Filing a Losartan Lawsuit

A legal case from the Losartan lawsuit says that the ingredients in an anti-aging supplement caused a cancerous growth of the testicle. The anti-aging product was supposed to prevent the growth of cancerous cells and this led to a lawsuit against the company that produces the supplement. The court found that the anti-aging product, LAZART CRYSTONE, did not contain ingredients that could cause cancer. However, the plaintiff says that the loss of his private bodily parts is permanent and he will have to undergo surgery and radiation therapy, which could cost a fortune. This, he feels, is enough to discourage others from trying the anti-aging cream.

The Losartan lawsuit says that the ingredient that was used to create the cream in question, or, as it was supposed to be called, melatonin, contains two of the most dangerous carcinogens known to man. These carcinogens are each ranked among the top 10 most dangerous air polluting compounds. One of them, nickel, is well known for causing cancer in humans and animals. Another carcinogen, NDEA (nicotene hydrochloride), is also a known carcinogen. Both of these carcinogens are found in the melatonin supplement that supposedly prevented the growth of tumors in the plaintiff.

Aside from the potentially cancerous growth that may develop in the victim as a result of ingesting the contaminated melatonin, there is another potential side effect that is mentioned in the lawsuit. Specifically, plaintiffs say that they suffered liver damage because of the tainted supplement. As you may imagine, a product that prevents the growth of cancer cells while also causing liver damage can lead to serious health problems. If you use a product that contains either one of these two carcinogens, you run the risk of developing a serious health problem, even if the damage is only to your liver.

This is not to say, however, that plaintiffs’ allegations against Losartan are entirely false. While the defendants bear sole responsibility for their products, they argue that there is absolutely no evidence linking the melatonin or the n-nitrosodimethylamine to any negative health consequences. In fact, in a particularly telling exchange from the defense, a lead attorney for the defendants attempts to distinguish the lawsuit’s accusations against their brand-name drugs from those of generic drugs: “The generic drugs were never intended to do what the plaintiffs infer. They were designed to give relief from symptoms… None of them have been proven to have any [effective result] beyond placebo.” The defendants maintain that their brand-name drugs carry no prescription and cannot be abused. The court, however, has more than once dismissed cases in which consumers have alleged abuse because the plaintiffs had not sought professional medical care prior to using the defendants’ products.

At this point, it appears as though the plaintiffs in this case have a strong case. If the jury concludes that there is inadequate evidence tying the valsartan to either hypertension or any other negative effect, that the generic valsartan pills were, in fact, unsafe, and that the defendants knew the potential dangers of their product, the case may very well go to trial. If Losartan is found liable for the wrongful death of Mr. Huahai, the company will most certainly be ordered to pay monetary compensation to the victim’s family. For the plaintiff’s attorney, however, winning such a lawsuit against the makers of the popular generic blood pressure lowering medicine valsartan would be a great victory.

The company producing the popular pharmaceutical, losartan, is under contract with the National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders to produce sodium borate solution free of boron. While a voluntary recall was originally scheduled for July, this recall has been pushed back to mid-November. Although the company producing the valsartan did not intentionally place the ingredient in the product, they did notify NIMD that sodium borate might be present. This is one of the reasons why the voluntary recall was delayed. The company is also working with NIMD to implement safety protocols for handling the recalled product and will work with the Food and Drug Administration to ensure that the recalled product is properly labeled.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *