and effective unless used as directed..."
Apologies for Dick's opinion of lawyers, but you may wish to read this
entire article.
Dick also provides excellent links on cases involving Upjohn and
Xanax:
Still another case involving Upjohn and Xanax was S. Shanks v. The
Upjohn Co. (6/26/92), 835 P 2d 1189
http://www.touchngo.com/sp/html/sp-3850.htm
And another such case is Aug 16 1999 Norgart v. Upjohn Company 8/16/99
SC S071633.PDF - S071633.DOC
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data2/californiastatecases/s071633.pdf
This page claims 160 appellate cases with Upjohn, but the link is not
working today or may be permanently broken:
ftp://ftp.vcilp.org/pub/law/Fed-Ct/Circuit/9th/9617014.asc
Addiction by Prescritption
http://www.geocities.com/benzodebate/
This page links to this interesting article:
http://www.breggin.com/deangelo.html
Court Finds Prozac and Xanax Cause Criminal Conduct
and http://www.geocities.com/benzodebate/xanax.htm
Xanax - A Voyage Into The Twilight Zone
by Max Ricketts
Copyright 1991 Max Ricketts
and http://www.geocities.com/benzodebate/ricketts-fda-xanax.htm
Xanax Does Not Cure Anxiety
by Max Ricketts
Health Store News, April 1991
There are numerous other links on this page that may be of interest to
you.
Here is an archived discussion on Xanax and lawsuits:
http://yarchive.net/med/xanax.html
Note:
"...Subject: Re: UPJOHN'S DRUG XANAX ON TRIAL
Newsgroups: bionet.neuroscience,misc.health.alternative,sci.med,sci.med.nutrition,sci.med.pharmacy,sci.med.psychobiology,sci.psychology.psychotherapy,sci.skeptic,soc.support.depression.treatment
What drug company in its right mind would make a drug to treat
*anxiety*? Talk about asking for a lawsuit. The kind of people
who'll be taking your drug are exactly the kind of people who'll
decide it's given them a dozen different incurable diseases, and brain
damage. Even a drug to treat frank paranoia would not be as legally
risky, because really paranoid people generally look and sound crazy.
Anxious people, by contrast, just create uproar whereever they are,
and it's very hard to see sometimes where the uproar comes from.
I will agree with the lawsuit in one respect, however: in my
experience in practice, Xanax is indeed far more "addictive" or
"dependence-producing" than its manufacturers admit. And far more
addictive, strange to tell, than it is in clinical trials, if you
bother to look up such things on medline. Which trials are mostly
supported by UpJohn <embarrassed grin>. Hey, I'm not entirely blind
to data that argue against my general beliefs. There is a grain of
truth in the idea that what "information" doctors know is badly
distorted by who funds the studies. But that's the nature of
information. It's like what Churchill said about democracy-- it's a
TERRIBLE system-- one that is bound to produce injustice just by the
very nature of it (Arrow's theorum, etc, etc). The only problem is
that the alternatives all seem to be worse.
Steve Harris, M.D."
You might wish to read the entire thread as well as search the above
mentioned newsgroups for more data.
Benzo.org.uk
http://www.benzo.org.uk/xanax2.htm
HIGH ANXIETY
CONSUMER REPORTS MAGAZINE
January 1993, 58(1): 19-24
"...Given the hazards and their widespread use, we still know
surprisingly little about the risks and benefits of long-term
benzodiazepine use- and too little in particular about Xanax, now the
leader of the pack. No one knows how many people are physically
dependent on Xanax and how they may be affected by it. But there are
some warning signs. A recent FDA analysis of reports of adverse
reactions to drugs, which physicians send to the agency voluntarily,
showed a number of cases in which the drug seemed to cause bouts of
rage and hostility. Those side effects were rare, and were much less
common with Xanax than with Halcion. But they were six times more
common with Xanax than with Ativan, relative to each drug's sales. And
Ativan's suspected side effects have been cited in a pending British
class-action lawsuit against its manufacturer.
