Pfizer's Dishonest Business Practices (COURANT)
Mort Zuckerman
Durlan...@yale.edu, Aa...@columbia.edu, gary_w...@nymc.edu,
scientifi...@ostp.gov, pkru...@princeton.edu,
Stanle...@fiu.edu, emcsw...@niaid.nih.gov, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
Spin...@yahoogroups.com, kshe...@calea.org, fit...@gmail.com,
patrick.f...@usdoj.gov, model...@sbcglobal.net,
jdr...@nejm.org, let...@courant.com, Jgerb...@cdc.gov,
michae...@po.state.ct.us, con...@po.state.ct.us, executive-
edi...@nytimes.com, managin...@nytimes.com, news-
ti...@nytimes.com, biz...@nytimes.com, for...@nytimes.com,
nati...@nytimes.com, dv...@cdc.gov, brigidc...@optonline.net,
tr...@hotmail.com, illino...@aol.com, jle...@courant.com,
tinaj...@yahoo.com, jhorn...@fff.org, thomas...@usdoj.gov,
thoma...@po.state.ct.us, kur...@washpost.com,
georg...@washpost.com, p...@allegorypress.com,
commissi...@po.state.ct.us, brans...@comcast.net,
vts...@comcast.net, o...@po.state.ct.us, freet...@charter.net,
scott....@po.state.ct.us, govern...@po.state.ct.us,
attorney...@po.state.ct.us, randall...@usdoj.gov,
Robert....@yale.edu, edi...@greenwich-post.com,
harol...@yale.edu, sedm...@nswbc.org, rrmcg...@aol.com,
fr...@nytimes.com, dpr...@stmartin.edu
Cc: fra...@ucia.gov, dr-ahma...@president.ir,
eugener...@washpost.com, afa...@niaid.nih.gov,
bmi...@newstimes.com, tr...@hotmail.com, rast...@aol.com,
billc...@gmail.com, amcg...@rms-law.com, rjmu...@aol.com,
paulcrai...@yahoo.com, criminal...@usdoj.gov,
karla.d...@usdoj.gov, christophe...@usdoj.gov,
richar...@yale.edu, harol...@yale.edu, james.p...@yale.edu,
inq...@aldf.com, ly...@idsociety.org, meganm...@theatlantic.com
Subject: Pfizer's Dishonest Business Practices (COURANT)
Date: Mar 14, 2010 8:10 AM
Pfizer tried to fire me because I was sick with Chronic Lyme by
offering me a different job, and then saying my primary job might not
be available when the temporary job they were offering me (stupidly,
not getting it about how Lyme affects memory) expired. Naturally I
declined.
The point is they tried to fire me through trickery, James Curley (who
lived in EAST LYME at the time) was the boss' name.
He, himself, had Chronic Lyme, which I propose is the reason he left
the labs and took a management job - it's easier on the brain than
doing the work of a real scientist. Curley had a reputation for
sleeping on the floor of his lab office when he worked in Analytical R
& D. No one at the time was really sympathetic to him for doing that.
OH YEAH, we had a great conversation about it when I first met him...
about how he was so sick he literally had to CRAWL up stairs, like
myself...
Now, have I made a contribution to Science, regardless?
Despite being chronically ill?
http://www.actionlyme.org/PHILLIPS_JE_PERVERT.htm
Kinda.
Kathleen M. Dickson
janmusinski at earthlink dot net
ActionLyme dot org
http://www.actionlyme.org
===========================
http://www.courant.com/news/connecticut/hc-pfizer-virus-lawsuit-0314.artmar14,0,4421048,full.story
Ex-Pfizer Worker Cites Genetically Engineered Virus In Lawsuit Over
Firing
By EDMUND H. MAHONY The Hartford Courant
March 14, 2010
Medical experts will be watching closely Monday when a scientist who
says she has been intermittently paralyzed by a virus designed at the
Pfizer laboratory where she worked in Groton opens a much anticipated
trial that could raise questions about safety practices in the dynamic
field of genetic engineering.
Organizations involved in workplace safety and responsible genetic
research already have seized on the federal lawsuit by molecular
biologist Becky McClain as an example of what they claim is evidence
that risks caused by cutting-edge genetic manipulation have
outstripped more slowly evolving government regulation of
laboratories.
McClain, of Deep River, suspects she was inadvertently exposed,
through work by a former Pfizer colleague in 2002 or 2003, to an
engineered form of the lentivirus, a virus similar to the one that can
lead to acquired immune deficiency syndrome, or AIDS. Medical experts
working for McClain believe the virus has affected the way her body
channels potassium, leading to a condition that causes complete
paralysis as many as 12 times a month.
"If a worker in a plant as sophisticated as Pfizer is becoming
infected with a genetically engineered virus, then I think the
potential is everywhere," said Jeremy Gruber, president of the Council
for Responsible Genetics, a public interest group created to explore
the implications of genetic technologies.
"Genetically engineered viruses are commonly worked on at your average
university," Gruber said. "The public has a right to know what
regulations are in place and what regulations are required to fix an
industrywide issue. We need to have a conversation about this. Ms.
McClain's attempt to do that has been hampered at every turn, by the
courts and by regulators."
Pfizer disputes all of McClain's claims and says it fired her in 2005
because she refused to come to work. The global pharmaceuticals
manufacturer, with research labs in southeastern Connecticut, defends
its safety practices and denies that McClain's physical disability is
related to exposure at its Groton lab. The company says she did not
link her disability to workplace exposure until after she was fired.
As a molecular biologist, McClain studied cells on a molecular level,
manipulating genetic codes in an effort to develop vaccines. During
the period at issue in the suit, McClain worked in Pfizer's Human
Health Embryonic Stem Cells Technologies, Genomic and Proteomic
Sciences and Exploratory Medicinal Sciences Group.
Hostile Exchanges
The sharp disagreement between McClain and her former employer mirrors
a half-dozen or so years of hostile litigation leading to Monday's
jury trial in Hartford before U.S. District Judge Vanessa L. Bryant.
McClain will argue that she was wrongfully dismissed and is entitled
to unspecified damages. In the run-up, Pfizer attacked McClain's legal
claims, and she questioned the company's corporate integrity.
On the advice of her lawyers, McClain would not discuss her suit last
week. Neither would her lawyers, nor those representing Pfizer.
But McClain has claimed in her suit and in earlier public statements
that she was fired after experiencing symptoms of illness and after
complaining to the U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration
about safety in her Pfizer lab.
OSHA dismissed McClain's complaint. In a decision published after
McClain's termination, the agency criticized her for refusing to
return to work in spite of "Pfizer's substantial efforts" to address
her concerns. In a speech last year to a labor safety group in
California, McClain said she was told by an OSHA investigator that the
federal agency's legal authority has not kept pace with developments
in sophisticated medical research.
A series of angry, pretrial exchanges developed over McClain's efforts
to compel Pfizer to give her precise information about the DNA
sequencing of the engineered lentivirus she suspects infected her.
Pfizer says it responded to all of McClain's requests, in accordance
with the law. Her advocates called Pfizer's assertion preposterous and
claimed the company has not produced — perhaps because it is subject
to trademark — the sequencing data that could enable scientists to
engineer a genetic cure.
Over the course of pretrial argument, the number and breadth of
McClain's legal claims against Pfizer have been reduced from eight to
two. Last month, Bryant dismissed the most significant of the eight
claims: that willful and wanton misconduct by Pfizer resulted in lax
laboratory procedures. McClain claimed laxity contributed to her
exposure.
McClain's advocates point to language in Bryant's ruling that suggests
the misconduct allegation was dismissed, at least in part, because
state law requires such claims to be resolved by state workers'
compensation rules. But Pfizer says Bryant's ruling is another
vindication of its assertion that no evidence exists to support
McClain's contention that she was infected by a viral exposure at
Pfizer.
"We have thoroughly investigated Ms. McClain's claims and our
investigation concluded that her workplace was safe and that she was
not infected by any virologic materials while she was employed by
Pfizer," company spokeswoman Elizabeth Power said.
Bryant's ruling means the trial will move forward under McClain's two
remaining claims, both of which involve free speech protection. She
says Pfizer fired her in violation of Connecticut's whistle-blower law
after she raised questions about Pfizer lab safety to OSHA. And she
claims her dismissal also was in retaliation for questions she raised
in discussion with Pfizer colleagues about safety practices. In
addition to performing her research duties, McClain served on a lab
safety committee for at least part of the nine years she was employed
by Pfizer.
