|
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
||||||
|
Brudd Letter to Fort Dodge, 7/8/04 Dear Mr. Newsum, I am in receipt of a copy of your letter of April 30, 2004, directed to my attorney, Mari C. Bush, and I do apologize for the delay in Ms. Bush's ability to respond in a timely manner. It has been because of my delay in corresponding with her, as I needed some time to absorb the contents of your letter, calm down, and really determine how I would like Fort Dodge to rectify my situation. However, before I relay how I would like that to be accomplished, I would like to give you the personal side of my story and make some clarifications to issues brought up in your letter. And I must apologize for the length of this letter, but I will be talking about three dogs here, not just one. As you know, on June 17, 2002, my three dogs, Tasha, Niki, and Casey - different ages and different breeds -- received their one and only ProHeart 6 shot at Eastlake Veterinary Clinic. Previous to this, my dogs had received Heartgard chews with no adverse effects. Dr. Jay Tracy told me all my dogs were healthy, although maybe Tasha was a slight bit overweight, and, after testing, a staff person told me my dogs were heartworm negative. Even Niki, who would have been 11 years old on November 10, 2002, did not have the cloudiness in his eyes or arthritis or any ailment more commonly seen in senior dogs. Tasha and Casey received the ProHeart 6 shot only, while Niki received his regular vaccinations and ProHeart 6. Two months to the day of the shot, Tasha collapsed on the kitchen floor but remained conscious. Dr. Cindy Grimm of Northside Emergency, one of Tasha's emergency vets, told me that she felt Tasha's condition, "due to the amount of blood loss," had been going on for about 10 days, meaning Tasha's IMHA started approximately August 7, 2002, obviously during the time period ProHeart 6, and only ProHeart 6, was in her system. Less than a week later, after heroic attempts to save her, and after incurring $5,000-plus in vet bills, my beloved Tasha died.
C.T. Newsum You are correct that a post-mortem examination was not conducted on Tasha. Her diagnosis of IMHA was confirmed by at least four vets. There was no need for a post-mortem examination. My records will show that there was nothing, no drugs of any type, that could have caused Tasha's IMHA but ProHeart 6. While Dr. Leonard Jonas may have stated to your Professional Service vet that there was "no definitive evidence to support that vaccination or Moxidectin induced the IMHA," he obviously didn't tell him that your product COULD NOT have induced it. I told Dr. Jonas what Dr. Grimm told me, that if it were the vaccinations that Tasha received exactly one month prior to the administration of ProHeart 6, "she would have reacted within three weeks." Dr. Jonas said, "Well, four." Obviously my dog did not react to the vaccines, especially when you add the equation of the amount of "blood loss" and time the IMHA occurred, according to Dr. Grimm. Further I will state, late October 2002, I spoke by telephone with Dr. Victoria Hampshire, Adverse Events Coordinator of the FDA, someone I am sure you are most familiar, and Dr. Hampshire personally told me that IMHA is a "common side effect found with ProHeart 6." So your company knew then, and as early as the "Dear Doctor" letter of July 22, 2002 (five days after administration of this shot to my three dogs) that IMHA could cause death in dogs. To quote the July 2002 "Dear Doctor" letter, "Other rare, but more serious reports, include erythema multiforme in 3 cases and autoimmune hemolytic anemia in a low number of patients, most of whom had received vaccines concurrently." After the loss of Tasha, I feared for the life of Niki and Casey, even though they looked and acted healthy. Each day I checked their gums and checked their eyes and watched them like a hawk. I was afraid to leave the house for fear that something would happen to them and I would not be present to help them. After wondering if they were in fact healthy, after receiving your company's product, I decided for my peace of mind to take my dog Casey in to the vet to have him checked. There I learned that his immune system was anything but normal. I didn't think I needed to have Niki checked because he was so obviously outwardly healthy. He didn't even seem to be too upset that Tasha was gone because it was one less dog to pick on him. Then, getting ready for work one morning, I looked at Niki, and his eyes were bugging out of his head as if he were scared to death. His body temperature was cold to the touch. I called my employer, arranged for someone to cover my daylong assignment, wrapped Niki in a blanket, and rushed him to the vet. Per the vet tech, Niki's temperature was 94 degrees. 94 degrees. The vet retook it, and it was 98 degrees. The normal temperature for a dog is 100 to 102.5.
