Johnson & Johnson Drug Recall Update: Pharmaceutical Company Not Cooperating According to Oversight Committee
The U.S. House Committee on Oversight and Reform are accusing Johnson & Johnson of being uncooperative, providing false information, and employing delay tactics during its interactions with the House Committee. The congressional investigation launched on May 27, 2010 against Johnson & Johnson, was done so in response to widespread drug recalls by the pharmaceutical company.
According to the House Committee, Johnson & Johnson told members of its staff that the recall involves 6 million bottles of children’s medicine, but then informed the FDA that the recall actually involved more than 136 million bottles. The chairman of the House Committee, Edolphus Towns, said, “We need to know where the spin is and where the truth begins.”
Johnson & Johnson has denied the allegations claiming the company provided misinformation, instead providing an alternate interpretation for the wide discrepancy between the two values. Its spokesperson stated that the discrepancy in numbers was in response to two different questions from government officials. Johnson & Johnson says the 6 million bottles refers to the total number of the product in stores at the time of the recall, while the 136 million bottles refers to the estimated amount in the hands of customers.
However, it is unclear whether these estimates include the two new recalled products Johnson & Johnson added to its recall list as of yesterday. Benadryl Allergy Ultratab tablets and Extra Strength Tylenol have now be added to the list of recalled Johnson & Johnson products.
The already recalled products include Children’s Benadryl, Children’s Motrin, Children’s Tylenol, and Infants’ Tylenol. A complete list of all the recalled Tylenol products can be found at the company's website.
No details of the settlement or the terms were announced except a statement indicating that the details of the settlement were to remain confidential. And while GSK would not indicate how many plaintiffs were involved in the recent settlement, according to reports by Deutsche Bank, as many as 5,000 claims for damages were reportedly consolidated in this Philadelphia case.
Since its April 10, 2010 voluntary recall,
The government had accused AstraZeneca of violating anti-kickback laws through its practice of paying doctors to refer Seroquel to patients while it also brought in additional money from government health care programs like Medicare and Medicaid. The pharmaceutical company was also accused of promoting favorable research on Seroquel's effects which misled doctors and patients alike, while at the same time failing to disclose studies that showed Seroquel increased the risk of diabetes.
The original
In De Bouse, the plaintiff was claiming economic damages against Bayer AG, the manufacturer of the drug Baycol. The plaintiff had purchased and taken Baycol on three occasions prior to the drugs withdrawal from the market for its potential harmful side effects. It is important to note that the plaintiff was not alleging any damages due to the
On May 1, 2009, the FDA announced that it had been made aware of 23 reports of adverse liver effects that occurred in the course of normal Hydroxycut usage. The reports included injuries that ranged from general liver damage, the need for a liver transplant, and to death. At that time the
While the FDA has not specified exactly how many products fall into this category, it advised that consumers not to purchase and use products labeled with words such as “anabolic” or “tren” or phrases like “blocks estrogen” and “minimizes gyno”. In addition, the FDA cautions consumers to be wary of body-building products claiming to enhance or diminish the effects of hormones like testosterone, estrogen or progestin.
Chicago and Illinois residents have reported symptoms of adverse affects from taking Hydroxycut, which range from stomach and abdominal pain, excessive fatigue, recurring headaches, excessive weakness, vomiting, loss of appetite, to kidney failure and liver damage severe enough to require a liver transplant.
On May 1, 2009 the
The case centered on the physician who had prescribed Fleet Phospho-Soda, an over-the-counter oral laxative used to cleanse the system pre-colonoscopy.
Studies have revealed that the link between Fleet Phospho-Soda and these side affects could be the result of calcium phosphate tubules that form in a kidney, which can lead to acute renal failure.
While my brother dismisses drug company's efforts to win doctors over with pens and notepads, there is a lot of skepticism raised by watch groups about the impropriety of doctors promoting pharmaceuticals especially given the rise of
In Giles, the plaintiff decedent, Jeff Giles, was a coal miner and who became depressed after the coalmine where he worked closed and he lost his job. He was diagnosed with major depressant disorder, for which his physician prescribed the antidepressant Effexor. He committed suicide 2 days after taking three Effexor pills. His wife and son brought an
Perhaps even more alarming is that at least half of these dangerous interactions involve the use of over-the-counter medications, such as aspirin or dietary supplements. According to the study, one in 25 older adults are at risk for serious drug interactions, the study has found. And for men ages 75 and 85, the risk is as high as 1 and 10.
However, not only those taking Tamoxifen need to worry. Experts say that regardless of the disease, most drugs work for only about half the people who take them. Not only is much of the nation’s approximate $300 billion annual drug spending wasted, but patients are being exposed unnecessarily to risky side effects.
And not just the FDA are upholding and propagating these preemption clauses- the U.S. Supreme Court has also supported pre-emption laws that prevent claimants from filing civil law suits against deep-pocketed drug and medical device companies in state courts.
The legal advice comes from top doctors and editors of the New England Journal of Medicine who have submitted a friend-of-the-court brief. The doctors state that the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) “is in no position” to guarantee drug safety. The doctors went on to to say that lawsuits can serve as “a vital deterrent” and protect consumers if drug companies don’t disclose risks.
The plaintiffs' son was prescribed Paxil by his dermatologist, not for his acne, but to treat a psychiatric disorder in which the individual is overly concerned about real or imagined defects in their physical appearance. Shortly after the second prescription of Paxil was refilled, the plaintiff's son committed suicide.