Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

March 18, 2022 - RFK Jr. The Defender

17:20

Suing Big Pharma and Zantac with Brent Wisner

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey everybody, we're going to talk about Zantac today for all of you who have heartburn or reflux from the current political situation in our world and are tempted to take Zantac or have taken it in the past.
	This is a show that you'll need to watch.
	And particularly if you've taken Xantax for a long time and then you got cancer and we're going to talk about what kind of cancer that is, you need to know the subject of today's podcast.
	Brent Wisner, who's my friend, I'm very happy to claim him as a friend.
	He's also, you know, a lot of people tell you, I know the best lawyer in the country.
	Well, Brent Wisner actually, arguably, is the best lawyer in the country.
	He's won every award that you can possibly win for litigation.
	I watched him.
	And during the Monsanto litigation, when I was on the trial team, I watched him as lead counsel to the opening and closing arguments and do these extraordinary direct and cross-examinations.
	He did every aspect of the litigation.
	He did the depositions.
	He did the motions.
	He did the appeals.
	He is a versatile lawyer, and he's an extraordinary performer.
	He has a chemical link to jurors like I've never seen before, and he is the youngest lawyer in history to ever win a multi-billion dollar verdict.
	He has been declared the titan of the plaintiff's bar by Law 360.
	He's been declared an elite trial lawyer by the American Trial Lawyers Association and won a ton of other...
	I can't even read all of these awards he's won without using up time that I wanted.
	How about the Clarence Arrow Award, American Lawyer Award of Maternity of the Year by the Consumer Attorneys of California, MVP of the Year by Product Liability and National Law Journal.
	The Civil Plaintiff's Trial Lawyer of the Year and winning litigators, Titan of Industry by the National Trial Lawyers, America's 50 Most Influential Trial Lawyers, and on and on.
	So I hope you take my word for it.
	He is an incredible attorney and I wanted to talk today about the Zantac cases because Zantac was a drug that I took for a little while.
	It's over-the-counter medication for heartburn, for reflux.
	It's one of the most popular medicines before it was called by FDA. I think it's back on the shelves now in a different form, right?
	They took out the bad product, the chemical that was causing the problem.
	So there's a chemical called remitidine in Zantac that has a byproduct if it stays on the shelf for a significant amount of time that is extremely Extremely carcinogenic.
	Is that a good summary of kind of what it is?
	Yeah, that's right.
	So basically there's something called, there's a nitroso, the reninity molecule on one half of it has a nitroso molecule.
	And at the other end of it has a DMA molecule.
	And because, you know, the way physics and chemistry, they sometimes reach around and they reconnect as NDMA. An NDMA is a very, very potent human carcinogen discovered in the 30s in the development of rocket fuel.
	And it literally has no purpose in our world except for the fact that it causes cancer.
	It's actually used in laboratory experiments to induce cancer in animals.
	And so it's forming at levels that are It's staggering.
	So like we're talking about the daily safe limit is 96 nanograms and what they're finding in one pill, and this is just in the pill, before it does anything in your body, just in the pill, you know, thousands of nanograms.
	And so it's probably something that has caused an innumerable number of people's cancers because it was such a widely used product.
	So in litigation like this, you have to identify specific kinds of cancer that are subject to the litigation.
	And can you tell what those are?
	I think there's about 10 of them.
	I think a way of thinking about it is NDMA, right, if you expose it to any tissue in any sufficient amount, it will cause cancer.
	It doesn't matter if it's your eyeball, your chin, or your prostate, or whatever, right?
	And that's just a function of the way NDMA interacts with human DNA. It actually causes it to effectively, causes it to miscode pretty consistently.
	And so technically, it could cause any cancer.
	But what we're focusing on, right, are what we can tell from the literature that it's very clear that we can show that it causes that cancer.
	And that's an important distinction because a lot of people's cancer, it may very well have caused But we're not really in a place yet scientifically to say we have enough data, particularly rare cancers, you know, where it's hard to get enough data to study it.
	But for here, I mean, we're focusing really on five, six, seven, eight main cancers.
	The big ones are bladder cancer, Liver cancer, stomach cancer.
	We're focusing on colorectal cancer, prostate cancer, breast cancer.
	And then there's some other ones, pancreatic cancer, esophageal cancer.
	And these are all cancers that there is some substantial amount of literature showing not only that NDMA can cause it, but that ranitidine itself is associated with it.
	It's a complex scientific inquiry, but We think that we have the science to really push those cancers forward, and we're litigating them actively right now in our proceeding in California, which is exciting.