C.T. Newsum Because vets then and apparently still do not know what kind of adverse effects to look for with your company's product, Niki's illness was going undiagnosed. By this time, Niki had been "under the influence" of ProHeart 6 for approximately 3-1/2 months, obviously well within the time span that ProHeart 6 is supposed to remain in a dog's body. I did not trust the diagnosis of Community Pet Hospital and therefore sought the second opinion of Dr. Gurney the next day at Aspen Park Veterinary Hospital. Niki's blood work was anything but normal, but Dr. Gurney told me not to panic, "yet." Dr. Gurney thought that since he personally was seeing eight or nine dogs a day with symptoms like Niki displayed, that Niki was having a reaction to mold, as some other dogs had been in Colorado at that time, and thought Niki had a sore throat. He gave him a shot of antibiotic that day, along with pills to take, and told me to return the next day for a second shot of antibiotic, as I was told that was the most effective way of taking care of Niki's supposed problem. Less than two weeks later, Niki collapsed, just as my Tasha did, but remained conscious. He was taken to the emergency vet, where x-rays were taken of him for a second time. Nothing could be seen on the x-rays because there was some type of "fluid" that was obscuring a view of his internal organs. Dr. Matt Booth SUSPECTED hemangiosarcoma, and suggested that Niki's spleen be removed immediately, that Niki was going into shock. After much discussion about the suspected diagnosis and learning more about hemangiosarcoma, I DECLINED the operation. Therefore, your report of Niki's spleen being removed is totally false and inaccurate. I was not going to put my dog through an operation when he was given an extremely poor prognosis and told that he may have three to seven months to live, "with absolutely NO QUALITY of life." There was no opportunity to buy time, especially in the wee hours of the morning, to run out and obtain a second opinion. After much discussion with Dr. Booth, and after the trauma that I watched my Tasha go through, I was not going to put myself and another one of my dogs through procedures that would make Niki's last days on this earth any more painful for him. Therefore, I elected to let Niki have a dignified death, and chose euthanasia, which I personally witnessed. I have had many family members die during the course of my adult life, then had my beloved dog Tasha die (unfortunately, before I could be there with her), but I had never once had a living being die in my presence. While Niki's euthanasia was extremely peaceful, the image of the life leaving my dog's body haunts me to this day. For seven months each night before I went to sleep, I'd relive his euthanasia. A year and a half later, it is the FIRST thing I remember about Niki before any of the "good stuff," and I am extremely troubled by it.
