Nexus - 0605 - New Times Magazine-pages

Page Content (OCR)

also, most importantly, does not encourage other people to come If Eli Lilly went to extreme lengths to control suits against out of the woodwork with lawyers and Prozac horror-stories of Prozac, it stands to reason that drug companies could also try to their own, because they are not reading about $2 million or $10 deflect legal actions by influencing how the Press, lawyers and million or $50 million settlements paid out by Lilly. public view these school shootings. For example, accusing video Grinfeld details a set of manoeuvres involving attorney Paul games is acceptable, accusing guns is acceptable, accusing bad Smith who, in the early 1990s, became the lead plaintiff's counsel parents is acceptable. In fact, these causes, as I stated above, are in the famous Fentress case against Eli Lilly. The case made the legitimate. accusation that Prozac had induced murder. This was the first action involving Prozac to reach a trial and jury, so it would INDUSTRY-FUNDED GROUPS PUSH DRUGS establish a major precedent for a large number of other pending In 1996, the PBS television series, The Merrow Report, pro- suits against the manufacturer. After what many people thought — duced a program called "Attention Deficit Disorder: A Dubious was a very weak attack on Lilly by Smith, the jury came back in Diagnosis?" The Educational Writers Association awarded the five hours with an easy verdict favouring Lilly and Prozac. program first prize for investigative reporting in that year. I can Grinfeld writes: "Lilly's defense attorneys predicted the verdict recall no other piece of television journalism since the Vietnam would be the death knell for [anti-]Prozac litigation." War which has managed to capture, on film, government officials But that wasn't the end of the Fentress case, even though Smith, in the act of realising that they have made serious mistakes. to the surprise of many, didn't appeal. John Merrow, the series host, explains that, unknown to the "Rumors began to circulate that Smith had made several [prior] public, there has been "a long-term, unpublicised financial rela- oral agreements with Lilly concerning the tionship between the company that makes evidence that would be presented [in the most widely known ADD medication Fentress], the structure of a postverdict set- [Ritalin] and the nation's largest ADD sup- tlement, and the potential resolution of port group". The group is CHADD, based in Smith's other [anti-Prozac] ca a" ou unknown to the Florida. In other words, the rumours said: This public, there has CHADD stands for Children and Adults lawyer made a deal with Lilly to present a " with ADD. Its 650 local chapters sponsor weak attack, to omit evidence damaging to been a long-term, regional conferences and monthly meetings, Prozac, so that the jury would find Lilly sae A . often held at schools. It educates thousands innocent of all charges. In return for this, the unpublicised fi nancial of families about ADD and ADHD and gives case would be settled secretly, with Lilly i i out free medical advice. This advice fea- paying out monies to Smith's client. In this relationship between tures the drug Ritalin. way, Lilly would avoid the exposure of a the company that Since 1988, when CHADD and Ciba- public settlement, and through the innocent makes the most Geigy (now Novartis), the manufacturer of verdict would discourage other poten- Ritalin, began their financial relation- widely known ADD tial plaintiffs from suing it over Prozac. ship, Ciba-Geigy has given almost a The rumours congealed. The million dollars to CHADD, helping it medication [Ritalin] A ' and the nation’s Fentress case Judge, John Potter, asked to expand its membership from 800 to lawyers on both sides if "money had 35,000 people. changed hands". He wanted to know if Merrow interviews several parents the fix was in. The lawyers said no whose children are on Ritalin—parents money had been paid, "without who have been relying on CHADD for acknowledging that an agreement was information. They are clearly taken in place". aback when they learn that CHADD Judge Potter didn't stop there. In obtains a significant amount of its April 1995, Grinfeld noted: "In court funding from the drug company that papers, Potter wrote that he was sur- makes Ritalin. prised that the plaintiff's attorneys CHADD has used Ciba-Geigy [Smith] hadn't introduced evidence that money to promote its pharmaceutical Lilly had been charged criminally for failing to report deaths from message through a public service announcement produced for another of its drugs to the Food and Drug Administration. Smith television. Nineteen million people have seen it. As Merrow had fought hard [during the Fentress trial] to convince Potter to says: "CHADD's name is on it, but Ciba-Geigy paid for it." admit that evidence, and then unaccountably withheld it." Tt turns out that in all of CHADD's considerable literature writ- In Judge Potter's motion, he alleged that "Lilly [in the Fentress ten for the public, there is rare mention of Ciba-Geigy. In fact, case] sought to buy not just the verdict, but the court's judgment the only instance of the connection Merrow could find on the as well". record was a small-print citation on an announcement of a single In 1996, the Kentucky Supreme Court issued an opinion on all | CHADD conference. this: "...there was a serious lack of candor with the trial court In recounting CHADD's promotion of drug "therapy" for ADD, [during Fentress] and there may have been deception, bad faith Merrow says: "CHADD's literature also says psychostimulant conduct, abuse of the judicial process or perhaps even fraud." medications [like Ritalin] are not addictive." After the Supreme Court remanded the Fentress case back to Merrow brings this up with Gene Haslip, a DEA official in the state Attorney-General's office, the whole matter dribbled | Washington. Haslip is visibly annoyed. "Well," he says, "I think away, and then resurfaced in a different form in another venue. that's very misleading. It's [Ritalin's] certainly a drug that can At the time of the California Lawyer article, a new action against Smith was unresolved. Continued on page 86 If Eli Lilly went to extreme lengths to control suits against Prozac, it stands to reason that drug companies could also try to deflect legal actions by influencing how the Press, lawyers and public view these school shootings. For example, accusing video games is acceptable, accusing guns is acceptable, accusing bad parents is acceptable. In fact, these causes, as I stated above, are legitimate. the company that makes the most widely known ADD medication [Ritalin] and the nation’s group". 32 - NEXUS ... Unknown to the largest ADD support Continued on page 86 AUGUST - SEPTEMBER 1999