It's insulting that Pfizer is trying to pretend to be moral. I am a Ute who
wants BYU to fight this greedy corporate entity with no soul.
Those claiming that anyone connected to BYU or he LDS church should not be part
of the jury should note that the lead counsel for the defense is a BYU alum.
I feel sorry for those who prescribe to this drug. This is going to raise the
cost of the drug (or at least that’s what the claim will be). Had the
corporation done the right thing (regardless of whether they were contractually
obligated too) then we wouldn't even be talking about this. Frankly
compensate those who assist you. Why wouldn't they want to. Imagine the
marketing opportunities to show that a BYU professor helped to invent the drug.
Some people are crazy enough to use it just because of that!Either
way pharmaceutical companies are one of the major problems in healthcare. This
isn't just about this case there are much larger issues at play.
@ A ScientistConsidering that the same news sources also ran this
article stating Pfizer's side of things means that responsible journalism
is taking place. Also, because BYU is the plaintiff in this case, Federal
statutes dictate that it take place in the nearest Federal Court large enough to
house the lawsuit. Only the judge can decide to move the case. As
far as you mentioning that not only righteousness motivates BYU, guess what. . .
is it right that someone uses your research for their own gain, without
crediting you? I also happen to know some pharmaceutical salesmen,
guess what motivates them? I'll tell you, they didn't become pharma
sales associates because of their strong desire to put much needed meds into the
hands of the sick. Prejudice is a two way street. Congratulations,
you just demonstrated your prejudice against BYU and the LDS Church.
Drug lawyers complaining - really. 800 people die everyday in the US from FDA
approved RX's promoted by Big Pharma.
Pfizer is not wrong here. For KSL, DeseretNews, and BYU to launch a defacto
media "campaign" in Utah can only taint any possible jury pool in favor
of these Mormon-Church owned organizations.A change of venue is in
order.And by the way, I know several of the BYU professors involved
in this, and I assure you, they are not simply motivated by righteousness. Greed
runs deep at "the Lord's University" just as it does in the
self-proclaimed "one true Church".
The article even says that Pfizer people and lawyers also met with local media
concerning this story. I don't know how these lawyers can sit there in
their suits and with their money and whine before a judge that BYU talked to the
media. They both are!
By Monday this article will disappear and most people will not have read this-
either way I find something interesting and feel like sharing it!rvalens2's comment got me thinking about how any Utahn jury, then any
American jury, would play out by our current selection process- and the
relationship of that thought to my previous comments. Nearly everyone in this
country has had an experience with a drug or an LDS missionary, has had an
opinion about the LDS Church or 'big business pharmaceutical companies, and
anything else we can skew to say "this makes someone prejudiced".Here's the fascinating part-If you can't find an
American without an opinion that could tie to this case (which alone disproves
our current jury selection rational)- then the only thing you have left
logically is that 'willing jury' I previously referred to. The ideal
jury isn't random, or even the average citizen, but those who have
demonstrated an upright upholding of law, true principles, etc.Who
has the will to walk uprightly, maintain just principles, sustain the law, etc?
I believe all these points only further prove that D&C 64:34-38 is true and
I am part of big pharma and have sen prized be ruthless and press every
advantage. It just stinks when happens to you. Take em down
If Pfizer is so concerned about BYU's and the LDS church's influence
in Utah; then all they need do is demand non-LDS jurors and people who never
attended BYU.I will gladly accept the decision of my fellow non-LDS,
non-BYU citizens in determining Pfizer's guilt or innocence in this
matter.I believe in the end, Pfizer is going to end up having to pay
substantial royalties to BYU and to Daniel Simmons - and rightfully so.
Wait, I thought BYU wasn't a research institution, it sounded like to me
that in this article they did some research.
Re: The RockHow about the same University that knew McMahon was
shattering the Honor code to pieces, but didn't do anything about it until
the day after his last college football game.
When your defense is weak, obfuscate the facts. Pettifogging, that's good
defensive lawyering on Pfizer's part, but Big Pharma's record on
honesty is chilling.
Who you gunna believe?A big greedy evil corporation..orA faith based university that suspended one of their best
players just before the big dance, when they may very well have won the national
championship otherwise?The same university swallowed their pride and
went after people who stole valuable art from them over the years even when they
knew it would be embarrassing to the university.I think I would go
with the university; however, it the facts point the other direction I would go
with the facts.
Let me start by saying that in Fedral Court the Judge can issue a gag order for
the whole time. Second if BYU state that they have an honor code that all
students must follow then by all rights the school it self should follow that
same honor system are to me they aren't practing what they preach. If the
judge should find the need to move the trail someplace else, it would be in the
best interest for justice. This trail will cost taxpayers alot of money,so lets
do it right and stop all the run around.
