Pfizer accuses BYU of tainting jury pool in multibillion dollar Celebrex case

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • gdog3finally West Jordan, Utah
    May 1, 2012 12:50 p.m.

    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.

  • staypuffinpc Provo, UT
    April 30, 2012 8:49 p.m.

    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.

  • runsrealfast POCATELLO, ID
    April 30, 2012 9:29 a.m.

    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.

  • Article-Reader Spanish Fork, UT
    April 29, 2012 2:59 p.m.

    @ A Scientist

    Considering 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.

  • Red Smith American Fork, UT
    April 29, 2012 2:44 p.m.

    Drug lawyers complaining - really. 800 people die everyday in the US from FDA approved RX's promoted by Big Pharma.

  • A Scientist Provo, UT
    April 28, 2012 4:08 p.m.

    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".

  • Homer1 MIDVALE, UT
    April 28, 2012 2:01 p.m.

    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!

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2012 1:50 p.m.

    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 just.

  • bigv56 Cottonwood, CA
    April 28, 2012 1:27 p.m.

    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

  • rvalens2 Burley, ID
    April 28, 2012 12:56 p.m.

    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.

  • Utehaterforlife Syracuse, UT
    April 28, 2012 12:25 p.m.

    Wait, I thought BYU wasn't a research institution, it sounded like to me that in this article they did some research.

  • Mount Olympus Salt Lake, UT
    April 28, 2012 11:28 a.m.

    Re: The Rock

    How 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.

  • Owl Salt Lake City, UT
    April 28, 2012 11:20 a.m.

    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.

  • The Rock Federal Way, WA
    April 28, 2012 10:26 a.m.

    Who you gunna believe?

    A big greedy evil corporation..


    A 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.

  • Trooper55 Williams, AZ
    April 28, 2012 9:39 a.m.

    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.

  • What in Tucket? Provo, UT
    April 28, 2012 7:52 a.m.

    Dan Simmons is an honest man. Is Pfizer honest? I will stand by Dan.

  • E Sandy, UT
    April 28, 2012 7:28 a.m.

    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 another state.

  • toosmartforyou Farmington, UT
    April 28, 2012 7:19 a.m.

    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.

  • Flashback Kearns, UT
    April 28, 2012 7:04 a.m.

    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.

  • Pete1215 Lafayette, IN
    April 28, 2012 6:25 a.m.

    The trial should not be held in Utah.

  • My2Cents Taylorsville, UT
    April 28, 2012 6:15 a.m.

    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.

  • baddog Cedar Rapids, IA
    April 28, 2012 6:00 a.m.

    Pfizer legal team is setting the stage for an appeal based on these arguments should they lose the trial.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2012 9:52 p.m.

    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?

  • cjb Bountiful, UT
    April 27, 2012 9:39 p.m.

    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.

  • A voice of Reason Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2012 9:25 p.m.

    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 accountability.

  • #1 SLC Sports Fan Salt Lake City, UT
    April 27, 2012 8:24 p.m.

    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 Health Insurance!"

  • Aggielove Cache county, USA
    April 27, 2012 8:15 p.m.

    The truth shall set them free.

  • Zona Zone Mesa, AZ
    April 27, 2012 6:51 p.m.

    Pure gamesmanship.