Why Has Bayer Stopped “Essure” Use In The UK and EU? Is it because women need a hysterectomy to remove the birth control device?

By Mark A. York (September 19, 2017)

Mass Tort Nexus

“Women are forced to undergo hysterectomies to remove a birth control device, Essure which is manufactured and marketed by Bayer AG, according to the British Medical Review Board”

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Essure birth control implant is used to permanently sterilize women, but is now recognized as a cause of significant side effects and complications also known in the healthcare industry as “adverse events” with the United Kingdom and European Union now restricting use of the permanent birth control device. This action has now started the FDA review in the United States of Essure and the process that Bayer stated showed the  device was tested and determined safe.

One woman in Great Britian – who later had her uterus removed – said she was left suicidal due to the “unbearable” pain, and felt she was a burden to her family.

The manufacturer Bayer says Essure is safe and the benefits outweigh the risks, which has been met with speculation as the sale of the implants in the EU was temporarily suspended this month and Bayer has asked hospitals in the UK not to use the device during this time.

“Too painful to move”

Laura Linkson, was alo fitted with the Essure device in 2013, and said the pain left her suicidal.

“The device was sold to me as a simple and easy procedure. I was told that I’d be in and out of the doctor’s office in 10 minutes and that there’d be no recovery time.

“I went from being a mum who was doing everything with her children, to a mum that was stuck in bed unable to move without pain, at some points being suicidal.

The small coil implants, which are made of nickel and polyester (PET) fibres, are used as a sterilization device to stop eggs reaching the womb.

They are inserted into the fallopian tubes where they trigger inflazmation, causing scar tissue to build up and eventually block the tubes, known as a hysteroscopic sterilization.

They can cause intense pain, and some women are thought to react badly to the nickel and plastic.

Because of the way the coils attach to the fallopian tubes, the only way to take them out is to remove a woman’s fallopian tubes and often her uterus.

In other cases the device has been found to perforate fallopian tubes and fallen out, embedding itself elsewhere in the body.

Victoria Dethier was implanted with Essure in 2012 and for three years could not work out why she felt so unwell. “There were moments where I couldn’t get out of bed I was in so much pain. It felt like I was dying, like something was killing me from the inside,” she said.

She thinks her body was reacting to the PET fibres designed to cause inflammation.

She had a hysterectomy to remove the device in 2015.  “Straight away there was a difference, I’d experienced a horrible taste in my mouth and that had gone,” she explained.as well as  I’d lost a lot of hair and that came back within 12 months, it was incredible.”

“We need acknowledgement by Bayer”

The medicines and healthcare products regulatory agency (MHRA – UK) has been criticized for not responding to the increasing evidence regarding the device.

In 2015, a study published in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) suggested that women who had a hysteroscopic sterilization were 10 times more likely to need follow-up surgery than those who had a traditional sterilization – 2.4% of those surveyed, as opposed to 0.2% amongst those having a standard sterilization.

In the US more than 15,000 women have reported problems to the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), including pain, allergic reactions and “migration of device” that are involved in thousands of lawsuits versus Bayer Corporation and it’s German parent Bayer, AG.

Carl Heneghan, from the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine at Oxford University, has criticized the regulator’s failure to act on such findings.  “How much evidence do you need to say let’s withdraw this product from the market?” he asked.

Victoria Dethier is angry that she and so many other women feel they have been ignored “No-one is listening to us, and now there are many women coming forward… we need to be acknowledged.”

Bayer Says “No long-term evidence of adverse events”

The full extent of the problem in the UK is not known.

The MHRA rejected the Victoria Derbyshire program’s Freedom of Information request asking how many women have reported problems.

The NHS does not have figures for the total number of women who have been fitted with Essure, or who have had it removed.

However, the clinical trial that led to the device being approved has been criticized for not considering the long-term effects of the implants, which Bayer has defended to this day. “The trial… only followed up women for one year, so nobody has a real understanding of what happens with this device after two years, three years, five years,” Mr Heneghan explained, and based on worldwide reporting of thousands of “adverse Events” it now seems that Bayer will have to begin the process of accepting responsibility for the Essure device medical problems claimed by the thousands of women who had the device implanted.