Dan Simmons is an honest man. Is Pfizer honest? I will stand by Dan.
I'm surprised the decision was made to hold the trial in Utah at all. There
are so many people with ties of some sort with BYU as well as people who are
suspicious at best of the Church. It would make more sense to hold the trial in
One can't help but wonder where all the money goes from healthcare in this
country and why it continually skyropckets. This story holds some clues: the
pharmacy dispensed medicine and the insurance companies. Doctors, burses and
hospitals all claim that they aren't making huge sums but no such claim has
been made by these other two. They are going to single-handedly bankrupt the
country. And if not that, then the oil companies and healthcare costs combined
will put the average person under water. Why do the politicians allow it? They
must get benefits none of us get (like the federal health insurance for which no
one but members of congress qualifies). That alone such produce a total change
of congress amongst the voters.
Brent is barking up the wrong tree. Shame on him for grandstanding to the
media. I expect the cost of my Celebrex prescription to go up. Right now my
co-pay is $40.00 for 30 pills. It's great stuff. Best medicine that
I've ever taken for my back and knees.
The trial should not be held in Utah.
This is no worse than jury tampering during the jury selection process where all
the prospects for jury have their personal and private lives are investigated by
both sides of the case to prejudice the trial with jurors sympathetic to their
cause. When a jury pool is selected there should be no further
contact or investigation of the personal lives of the jury. First 12 unless
health or hardship reasons a juror can't serve the courts. The requirements
to serve on a jury are simple and plain, citizen and resident and not in jail.
Jury selection has become a trial of the jurors in itself and should be
abolished and a no questions asked other than county selection notices.We could also counter this claim of prejudicing the public with the sales
pitches and ads and disclaimers that get aired or printed on 24 hour a day
television and the same media they claim are also a biased and tainted jury
pool. Advertisers are representatives of the company so this argument of jury
tampering is not valid.
Pfizer legal team is setting the stage for an appeal based on these arguments
should they lose the trial.
The right thing for a jury to do is to be perfect. It may seem a bit...
unargued? But consider what we know- God is perfectly just and certainly has
preconceived ideas of what is right and wrong before making a judgement. Believe
in God or not, the principle still stands to make this point- which is that we
are all capable of executing as just of a judgement but it is our will that is
lacking. There is no way to interpret the truth, we all know right from wrong.
It's a matter of our will to uphold it and execute justice.So
we all know the truth, are capable of judging right from wrong, and have free
agency to make our own choices about which principles to adhere to- so where
does that leave us?The only thing published was "BYU and Pfizer
did this, did that, and are now disputing this in court". We all know with
absolute certainty that it was simple and truthful information, JUST
information, and EVEN without any included opinions. If that somehow takes the
will or the ability to consider from a jury- then what doesn't?
Its not uncommon for some people to cheat other people out of what is theirs.
Big business is no exception. Farnsworth the inventor of television was cheated
by RCA over the television patents.That said, the facts need to be
looked at. Until I know them, I will withhold judgement.
If Pfizer's allegation had any merit, every court hearing would require a
gag order. It's an unrealistic expectation.Also- jury selection
is a flawed practice to begin with. The idea is to prevent prejudice but this in
itself is a prejudicial principle in assuming prejudice is always bad. Should a
jury have the prejudice that cold-blooded murder is wrong and that justice
demands it being illegal? Yes. I could see this in the news, hold the opinion
that Pfizer is wrong, believe in the LDS Church, be a BYU fan, and still be
presented a full argument as a jury member and find in favor of Pfizer. Minds
change every day.Believing something doesn't mean you
can't change your beliefs. We are all raised to believe something. Not one
human being is raised indifferent to science, religion, conservative, liberal,
etc- and then just one day chooses their opinions with objective perfection.
That isn't reality, yet we treat the jury like it should be their goal.The truth is that the rightfulness or wrongfulness of Pfizer's
actions have nothing to do with the jury or media... just their own actions and
Oh how the Big Pharmaceuticals cry when they are dishonest with the public.
This just goes to show Pfizer is more interested in huge profits to pay fat
dividends to stock holders or huge retention bonuses to executives, or even
kick-backs to the insurance companies for prescriptions written by physicians
than funding ongoing Research & Development. This monopolization along with
the practices of health insurance giants is the corruption that Obama-Care will
only make worse. It would be poetic justice for EVERY American for such a jury
to return a substantial judgment against Pfizer. Like the Standard Oil monopoly
of John D Rockefeller just over a century ago this country needs a Theodore
Roosevelt as opposed to a Tommy Douglas (Canada's father of socialized
medicine) to break up this monopoly of "Big Pharmaceutical" and "Big
The truth shall set them free.