Actos lawsuit says actos bladder cancer link revealed by testing on rats.

Actos lawsuit filed by whistleblower alleges deliberate coverup of Actos side effects.

Actos lawsuit filed by whistleblower recently unsealed by federal court: A whistleblower who filed an actos lawsuit against the maker o

f Actos makes serious allegations about a coverup of the Actos bladder cancer link. (Download a copy of the 111-page Actos lawsuit here). The actos lawsuit was filed by whistleblower Helen Ge, who is a medical doctor and former safety consultant to Takeda Pharmaceuticals.

Dr. Helen Ge’s Actos lawsuit involves Takeda’s failure to report bladder cancer, Congestive Heart Failure (CHF) and other adverse events

for the diabetes drug Actos. In her lawsuit, Dr. Ge alleges shocking misconduct, including these allegations about the Actos bladder cancer risk:

Dr. Ge had direct knowledge of the Actos bladder cancer risk and encountered resistance from her superiors when she tried to report bladder cancer as related to Actos. Dr. Ge claims her supervisors directed her to change her “related” assessment to unrelated. According to her recollection of reviewing Takeda’s adverse event database for Actos, there were more than 100 bladder cancers reported to the company, but only 72 reported to the FDA, which she alleges is a serious discrepancy. Dr. Ge also alleges that carcinogenesis from Actos was discovered during the initial Actos animal studies.

Actos attorneys who have filed Actos lawsuits for people with bladder cancer are taking a long look at Dr.

Ge’s lawsuit. If the allegations of the lawsuit are true, Actos’ manufacturer could be facing substantial compensatory and punitive damages in each bladder cancer victim’s actos lawsuit. A jury would be understandably upset if these allegations are proven:

  • That Dr. Ge’s supervisors ordered her to falsely report that side effects related to Actos were “unrelated.”
  • That the link between Actos

    and bladder cancer was shown as early as animal studies, before Actos was ever placed on the market.

  • That there were more than 100 Actos bladder cancer cases, but Takeda Pharmaceuticals reported only 72 of them to the FDA.

(Download a copy of the 111-page Actos lawsuit here).

Down and dirty

by Susan Bryant

As political campaigns pick up speed this election year, voters can expect to see candidates intensify their attempts to persuade public opinion in their favor. Included

in their political arsenal are the “attack ads” that

many people find the worst part of our election process. Some attack ads become so famous they are

remembered for generations. The Washington Post actually compiled a playlist of videos of the worst negative campaign ads of all time. In fact, a recent Gallup poll indicated that 70% of Americans say they can’t wait for the 2012 presidential election to be over. If negative ads are viewed with such derision by the public, why do candidates continue to use this strategy?

Negativity works

Despite our gut feeling about negative ads, there are several reasons why they are effective according to Ruthann Weaver Lariscy, a professor of advertising and public relations in the Grady College at the University of Georgia.

– Negative information is more memorable than positive information.

– Negative ads are more complex than positive ones, requiring us to process them more slowly and with somewhat more attentiveness.

– Negative messages can elicit a “sleeper effect,” whereby a message becomes dissociated over time from its source. Although we may not remember where we heard something negative, the information is still retained and ultimately can affect our vote. [Continue reading…]