Some women who have experienced problems say they were not informed about the risks.

But Ben Peyton-Jones, a British consultant-obstetrician and gynecologist, said the device should still be used in some instances. Starting “I think it has a place for women who can’t have keyhole surgery and who are explained the risks very carefully,” when asked about the continued viability of Essure.

“When used correctly, according to the manufacturer’s guidance and in trained hands, it is safe.”

European Union Essure Use Suspended

The sale of Essure implants in the EU has now been suspended for further investigation and hospitals have been asked by Bayer not to use their existing stocks during this time.  This is a voluntary request and up to individual trusts to decide what to do.

The company said that independent reviews of Essure had concluded that the benefits outweighed the risks.

“Patient safety and appropriate use of Essure are the greatest priorities for Bayer, and the company fully stands behind Essure as an appropriate choice for women who desire permanent contraception,” it added in a statement. Bayer will immediately start damage control in the USA as soon as the UK-EU restrictions on Essure become known, specifically in the massive Essure Multidistrict Litigation, wher thousands of women in the United States are alleging major complications and onset of medical disability due to the Essure “adverse events” even while Bayer insisted the product was safe.

“Many women with Essure rely on this form of contraception without any side effects.”

The MHRA said it had no evidence to suggest this product was unsafe, and that the recent suspension did not suggest any increased risk to patient safety.

It said it was important for healthcare professionals to discuss the risks with patients before a procedure.

 

Read More

Dora Mingo vs Janssen and Bayer (Xarelto) Trial Update: Plaintiff Closes Her Case on August 16, 2017

(Dora Mingo vs. Janssen Research & Development, LLC et al. Case No. 2:15-cv-03469)

 DEFENDANTS’ MOTION FOR JUDGMENT AS A MATTER OF LAW AT THE CLOSE OF PLAINTIFF’S CASE-IN-CHIEF

The third Xarelto MDL 2592, bellwether trial is proceeding in US District Court of Mississippi in front of MDL Judge Eldon Fallon, where plaintiff Dora Mingo resides, see Xarelto MDL 2592 Mass Tort Nexus Briefcase.  At the close of plaintiff’s case-in-chief on August 16, 2017 defendants Janssen Research & Development and Bayer Pharma AG, et al, moved the Court for judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s design-defect and failure-to-warn-or-instruct claims under the Mississippi Product Liability Act (“MPLA”) see, Defendants Motion for Judgment as a Matter of Law.

Plaintiff have asserted two causes of action under Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-63. Plaintiff first asserts that Xarelto is defectively designed because it was brought to market without an  accompanying rivaroxaban-specific anti-Factor Xa assay. Plaintiff also claims that Xarelto is unreasonably dangerous due to inadequate warning or instruction because Defendants failed to instruct physicians to use Neoplastin PT at the initiation of therapy to identify patients at an increased risk of bleeding.

Defendants state in their assertions that they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s design-defect claim because an adjunct rivaroxaban-specific anti-Factor Xa assay to be used with Xarelto is not an alternative anticoagulant design and is therefore not a feasible alternative design under the MPLA.3 See Elliot v. El Paso Corp., 181 So. 3d 263, 273 (Miss. 2015); Clark v. Brass Eagle,Inc., 866 So. 2d 456, 461 (Miss. 2004). In their second assertion, they claim they are entitled to a trial win on Plaintiff’s design-defect claim because Plaintiff has presented no evidence that Xarelto failed to function as expected. See Austin v. Will-Burt Co., 361 F.3d 862, 872 (5th Cir. 2004).

Defendants further plead, they are entitled to judgment as a matter of law on Plaintiff’s design-defect claim because Plaintiff has made clear that her design-defect claim is based on a theory that Xarelto should have had a different design at the time it was released to the market (Trial Transcript. 141:19–142:11, 144:1–17), and the Court’s preemption decision so requires. See Order & Reasons on Defs.’ Preemption MSJs (Doc. 7110), at 11 (plaintiff’s “pre-market design-defect claims under the MPLA are not preempted”).

