Who We Are

Problem: Secrecy agreements in settlements of personal injury law suits deprive the public and regulators of the information that they need to have about the dangers of various prescription drugs, vaccines, and consumer products.
Source: Jeff Gerth and Sheryl Stolberg, "Another Part of the Battle: Keeping a Drug in the Store," New York Times, December 13, 2000, p. A1, A21

In 1993, Ms. Odell Buggs "suffered a stroke that her doctors attributed to an ingredient [PPA] in her over-the-counter decongestant, Tavist-D. She sued the manufacturer. . . [hoping] that a trial would lead to publicity about PPA."

"The company [that made Tavist-D] offered to settle, and Ms. Buggs accepted. But there was a condition: she could not discuss the specifics of the settlement. . . . [Thus] she remained silent -- until last month when the Food and Drug Administration announced plans to ban [PPA]." This ban occurred only after review of a six-year long Yale study.

Thus, six years passed before the public could be protected from the risks of this over-the-counter medicine.

"In the case of PPA, safety questions simmered for two decades on three fronts: in scientific circles, the courts, and in Washington. In each area, an examination of court records and other documents shows, pharmaceutical companies or their representatives tried to tamp down the public debate."

"In the courts, PPA makers faced more than two dozen lawsuits, but the cases were not publicized because they were usually settled with confidentiality agreements [which means that] the entire record is sealed."

During this six year period, "drugs containing PPA generated hundreds of millions of dollars in sales."

For more information on this pattern of settlements in personal injury cases that deprive the public of information on the risks of various pharmaceutical products, see the above referenced article. Click here to see a possible solution.

HOME - NEXT