	And you are still inviting plaintiffs into the litigation, right?
	There's still an opportunity if people who are listening to this podcast or people who are friends or family of those who are listening to this podcast have any of those kind of cancers and can show that they took Zantac for a period of time, they have an opportunity to call Baum-Hedlund and to become part of this litigation.
	That's right.
	I mean, we have a whole team of people who've educated on the science and ask a bunch of questions to make sure that, you know, there isn't some other issue that could be a problem for their case.
	And then we sign them up and put them into our family.
	It's a long litigation.
	These things take many years and involve many, many thousands and thousands of people.
	But, you know, we have a good track record of Taking care of our clients like we did in the Roundup Litigation and we're planning to do the same here.
	So that's sort of the process.
	And by all means, if you or a loved one or somebody has cancer, one of these cancers, and are worried that Zantac may have caused it or played a role in it, Call us immediately or get in touch with us immediately.
	There's some legal defenses that can come up if you don't take action right away.
	So absolutely, the case is still very much alive and we're still taking in clients.
	And it still surprises me how many people to this day don't know about this.
	And part of the problem, Bobby, as you pointed out, is that Zantac came back on the market a few months ago.
	But it came back on the market with no ranidity, right?
	They took out the bad molecule.
	They replaced it with famidity, which doesn't have this problem.
	And so it's essentially the same drug as Tagamet now.
	Or Fabsol.
	Or Pepsid.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So it's essentially the same drug as that now, but it doesn't have the problem.
	But for years, I mean, we're talking 40 years, they sold this product and they knew it.
	And we have the documents now.
	There's a study that they did in 1982, the very study that was done just recently in 2019 by Valisher, this independent pharmacy.
	And that study in 2019 is ultimately what led to the product being pulled off the market in 2020.
	That study, GSK, did that study.
	That exact same study back in 1982.
	They saw the results.
	It showed the same crazy amounts of NDMA forming at the same exact testing protocol.
	And they went, that's not a good result.
	And so they took the study and they buried it.
	Never submitted to the FDA. Never saw the light of day until, of course, we went digging into the files.
	I mean, it's a bad case.
	This is GlaxoSmithKline, right?
	That's right.
	GSK, GlaxoSmithKline, or I think it was GlaxoWelcome at the time, but, you know, they're the ones who invented the molecule, the rinidine molecule, and started this whole, really, epidemic of cancer that they've created by this product.
	And how long do people, in order to be a plaintiff in this kind of litigation, how long should you have taken Zantac and what kind of proof do you have to show?
	Because most people who take Zantac are not keeping their receipts.
	Sure.
	I mean, you know, the rule of thumb is you need to take it at least a year.
	If you've taken a lot of it for a shorter period of time, we'll consider the case.
	But usually the rule of thumb is you want to take a substantial amount over the course of the year.
	So we're talking daily users, right?
	Now, let's say you used it once a week for 15 years.
	That's fine, too, right?
	I mean, it's really about cumulative exposure because every single time you took a Zantac pill, The NDMA in that pill and the NDMA that formed in your body from the pill, from the processes inside the gut, Had a chance to cause the mutation that would ultimately become cancer, right?
	Every single time it happened.
	So, you know, you can get those cancers in a relatively short period of time, but typically, you know, to be that unlucky, it has to happen, you know, over a period of many years.
	But the rough estimate is, you know, we're looking for people who took a substantial amount either every day for at least a year or, you know, more sporadically, but for a longer period of time.
	And you are taking clients in California and every other state.
	That's right.
	We represent clients where they live, and we have either agreements, but for the most part, we're finding places to file their cases in jurisdictions and venues that is the best for them, right?
	Sometimes being in your home jurisdiction isn't necessarily the best.
	If you're in a very conservative jurisdiction, at least judicially conservative jurisdiction, you might not want to file your case there, right?
	And so we try to find a way to put your case into a place that has a better jury pool, for example.
	But, you know, I think this case, for what it's worth, I'm not so worried about juries.
	The evidence is just so compelling.
	The admissions are so damning, and the amount of NDMA we're talking about here is just so staggering.
	I mean, to put it in context, right, one of these pills, the amount of NDMA in it is the equivalent of smoking like 600 cigarettes.
	Just one pill.
	That's just absurd.
	And if you people take this every day, some people took it two to three times a day.
	I mean, and then of course they get these cancers and these cancers keep coming back and they're taking Zantac every day.
