Jump to content

Talk:Eli Lilly and Company

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 70.31.166.89 (talk) at 14:53, 19 December 2022 (→no mention of Dr. Abelardo Aguilar, discoverer of erythtromycin: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Zyprexa

I have added a brief overview about Zyprexa to the lead. It is notable, in scope, and adds balance. Ushistorygeek (talk) 14:52, 31 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Ushistorygeek: Why is the Zyprexa information from 2009 one of the most important points in the article? See MOS:LEAD. Do you have a conflict of interest (WP:COI) related to Lily? --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 02:56, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Two reasons. 1)The illegal actions of the organization garnered significant news coverage spanning multiple years and resulted in the largest criminal penalty assessed in the US (for any person or organization at the time), and 2) from the guide you referenced: "The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Ushistorygeek (talk) 19:38, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
It is not clear that these events from 2006-09 are prominent and it is not the largest criminal penalty.[1][2][3] --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 21:21, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of the controversy coupled with the scope and size of the criminal wrongdoing leads me to conclude it is prominent. (Dedicated sections of Wikipedia articles on the topic support this). The penalty was the largest at the time, as I wrote above. In 2009 the Department of Justice characterized it this way
"The monetary settlement, totaling $1.415 billion, is the largest amount paid by a single defendant in the history of the United States Department of Justice (“DOJ”)."
The DOJ press release goes on to state:
"The information charges Eli Lilly with the misdemeanor of introducing misbranded drugs into interstate commerce between September 1999 and November 2003. The Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) had approved Zyprexa for use by adults for treatment of schizophrenia and certain types of bipolar disorder. Eli Lilly has admitted that it illegally marketed Zyprexa for uses never approved by the FDA. Among other things, the government alleges that these uses included treatment of elderly patients for such things as sleep disorders and dementia. According to the information, Eli Lilly targeted its illegal marketing of Zyprexa to two types of doctors: those who treat the elderly in nursing homes and assisted living facilities, and primary care physicians. In September 1999, Eli Lilly began encouraging doctors to prescribe the drug for the treatment of dementia, Alzheimer’s, agitation, aggression, hostility, depression, and 2 generalized sleep disorder. Zyprexa was not approved for use for any of these disorders, which, unlike schizophrenia, are prevalent in the elderly population. Nevertheless, Eli Lilly’s long-term care sales force promoted the use of Zyprexa in elderly populations for these symptoms. Because one of Zyprexa’s side effects is sedation, Eli Lilly directed its long-term care sales force to tell doctors that Zyprexa would help patients with sleep problems, behavioral issues, and dementia. They claimed this side effect was a therapeutic benefit, not an adverse event, with the sales slogan “5 at 5,” that five milligrams of Zyprexa at 5 p.m. would help their patients sleep. Then in 2000, Eli Lilly expanded its illegal marketing to primary care physicians with its primary care sales force in the “Viva Zyprexa” campaign, adding even more sales representatives. The goal of the campaign was to make Zyprexa an “everyday agent in primary care” even though the company recognized that schizophrenia and bipolar disorder were not viewed as conditions typically treated by primary care physicians. Lilly instructed the sales force to recommend Zyprexa for all adult patients with behavioral symptoms like agitation, aggression, hostility, mood and sleep disturbances, and depression.
...
"Eli Lilly knew that significant weight gain and obesity were adverse side effects of Zyprexa and that weight gain and obesity were factors in causing hyperglycemia and diabetes. Yet despite written caution from the FDA, Eli Lilly continued to promote these adverse events as therapeutic benefits of Zyprexa use, particularly in the elderly."
...
“When pharmaceutical companies interfere with the FDA’s mission to insure that drugs are safe and effective, they undermine the doctor-patient relationship and put the health and safety of patients at risk,” said Magid. “People have a legal right to know that pharmaceutical companies are marketing their drugs only for uses approved by the FDA and that their doctors’ judgment has not been affected by misinformation from a pharmaceutical company trying to boost revenues."
...
"In a separate civil settlement agreement, Eli Lilly agreed to pay the United States approximately $438,171,543.58 to settle allegations that it caused invalid claims for payment for Zyprexa to be submitted to various government programs such as Medicaid, TRICARE, and the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program and caused purchases of Zyprexa by the Department of Veterans Affairs, the Bureau of Prisons, the Department of Defense, the Defense Logistics Agency, the Department of Labor, and Public Health Service entities for unapproved off-label uses. Also, Eli Lilly agreed to pay various state Medicaid programs more than $361,828,456.42 to settle similar claims."
...
“Today’s announcement of the filing of a criminal charge and the unprecedented terms of this settlement demonstrate the government’s increasing efforts aimed at pharmaceutical companies that choose to put profits ahead of the public’s health,”
...
The civil settlement also resolves four whistle-blower lawsuits filed in federal court here: United States of America ex rel. Robert Rudolph v. Eli Lilly and Company, Civil Action No. 03- 943; United States of America ex rel. Joseph Faltaous v. Eli Lilly and Company, Civil Action No. 05-1471; United States of America ex rel. Steven Woodward v. Eli Lilly and Company, Civil Action No. 06-5526; and United States of America ex rel. Jaydeen Vincente v. Eli Lilly and 4 Company, Civil Action No. 07-1791. Those cases were filed by former sales representatives who identified Eli Lilly’s off-label marketing practices. To encourage individuals to come forward and identify companies and individuals that defraud the government, federal law permits whistle blowers to share in the recovery for such fraud. In this case, the whistle blowers will share in 18%, or $78,870,877, of the federal share of the (civil) settlement. Ushistorygeek (talk) 22:00, 1 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The tone of the article is inappropriate for wikipedia. The edits reflect bias and contain stale and incorrect information. I am reverting your edits. Please don't add the text back without consensus here. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The information you have deleted is notable and reliably sourced. Characterizing past criminal behavior as "mired in multiple controversies" is WP:SYNTH and does not accurately reflect the source. Ushistorygeek (talk) 14:42, 7 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The added information is factually incorrect and is biased. Please do not add it back without getting consensus. --Whywhenwhohow (talk) 01:40, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
@Whywhenwhohow see the facts quoted above on August 7 of this year. The information you have deleted is notable and reliably sourced. Again, as I wrote in characterizing past criminal behavior as "mired in multiple controversies" is WP:SYNTH and did not accurately reflect the source. Ushistorygeek (talk) 01:20, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The claims about it being the largest are incorrect.[4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]

References

  1. ^ Letenyei, Danielle (26 August 2021). "Pfizer Paid the Largest Criminal Fine in U.S. History—Lawsuit Details". Market Realist. Retrieved 1 August 2022.
  2. ^ "Top 10 largest criminal fines in history". The Education Network. 5 November 2021. Retrieved 1 August 2022.
  3. ^ Groos, Caleb (2 September 2009). "Pfizer Hit with Largest Criminal Fine in US History". FindLaw. Retrieved 1 August 2022.
  4. ^ "GlaxoSmithKline to Plead Guilty and Pay $3 Billion to Resolve Fraud Allegations and Failure to Report Safety Data". Department of Justice. 2 July 2012. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  5. ^ "Justice Department Announces Largest Health Care Fraud Settlement in Its History". Department of Justice. 2 September 2009. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  6. ^ "Largest Health Care Fraud and Opioid Enforcement Action in Department of Justice History Results in Charges Against 345 Defendants Responsible for More than $6 Billion in Alleged Fraud Losses". Department of Justice. 1 October 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  7. ^ "Federal Indictments & Law Enforcement Actions in One of the Largest Health Care Fraud Schemes Involving Telemedicine and Durable Medical Equipment Marketing Executives Results in Charges Against 24 Individuals Responsible for Over $1.2 Billion in Losses". Department of Justice. 9 April 2019. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  8. ^ "#386: 06-26-03 LARGEST HEALTH CARE FRAUD CASE IN U.S. HISTORY SETTLED HCA INVESTIGATION NETS RECORD TOTAL OF $1.7 BILLION". U.S. Department of Justice. 14 December 2000. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  9. ^ "National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in Charges Against 601 Individuals Responsible for Over $2 Billion in Fraud Losses". Department of Justice. 28 June 2018. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  10. ^ "National Health Care Fraud and Opioid Takedown Results in Charges Against 345 Defendants Responsible for More than $6 Billion in Alleged Fraud Losses". Department of Justice. 30 September 2020. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
  11. ^ "National Health Care Fraud Takedown Results in Charges Against Over 412 Individuals Responsible for $1.3 Billion in Fraud Losses". Department of Justice. 13 July 2017. Retrieved 9 November 2022.
@WhywhenwhohowFriendly reminder to please sign your posts. The text accurately reflects multiple newsworthy sources who reported the judgement at the time. Nonetheless, I've added that qualifier to the article. Ushistorygeek (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 15:21, 9 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

no mention of Dr. Abelardo Aguilar, discoverer of erythtromycin

the entire article reads like the bumpf spewed out regularly by corporate mouthpieces, guided by company lawyers. that this supposedly neutral and factual article does not delve into the shameful treatment of the man is remarkable, especially when one considers the billions erythromycin has brought the company's. perhaps there was a streak of racism as well - the company refused to let dr aguilar visit the production facilities where his discovery was turned into that very highly effective drug, nor would it allow him to visit on his own dime. dr aguilar died in poverty. 70.31.166.89 (talk) 14:53, 19 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Eli_Lilly_and_Company&oldid=1128323312"