Consumers Union believes that more information is necessary to
determine the frequency of side effects from Xanax - not only its
effects on mood, but its potential for impairing memory and causing
other cognitive problems. Careful surveillance of the drug's clinical
use could do much to resolve these questions. In the meantime, if you
or a loved one has a serious problem with anxiety, you need to
understand your options clearly..."
This doctor appears to have been an expert witness in litagation:
http://www.breggin.com/resume.html
Peter R. Breggin, M.D.
"...FORENSIC ACTIVITIES AS A MEDICAL AND PSYCHIATRIC EXPERT
Psychiatric and medical expert in county, state, and federal courts
with trial testimony in approximately 40 cases in thirty years,
including civil and criminal suits involving psychopharmacology, FDA
regulations, and product liability. In 1973, for example, I testified
in Kaimowitz v. Department of Mental Health, leading to a three-judge
decision that ultimately stopped experimental psychosurgery in state
and federal facilities throughout the United States.
In the past ten years, testimony in more than 25 court proceedings,
including malpractice suits, criminal cases, and two product liability
cases. I testified as the medical expert in the first criminal case in
Virginia (Commonwealth v. Khaliqi, 1997) in which a judge dismissed
criminal assault charges on the grounds of involuntary intoxication
with psychiatric drugs. My expertise was acknowledged in two product
liability cases against drug companies in Fentress v. Eli Lilly (1994)
(the "Wesbecker" Case) involving Prozac as a possible cause of
murderous and suicidal behavior [settled in trial], and in Mitchell v.
Upjohn (1998) involving addiction to Xanax. My book, Talking Back to
Ritalin, provided the basis for the multiple class action suits now
being brought against the manufacturer of Ritalin, Novartis, and I
consulted as the medical expert for the prototype case brought in
Dallas, Texas..."
There are numerous threads on Usenet, available from Google Groups,
that address your question. For example:
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=6f7m8a%241bo%40dfw-ixnews3.ix.netcom.com&rnum=2&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Dupjohn%2B%252Bxanax%2B%252Blawsuit%2BOR%2Bsue%2BOR%2B%2522class%2Baction%2522%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg
From 1998:
"...Upjohn, the manufacturer of Halcion, is on the hot seat again.
This time Halcion's sister drug, Xanax, is on trial in a Los Angeles
court room. A consumer (Terri Mitchell) has taken the company to court
for failure to warn about the dangers of this benzodiazepine.
The complaint alleges that Upjohn committed fraud in concealing
crucial data that Xanax is more addictive than other benzodiazepines,
produces a protracted withdrawal that must be treated in the hospital,
causes permanent brain damage and creates suicidal urges in its
victims.
The complaint also alleges that Upjohn knew its clinical trials were
being falsified and did nothing about it.
Upjohn maintains that Xanax is safe and effective when used as
directed.
The trial began on March 11. It is being held in:
Los Angeles Superior Court
111 N. Hill Street
Los Angeles, California
Department 37
Judge Flier presiding
Court hours: 10am to 4pm.."
27 replies.
And 91 replies to the same thread in a different Usnet Group:
sci.med.pharmacy
http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&threadm=6f841i%24of5%40bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net&rnum=4&prev=/groups%3Fnum%3D50%26hl%3Den%26lr%3D%26ie%3DISO-8859-1%26q%3Dupjohn%2B%252Bxanax%2B%252Blawsuit%2BOR%2Bsue%2BOR%2B%2522class%2Baction%2522%26sa%3DN%26tab%3Dwg
Search Strategy:
upjohn +xanax +lawsuit OR sue OR "class action"
I trust my research has provided valuable information for you. If a
link above should fail to work or anything require further explanation
or research, please do post a Request for Clarification prior to
rating the answer and closing the question and I will be pleased to
assist further.
Regards,
-=clouseau=- |
,
0 Comments
)