Defendants also include in their request for judgment, plaintiffs abandonment of various claims that were not presented at trial or withdrawn before trial, including the “failure to include the Rocket AF trial data” on participant bleeding rates and that Xarelto was designed without a reversal agent.

Mass Tort Nexus will provide additional Dora Mingo trial updates as they become available.

Read More

Proof of Monsanto Collusion to Stop Release of Cancer Link to Roundup Weed Killer

“Another Example of Corporate America and Undue Influence on Official Release of Damaging Scientific Data”

Proof of Monsanto Collusion to Stop Release of Cancer Link to Roundup Weed Killer

Documents released in a lawsuit against Monsanto, see Roundup (Monsanto) MDL 2741 USDC ND California, raised new questions about the company’s efforts to influence public opinion by collusion and steering of data published by mainstream media, various authors and scientific research publications and revealed an internal debate over the safety of the Monsanto’s weed killer Roundup.

The active ingredient is glyphosate, the most common weed killer in the world, used around the world on farm crops and by home gardeners, with the largest market being the USA. While Roundup’s relative safety has been upheld by most US regulators, the Federal Mass Tort Litigation against Monsanto and Roundup,  pending in US District Court in San Francisco continues to raise questions about the company’s practices and the product itself. Thousands of plaintiffs from across the USA have filed suit against Monsanto-Roundup and as details of Monsanto’s attempt to suppress and influence the release of damaging scientific data are released, the number of filed cases will only increase. There has been documented evidence introduced that shows Monsanto influenced high level US Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) executives to suppress data and the release of reports that showed Roundup (glyphosate) was dangerous and suspected of causing cancer. Jess Rowland, EPA Regulatory Affairs Manager, stopped the release of a government study that was key in the investigation into the carcinogenic effects of Roundup’s primary ingredient glyphosate by the Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, see EPA’s Jess Rowland Stops Release of Report on Glyphosate as Cancer Agent. Rowland left the EPA in early 2017 and went on to become a highly paid consultant for Monsanto.

There are numerous documents and media articles that underscore the lengths to which the agrochemical company has taken to protect its image, and the dangers of Roundup.  Documents show that Henry I. Miller, an academic and a vocal proponent of genetically modified crops, asked Monsanto to draft an article for him that largely mirrored one that appeared under his name on Forbes’s website in 2015. Mr. Miller could not be reached for comment.

A similar issue appeared in academic research, when an academic involved in writing research funded by Monsanto, John Acquavella, a former Monsanto employee, appeared to express concern with the process, see Monsanto internal e-mail expressing concern over Roundup , in the 2015 email to a Monsanto executive, “I can’t be part of deceptive authorship on a presentation or publication.” He also said of the way the company was trying to present the authorship: “We call that ghost writing and it is unethical.”

A Monsanto official said the comments were the result of “a complete misunderstanding” that had been “worked out,” while Mr. Acquavella stated via mail that “there was no ghostwriting” and that his comments had been related to an early draft and a question over authorship that was resolved. Even though there are other documents that refute this version of Monsanto’s “official” statement.

Monsanto has been shown to have actively ghostwritten, drafted and offered direction on formal EPA studies, press releases and other “official” documents, introduced in the pending Roundup federal litigation.

The documents also show internal discussions about Roundup’s safety. “If somebody came to me and said they wanted to test Roundup I know how I would react — with serious concern,” one Monsanto scientist wrote in an internal email in 2001.

Monsanto said it was outraged by the documents’ release by a law firm involved in the litigation, although the documents are now public court records, which Monsanto attempted to suppress being introduced into the litigation again and again since the start of the Roundup lawsuits. Brent Wisner, a partner at Baum, Hedlund, Aristei & Goldman, the firm that released the documents, said Monsanto had erred by not filing a required motion seeking continued protection of the documents. Monsanto said no such filing was necessary.