Medical Evidence
Pfizer has taken the position that Bryant's ruling in March means no
evidence will be admitted at the trial concerning McClain's health or
her claim that it was destroyed by bad lab procedures. McClain's
advocates, again, disagree. Because McClain is suing under a whistle-
blower claim, they believe she will be allowed to present evidence
about why she figuratively blew the whistle. If her health and safety
are the reasons, they say, the judge could allow jurors to hear
evidence in those areas.
In her suit, McClain says that Pfizer hired her in 1995 and that, in
2000, she became involved in human cellular research associated with
vaccine development. She later learned, the suit says, that colleagues
in her lab were working with infectious, genetically engineered
viruses, including the lentivirus she suspects causes what her
physician calls "acute intermittent paralysis."
The suit describes lab events that McClain suggests could have
infected her.
The first involved the possible malfunction of a "laminar hood," a
system designed to contain materials being subjected to scientific
manipulation and to purify the air circulating around the materials.
She said the hood began emitting a noxious odor at the same time she
and several colleagues developed symptoms of illness, including
nausea.
McClain said in the suit that, as a member of the lab safety
committee, she reported the apparent hood malfunction. Judge Bryant
said in a preliminary ruling that Pfizer took "various steps" to fix
the hood and ultimately replaced it, twice.
Pfizer contends that the hood problem was resolved eight months after
McClain reported it. But a long e-mail message by one of McClain's
supervisors and the OSHA review corroborate McClain's contention that
the problem persisted for a year. Before it was corrected, several
people suffered from headaches, vomiting and nausea, including at
least one member of the crew that cleaned the lab after work.
About two months after the hood problem was resolved, McClain says in
the suit, she learned from a colleague that he was working "next to"
her on "dangerous lentivirus material and embryonic stem cells." The
work was being done on an open lab bench, unprotected by a biological
containment system, the suit says, even though lentivirus work should
have been done only under a protective "biological hood."
"I was shocked and appalled to find he had been using lentivirus
materials on an open lab bench without biocontainment where I
performed my office work (e.g. without gloves) in October 2003,"
McClain wrote in a legal filing.
On another occasion, she says, she encountered an unidentified
experimental set-up consisting of cell cultures on her laboratory
bench, but she cannot recall whether she touched it.
Pfizer has responded that any lentivirus studied in lab areas where
McClain was present was not derived from a human infectious virus and
was not infectious because it lacked genes for replication.
McClain says in the suit that she repeatedly raised laboratory safety
issues following the hood malfunction, despite a warning from a
supervisor that doing so could jeopardize her employment. She said she
began suffering from "fatigue, suspicion of multiple sclerosis, joint
pain, and numbness in her face as well as sleep difficulties" and took
a medical leave in February 2004. She was fired about 11 months later.
The suit contends the dismissal was retaliation for her complaints
about safety. In a speech a year ago, McClain asserted that some of
the safety deficiencies she has criticized are the product of poor lab
design — design that is nonetheless acceptable under OSHA rules.
Pfizer contends that McClain's dismissal was not related to her
concern about safety. Rather, the company says, she was terminated for
refusing to report back to work after the company made her repeated
offers, including alternative employment opportunities, some in
laboratories other than the one about which she had complained. Pfizer
claims McClain was told in advance of her termination that she would
be fired if she didn't return to work.
Even though jurors are unlikely to hear arguments that McClain's
potassium disorder and related transient paralysis are attributable to
exposure to an engineered virus, a network of laboratory safety
advocates already is using the case as a rallying point. A group from
San Francisco has planned a press conference outside the Hartford
courthouse on Main Street at 12:15 p.m. Monday.
They say OSHA's inability to stay abreast of developments in
sophisticated, molecular research techniques — as well as law
protecting the confidentiality of proprietary discoveries — has
neutralized the agency's ability to act as an effective regulator.
"This case shows a major flaw for workers in the biotech industry who
have to prove where they got injured in order to receive workers'
compensation," said Steve Zeltzer, one of the organizers.
Copyright © 2010, The Hartford Courant
KMDickson1
"[Real] scientists are *fiercely* independent. That's the good
news."-- NIH's Top Fool, Anthony Fauci