Analyst's Corner

Analyst's Corner

Introduction
Putting it all in Context
Distortions of Distortions
Lilly backpedals - Viva the FDA!
Public Interest?

Introduction

Here we are discussing Lilly's responses to the New York Times reports. Their own press releases betray the company's biases and structural corruption. Presumably, it is legal for us to link to their own press releases. We humbly assert that our fragmentary citations of their press releases fall under "fair use".

The Lilly press releases can be found in the Lilly Newsroom

Lilly has also recently set up a marketing site in direct response to this wiki called ZyprexaFacts.com. We are in the midst of responding to this desperate spin-job.

Putting it all in Context

Lilly's statement - Eli Lilly and Company Statement Regarding Today's New York Times Article - December 21, 2006
In response to - Playing Down the Risks of a Drug, New York Times Editorial - January 20, 2007

"Taking selected data points out of context can be very misleading. The illegally leaked document about which the New York Times inquired is, presumably, a summary given to Lilly's Global Product Labeling Committee in February, 2000.

The irony here is so del.icio.us I'm putting on weight just thinking about it.

Yes Lilly, we know that taking data points out of context can be misleading. In fact, this is precisely what we have been concerned your salespeople have been doing with your voluminous data on the side-effects of zyprexa! But don't take my word for it - let's hear it from a former Lilly salesperson themselves - Zyprexa Drug Rep Speaks Out. In his own words "If you torture statistics enough, and they will tell you anything."

Now, lets talk a little bit about the context that Lilly wanted the NY Times to consider. Lilly dumped 11 Millio n documents on the plaintiffs in the class action suit for discovery. So I guess we can't really appreciate the depth and depravity of the corruption here until we digest the memos in their entirety. Hey Lilly - open 'em all up. The free world has some great data processing capabilities that we would love to apply to a substantive social justice issue.

Lilly continues:

"To that point, there are separate groups within Lilly's medical and regulatory organizations that are responsible for oversight and review of the safety of our products and updating product labeling. These groups undertake a thorough process to evaluate any additional data from clinical studies, post-marketing data along with existing data and determine whether the additional data shed new light on product safety. These groups and the process are designed to ensure that all data and analyses are accurate. The data referenced in The New York Times article is the preliminary analysis -- not the final accurate analysis that was shared with the FDA -- and is therefore very misleading."

Huh?!? Welcome to the spin-zone. The more the data is massaged and processed, the more accurate it is? Talk about Orwellian scientific methodology.

How about sharing some of that raw data with the world, Lilly. We are adults, not children who need to be "protected" from the data by Mama Lilly. We can handle seeing the raw data. Can you handle showing it to us?

Distortions of Distortions

Lilly's statement - Eli Lilly and Company Statement Regarding Today's New York Times Article - January 4, 2007
In response to - Mother Wonders if Psychosis Drug Helped Kill Son, January 4, 2007

"Patient safety is our first priority at Lilly. We take seriously and
thoroughly examine all adverse event reports received through
post-marketing surveillance (also known as spontaneous adverse event
reporting), from both health care professionals and consumers. We follow
up on reports diligently and intensely -- as we did in this case.
Although these reports are not publicly available, they are shared
routinely with regulatory authorities. It is widely accepted that these
reports do not address causality but they are important and can help
guide further evaluation into potential safety signals. However, they
cannot be interpreted in isolation from clinical trial data."

Really Lilly? Are you sure you aren't distorting this data before passing it on to doctors and regulators?

Something in these memos suggested you might:
Disparity Emerges in Lilly Data on Schizophrenia Drug, December 21, 2006

or perhaps it was just "funny" statistics that us laypeople would never understand:
More On Seroquel's BOLDERs

Lilly backpedals - Viva the FDA!

Lilly's statement -Eli Lilly and Company Statement Regarding Today's New York Times Article - January 4, 2007
In response to -Mother Wonders if Psychosis Drug Helped Kill Son, January 4, 2007

Lilly now seems to be changing their tune on off-label prescriptions:

"Zyprexa is not approved for the treatment of patients with
dementia-related psychosis. Elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis
treated with atypical antipsychotic drugs are at an increased risk of
death compared with those patients taking a placebo. In addition,
compared to elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis taking a
placebo, there was a significantly higher incidence of cerebrovascular
adverse events in elderly patients with dementia-related psychosis
treated with Zyprexa."

Oh? How does this statement contrast with the "Viva Zyprexa" campaign reported in the New York Times?

Drug Files Show Maker Promoted Unapproved Use, December 18, 2006

Maybe the public, as well as the FDA, would like to compare the assertions made in this press release to Lilly's internal marketing communications.

Is Lilly trying to disguise what they are really trying to hide as a Trade Secret? It's really no secret that drug companies used to train their sales people to market drugs off-label...

Public Interest?

Public interest, or Corporate Interests? Lilly lawyers attempt to argue that secrecy and deception is in the public's interest

"Vulnerable patients taking lifesaving medications should be guided by their doctors and not by the selective leaking of documents that cause them to stop taking their medications."

points & authorities

Lilly's paternalistic stance that they know best what is in the patient's interest defies a patient's right to full disclosure of all the side effect of a drug, and their free choice to take it or suffer the consequences.

Truthful disclosure is always in the public interest, not secrets and
distortions.