C.T. Newsum While, according to you, splenic cancers may be common in dogs, Niki was found NOT to have splenic cancer. In fact, no tumors were found in his body. We don't know where the free-flowing blood came from. Niki had never been sick a day in his life, just as my other dogs. Never. Not until ProHeart 6. Upon post-mortem exam, cancer cells were found in Niki's liver. I have learned through my research and speaking with many people all over the United States for the past year and a half that many dogs have succumbed to liver cancer after receipt of ProHeart 6. And I am sure you are not aware that Fort Dodge's own Dr. Stacy Martin has told at least one person (a name I am withholding at this time) that "ProHeart 6 affects the liver." Last, but not least, is Casey. Casey is a "survivor" of ProHeart 6. Maybe that was due to his age at the time of the shot, which was approximately two years old, and the fact that he is a large dog. Casey remains on two different thyroid medications prescribed by Dr. Gurney to help regulate his immune system. Who knows if Casey's lifespan will be shortened because of ProHeart 6. I'm sure Fort Dodge is not aware if a dog is adversely affected at one time by this drug that it shortens a dog's life span, or maybe they are and are not telling the public. The absolute fear of losing yet another dog made me not want to leave my house. Every time Casey looked at me funny, moved in a strange way, whatever, while still "under the influence" of ProHeart 6, and to this day, made/makes me want to rush him to the vet. A human being, me, shouldn't have to live with this type of paranoia. And that's what my experience with ProHeart 6 has done to me. You only have the documented evidence from my employer of lost time and earnings from my job. There is no way to account for the thousands of dollars I have lost due to the depression I have suffered and resulting lack of motivation to work after the deaths of my dogs. It is only recently I feel the need to see a professional to deal with this depression, after unsuccessful attempts to deal with this tragedy on my own. While I cannot conclusively prove that ProHeart 6 killed two of my three dogs and harmed the third, YOU cannot conclusively prove that it did not either. I have seen, through extensive ongoing research, and even the published reports on your company's Web site, how other drugs, vaccinations, guardians, and even the dogs themselves are being blamed for illnesses and deaths that are being caused by your company's product, and your company's product alone. I am well aware of the media reports across the country. I am aware of at least three "Dear Doctor" letters and at least two label changes to the product, labels or client data sheets we, the public, do not see. In fact, I haven't come across one vet that has actually seen one of Fort Dodge's "Dear Doctor" letters. I am aware of the recent drug recalls.
C.T. Newsum I have spoken to literally hundreds of people over the last almost two years who feel that ProHeart 6 harmed and/or killed their dogs. I am well aware of the 5,000 REPORTED cases of adverse effects and approximate 500 REPORTED deaths from ProHeart 6 to the FDA. I am not an isolated case. I am not the only person who has lost two dogs in one household to this drug. I am well aware of individuals whose vet bills have been paid in their entirety by Fort Dodge or silenced against speaking out about ProHeart 6 or else they can expect lawsuits. I am well aware of, at least in one case, a donation being made to an organization in a dog's name because of someone's "You killed my dog" letters being continually sent to Fort Dodge, copies to the FDA, without the guardian having to sign a release. Fort Dodge is being given an opportunity now to do the right thing by me. If you in fact want an amicable conclusion of this matter, as I do, I am seeking the following resolution. 1. Complete reimbursement of the before-stated veterinary expenses for Tasha, Niki, and Casey, as outlined in the demand letter of January 16, 2004, in the amount of $6,835.81. This amount does not include, nor will include, a claim for future vet bills that may be incurred for Casey's ongoing prescriptions and/or future medical treatment as a result of ProHeart 6. 2. Complete reimbursement of the documented lost wages in the amount of $5,455.00; and 3. Complete reimbursement of my attorney's fees to date in the amount of $_____. In a further attempt to expeditiously resolve this matter, I am willing to forgo payment for "pain and suffering" if the above-referenced reimbursement is handled in the following manner. A check is made out to my attorney's trust account, Kaye and Bush, LLC, to be distributed by Kaye and Bush, LLC equally among the following three animal-based charities (one charity in each dog's name): 1. Companion Animal Protection Society, Fort Collins, Colorado (for Casey). 2. The College of Veterinary Medicine & Biomedical Sciences, Animal Cancer Center, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colorado (in Niki's memory).