“Now the world gets to see these documents that would otherwise remain secret”, per Mr. Wisner.

To reflect “official corporate collusion and influence”  see Mr. Miller’s 2015 article on Forbes’s website which was an attack on the findings of the International Agency for Research on Cancer, a branch of the World Health Organization that had labeled glyphosate a probable carcinogen, a finding disputed by other regulatory bodies. In the email traffic, Monsanto asked Mr. Miller if he would be interested in writing an article on the topic, and he said, “I would be if I could start from a high-quality draft.”

The article was authored by Mr. Miller and with the assertion that “opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.” The magazine did not mention any involvement by Monsanto in preparing the article, as most co-authored articles provide.

“That was a collaborative effort, a function of the outrage we were hearing from many people on the attacks on glyphosate,” Mr. Partridge of Monsanto said. “This is not a scientific, peer-reviewed journal. It’s an op-ed we collaborated with him on.”

After disclosure of the stories origin, Forbes removed the story from its website and said that it ended its relationship with Mr. Miller amid the revelations.

“All contributors to Forbes sign an agreement requiring them to disclose any potential conflicts of interest and only publish content that is their own original writing,” stated a Forbes representative. “When it came to our attention that Mr. Miller violated these terms, we removed his blog from Forbes.com and ended our relationship with him.”

Mr. Miller’s work has also appeared in the opinion pages of The New York Times, which reflects the long reach of Monsanto’s attempts to influence public opinion.

“We have never paid Dr. Miller,” said Sam Murphey, a spokesman for Monsanto. “Our scientists have never collaborated with Dr. Miller on his submissions to The New York Times. Our scientists have on occasion collaborated with Dr. Miller on other pieces.” This statement alone reflects the formal relationship between Miller and Monsanto.

James Dao, the Op-Ed editor of The Times, said in a statement, “Op-Ed contributors to The Times must sign a contract requiring them to avoid any conflict of interest, and to disclose any financial interest in the subject matter of their piece.” Miller and Monsanto did not comment on the apparent violation of this Times policy.

The documents also show that the ongoing debate outside Monsanto about glyphosate safety and Roundup, was also taking place within the company.

In a 2002 email, a Monsanto executive said, “What I’ve been hearing from you is that this continues to be the case with these studies — Glyphosate is O.K. but the formulated product (and thus the surfactant) does the damage.”

As to the internal Monsanto views of a causation relationship between cancer and Roundup, where a different Monsanto executive tells others via e-mail see 2003 Monsanto email, “You cannot say that Roundup is not a carcinogen … we have not done the necessary testing on the formulation to make that statement.”

She adds, however, that “we can make that statement about glyphosate and can infer that there is no reason to believe that Roundup would cause cancer.”

The documents also show that A. Wallace Hayes, the former editor of a journal, Food and Chemical Toxicology, has had a contractual relationship with Monsanto. In a further example of Monsanto collusion and influence in 2013, while he was still editor, Mr. Hayes retracted a key study damaging to Monsanto that found that Roundup, and genetically modified corn, could cause cancer and early death in rats.

Mr. Hayes made a statement that he wasn’t under contract with Monsanto at the time of the retraction, however he was compensated by Monsanto for the article after he left the journal. This seems to be a very indirect method of exerting influence on the public opinion via a direct method of paying for favorable treatment and influence by Monsanto.

“Monsanto played no role whatsoever in the decision that was made to retract,” he said. “It was based on input that I got from some very well-respected people, and also my own evaluation.” If this statement is accurate, why would Monsanto pay Mr. Hayes for an article determined to be inaccurate or misleading other than the retraction was of some benefit to Monsanto.

Monsanto has been proven time and time again to be directly responsible for corporate sponsored  collusion, influence peddling in both the public and private sectors and manipulation of data released to the public regarding the now known carcinogenic links of exposure to Monsanto’s primary product, Roundup and the main ingredient glyphosate.

 

Read More