	And I don't know why their cancer just keeps coming back like with a vengeance because they're literally poisoning themselves because these manufacturers, you know, hid this issue And it's an incredibly painful litigation in the sense that I have thousands of clients now who Are telling me their stories, and it's just devastating to hear what they've gone through.
	And it could have been avoided.
	They could have taken literally any other antacid, didn't have this problem.
	You know, Tums, Pepsid, even some of the more scary PPIs, those don't have this issue.
	And it's just sort of a shame that GSK and then the rest of the people who took over the product over the years, you know, just wanted to make billions of dollars at the expense of people's health.
	And that's what happened here.
	And other than the 1982 study, do you have any other smoking guns?
	There's quite a few.
	A lot of them are unfortunately still confidential, so I can't really get into it too much, but I will say Early on in the lifespan of the product, there were some researchers out of Italy who were testing ranitidine, and they were actually doing it in a simulated gastric fluid.
	They took human gastric fluid, and they put in some other stuff, and they put in ranitidine and some sodium nitrite, stuff you might find in cured meats and things of that sort.
	And then they kind of let it, you know, react, and then they would see, is that reaction, is what's happening in the stomach, is that stuff a mutagen?
	Is it mutagenic, or is it causing mutations in bacteria and whatnot?
	And they showed that it was highly mutagenic, that it was highly genotoxic.
	And, you know, they published their results, and GSK, you know, Responds publicly to these results and says, oh, this is not biologically feasible.
	That would never happen.
	You know, go away.
	And if you look at the actual FDA documents back in the 80s, you know, they discussed this study and they're like, and GSK goes, well, don't worry.
	This is only indicated for short term use.
	So while there might be this risk with NDMA, it would just be a short, short, short risk.
	And then additionally, it was like, you know, the Italian author's recommendation was you shouldn't take this with food because food, it interacts with stuff and food and that's problematic.
	Well, two things happen, right?
	One, GSK immediately started marketing it for daily use and many, many, many people took it for years, not for 10 days or whatever.
	And then, of course, they started marketing it specifically with food.
	I mean, I have commercials that I have found where they literally are like a guy comes to the door with a pizza box and a Zantac box on top.
	You know, ding dong!
	And it's like...
	They knew that that was literally the worst thing that you could do.
	And that was their entire marketing plan.
	So there is smoking gun after smoking gun.
	I mean, we have documents where they straight up say this stuff causes this cancer.
	I mean, it's pretty unbelievable.
	And, you know, we have a trial.
	Our first trial is going forward in October in Oakland.
	In the same courtroom, we tried the Roundup case.
	You know, I can't believe they're going to let us try the case because we're going to, it's going to be a big one.
	We're going to get a big.
	I would be shocked if we didn't.
	I was shocked when FDA pulled Zantac because usually, you know, these companies have completely captured and disabled the regulatory agency.
	Why did regulation actually work at that point?
	It didn't.
	So what happened was, I wish we could say, hey, FDA, good job.
	Please, that never happens.
	They are fully captured.
	They pulled it off the market after two to four months after every manufacturer had voluntarily recalled it.
	So it was already off the market.
	All the CVSs and Walmarts have refused to sell it.
	It was no longer being sold.
	And only then, after the industry had made a clear signal that the FDA, okay, fine, we'll pull it.
	I mean, I guess they pulled it, but they took eight months to get around to it.
	And Canada pulled it day one.
	They got the results and said off the market immediately.
	And that's a reflection of the Canadian regulators, at least in this specific instance, not in every instance, but in this specific instance, you know, acting quickly.
	Grant, if we have listeners who need to get a hold of you on this case, how do they do it?
	The best thing to do is to call my firm, BaumHedlund.
	We're based out of Los Angeles.
	BaumHedlund, B-A-U-M, H-E-D-L-U-N-D, BaumHedlund.com, our website.
	You can go there.
	You can actually read all about the case, and you can submit an inquiry and get a hold of someone directly.
	And also just give us a call.
	Our number is 855- Just give us a call and you'll get straight to an intake specialist who will be able to talk to you and get to the bottom of it.
	And of course, if at any point you feel like you need to speak to me or a specific attorney, we always make time to talk to people.
	Taking care of our clients is actually the only really good part of our job is getting to know people and their stories.
	Brent Wisner, thank you very much.
	People who have taken Zantac and who have experienced cancer should make a call and find out what their rights are.
	Thank you, Brent.
	Thank you, Bobby.
	Thank you for having me.
	It's good to see you.

▲