C.T. Newsum 3. Special Care Foundation for Companion Animals, San Diego, California (in Tasha's memory). I feel the above-stated settlement is certainly a fair settlement to me, and more than reasonable to Fort Dodge. It is less than half of what my attorney demanded in her letter of January 16, 2004. By Fort Dodge's immediate compliance with my request, we can avoid litigation and further expense for both parties. I want the tragic deaths of Tasha and Niki, and Casey's illness, to become a positive and meaningful contribution to the health of all animals. For a company that says it is interested in promoting pet health, I hope you will agree and will comply with my request. I look forward to receiving your favorable response in the very near future. Sincerely, Jean B. Brudd /jbb Proposed Settlement Agreement and General Release Fort Dodge Letter to Attorney, 5/25/05 Attorney Letter to Fort Dodge, 7/6/05 Brudd Letter to Fort Dodge, 7/6/05 C. T. Newsum Dear Mr. Newsum, After much personal reflection and after reading your letter dated May 25, 2005, to my attorney, Mari Bush, I am putting an end for now to the ridiculous legal posturing of your company and the further wasting of my time and resources. I am not in the least bit interested in any kind of restrictive, compromising settlement with your company. For now, my time, energy, and resources will continue to be spent educating the public on health issues regarding their beloved companion animals. If your company was truly interested in the health and welfare of animals, as a "client relations gesture," your company would have granted my request ONE YEAR AGO that a settlement be made in my dogs' names and divided among three animal-based charities chosen by me. However, it was this inflexibility that has cost your company time and money and what could have been a year-end tax write-off. From a review of your correspondence throughout this almost two-year legal ordeal, it is clear to me that Mari's and my words have fallen on deaf ears or you have not fully comprehended them. Or it is all just part of the "game." I am not a game-player. I want to personally thank you, Mr. Newsum, for the education in the "harmaceutical" industry that I have received at the hand of Fort Dodge. After speaking with literally hundreds of grieving, deceived dog guardians over the last three years -- more than you have, I am sure -- it is apparent to me that Fort Dodge/Wyeth has no regard for the safety and welfare of animals, not to mention humans. I find it interesting that your group of companies is touting moxidectin to be a safe and effective "preventative" for river blindness in humans in Third World countries,
C.T. Newsum a product that was admitted at the January 31, 2005, CVM/Fort Dodge meeting in Rockville, Maryland, as causing blindness in some dogs. If you were not present at the January meeting, perhaps you may find it interesting to read the 300-plus-page transcript and see for yourself what kind of "smoke and mirrors" were raised that day by Fort Dodge and its obviously well-paid "spin doctors." Thank you for pointing out to me that the CVM has rescored Niki's case. Niki, as you will remember, is my second dog to die from only one shot of ProHeart 6. I find it most interesting that autopsy results can change after almost three years. I also find it interesting that no mention was made about my first dead dog, Tasha, or anything about my survivor dog, Casey, whose immune system was compromised by ProHeart 6 and who remains on medication to this date. Thank you for pointing out how CVM is "working with" Fort Dodge, at least on the issue of rescoring, scoring methods that, in my opinion, were very conservative and very lenient/favorable to Fort Dodge in the first place. As to your comment about the "lack of credible scientific evidence of product culpability," I find it ironic that this statement would come from any representative of Fort Dodge - you, in this case - when it was admitted at the January 31st meeting that in field trials, all test subjects were DESTROYED before the six months had lapsed. Here is a product, supposedly "effective" for six months that was being touted as "safe," when in fact Fort Dodge killed off its test subjects before the six months ran its course. Where is YOUR scientific proof that ProHeart 6 has NOT harmed and/or killed thousands of dogs? The true test subjects have been dogs like mine: Tasha, Niki, and Casey. This experience has shown me that where money talks, lies and deception walk. Yet again, another Wyeth "safe" product, Fen-Phen, comes to mind. Fort Dodge/Wyeth and its representatives wouldn't know the first thing about compassion, honesty, integrity, and doing the "right thing." In my opinion, you also do not know the first thing about good customer relations. In parting I will say, Fort Dodge should never again underestimate the power of "ordinary citizens" to effect change. This ever-growing consumer force, along with Fort Dodge's "defective and unsafe" product and "deceptive trade practices" ("in my opinion," of course), is what put
C.T. Newsum enough pressure on the FDA and what ultimately got ProHeart 6 off the market in the first place. I am sure you will be hearing from me again. /jbb |
|
|
|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Hunter was an active healthy beautiful golden retriever. He was gentle, sweet, loving, and patient to a fault with our other dogs and our grandchildren. He was started on heartworm preventive pills as soon as we got him at age 8 weeks (Oct. 1999) and remained on them until Sept. 1, 2002 when I fell for the "it is perfectly safe, we all use it" line and switched him to ProHeart 6, the 6-month injectable heartworm preventive.
