corner
Healthy Skepticism
Join us to help reduce harm from misleading health information.
Increase font size   Decrease font size   Print-friendly view   Print
Register Log in

Healthy Skepticism Library item: 8625

Warning: This library includes all items relevant to health product marketing that we are aware of regardless of quality. Often we do not agree with all or part of the contents.

 

Publication type: news

Jury: Wyeth's Prempro caused breast cancer
Reuters 2007 Feb 20
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/20/news/companies/wyeth_prempro.reut/index.htm?source=yahoo_quote


Full text:

Plaintiff, who took Prempro for six years and blamed it for her breast cancer, is awarded $3 million.

NEW YORK (Reuters) — A Philadelphia jury found on Tuesday that Wyeth’s hormone replacement therapy Prempro was a cause of a woman’s breast cancer and awarded her and her husband damages of $3 million, the drugmaker said.

Wyeth said it disagrees with the verdict and plans to appeal.

A previous Philadelphia jury also found in favor of the plaintiff, Jennie Nelson, in October. But the judge threw out that verdict and declared a mistrial, leading to the retrial that concluded on Tuesday.

The original jury at the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas had awarded Nelson and her husband $1.5 million in compensatory damages. This time, Nelson was awarded $2.4 million and her husband $600,000.

The reason for the mistrial declaration was not disclosed at the time, with Nelson’s attorney saying only that it was due to extraneous circumstances. There has been speculation since that the verdict may have been overturned as a result of juror misconduct.

“Both times this case has been heard on terms established by Wyeth and still the juries have clearly found that Prempro causes breast cancer,” Nelson’s attorney Tobias Millrood said in a statement, adding that Wyeth put sales ahead of patient safety.

Nelson of Dayton, Ohio, took Prempro for about six years and blamed it for her breast cancer. She underwent a double mastectomy and required chemotherapy and radiation treatments.

“We respectfully disagree that there is any scientific basis to support the jury’s finding of a causal link between Wyeth’s hormone therapies and the plaintiff’s breast cancer,” Wyeth’s attorney Barbara Binis said in a statement.

Madison, New Jersey-based Wyeth has argued that it acted responsibly in promoting of its hormone replacement drugs and in disclosing to physicians and patients the health risks associated with them.

Wyeth is facing some 5,000 lawsuits over its hormone replacement therapies, which were used by millions of women to control the effects of menopause. The drugs remain on the market despite a major government-sponsored health study that found using them for five years or more can increase the risk of breast cancer.

Investors shrugged off the verdict with Wyeth (down $0.11 to $50.60, Charts) shares edged lower on the New York Stock Exchange.

 

  Healthy Skepticism on RSS   Healthy Skepticism on Facebook   Healthy Skepticism on Twitter

Please
Click to Register

(read more)

then
Click to Log in
for free access to more features of this website.

Forgot your username or password?

You are invited to
apply for membership
of Healthy Skepticism,
if you support our aims.

Pay a subscription

Support our work with a donation

Buy Healthy Skepticism T Shirts


If there is something you don't like, please tell us. If you like our work, please tell others.

Email a Friend








Far too large a section of the treatment of disease is to-day controlled by the big manufacturing pharmacists, who have enslaved us in a plausible pseudo-science...
The blind faith which some men have in medicines illustrates too often the greatest of all human capacities - the capacity for self deception...
Some one will say, Is this all your science has to tell us? Is this the outcome of decades of good clinical work, of patient study of the disease, of anxious trial in such good faith of so many drugs? Give us back the childlike trust of the fathers in antimony and in the lancet rather than this cold nihilism. Not at all! Let us accept the truth, however unpleasant it may be, and with the death rate staring us in the face, let us not be deceived with vain fancies...
we need a stern, iconoclastic spirit which leads, not to nihilism, but to an active skepticism - not the passive skepticism, born of despair, but the active skepticism born of a knowledge that recognizes its limitations and knows full well that only in this attitude of mind can true progress be made.
- William Osler 1909