Fun With Бессонница блог

Фото: Paramount Pictures

Каждый день чуть больше новостей сочится из о таинственных следующий Джей Джей Абрамс фильм, Super 8, из-летом следующего года и только начинает стрелять в настоящее время в Западной Вирджинии: Некоторые из этих самородков выступить против его воли, некоторые новости тщательно утечка, и некоторые из них вид загадочные вирусных намекает, что Абрамс и его компания, Bad Robot, А. Р. E известны озорно дриблинг в продвижение новых проектов. Мы считаем, что знаете основной сюжет (не благодаря Абрамс!): показатели указывают на это составляет около грузовой поезд из района 51 - который перевозил нечто чуждое и в живых "Сбой за пределами Среднего Запада малые города в 1979 году, и группа подростков, которые около pture это на пленку а возиться с кинокамерой дома. (Вы даже можете увидеть один из этих детей в флэш-кадра в конце прицепа.) Но мы голодны, чтобы найти больше. Таким образом, Vulture будет отслеживать все дразнилки, намеки, и спойлеры и обновление этого слайд-шоу, как они сочиться. (Не волнуйтесь: все спойлеры будут тщательно Помечено в.) Вот что мы знаем до сих пор ...

Каждый день чуть больше новостей из струйки о таинственных следующего фильма Джей Джей Абрамс, Super 8, из-летом следующего года и только начинает стрелять в настоящее время в Западной Вирджинии: Некоторые из этих nugge ts come out against his will, some news is carefully leaked, and some are the ki nd of cryptic viral hints that Abrams and his company, Bad Robot, are known for mischievously dribbling out in advance of new projects. We think we know the bas ic plot (no thanks to Abrams!): Indicators point to it being about a cargo train from Area 51 — which was transporting something alien and alive — crashing outside a small Midwestern town in 1979, and a group of teens who capture it on film while messing about with a home movie camera. (You can even see one of thos e kids in a flash-frame towards the end of the trailer.) But we're hungry to find out more. Как such, Vulture will be tracking all the teasers, hints, and spoilers and updatin g this slideshow as they trickle out. (Don't worry: all spoilers will be carefully marked.) He re's what we know so far …

The Rise and Fall of Provigil – Part
II

A little over a year after the Volkow
study reported that Provigil (modafinil), affects the same
brain chemicals as stimulants and may be addictive, on July
20, 썚, in the Atlanta Science News Examiner, Kevin
Murn ane reported that research showed modafinil “produces
some effects that are similar to abused stimulants, such as
cocaine.”

In what may turn out to be the final nail in the
modafinil coffi n, rhesus monkeys were given modafinil prior
to undergoing behavioral, neurochem ical, and brain imaging
studies for a study led by Monica Andersen, conducted at
Yerkes National Primate Research Center at Emory University,
in the June 20 10, “Psychopharmacology” journal.

“Similar
to other stimulants, these researchers found that modafinil
increased movement or locomotion in their subjects,” Murnane
wrote. “Furthermore, an acute bolus of modafinil elicited a
Ретур n or reinstatement of cocaine self-administration that
had been previously dimin ished through extinction
training.”

“These behavioral effects are very consistent
with those of other stimul ant-type drugs,” he reported.

Mechanistically, the researchers found “using Positron
Emission Tomography (P ET) imaging that modafinil bound to
and occupied a protein in the brain called t he dopamine
transporter,” he explained. “This protein is the same one
that cocaine binds to.”

“Furthermore, they found that
modafinil i ncreased dopamine neurotransmission,” Murnane
сказал. “This is the same mechanism thought to mediate the
eupho ric and addictive properties of cocaine.”

He pointed
out that the findings “closely paralleled those of a st udy
by Volkow and colleagues in human subjects that was
published in the March 2 009 issue of the Journal of the
American Medical Association.”

“Collectively, these
studies show that modafi nil has similar behavioral and
pharmacological effects to stimulant-type drugs o f abuse,
such as cocaine,” he wrote.

“These data indicate that
modafinil has the potential to be abused or производить
dependence,” Murnane said. “Accordingly, closer monitoring
of the modafinil supply and abuse pattern s may be
warranted.”

In June 2010, when the European Medicines
Agency recommended restricting the use of modafinil for the
treatment of narcolepsy only, on Pharmalot, Ed Silv erman
said the issue to watch was what this meant for Cephalon's
Nuvigil. Для the moment, EMA may have given Cephalon a
boost, “especially since the FDA keeps delaying appr oval to
use Nuvigil for jet-lag disorder and studies for other
indications have either flopped or will take quite awhile to
complete,” he wrote.

“A similar step to restrict Nuvigil,
of cou rse, would make it harder to broaden the Nuvigil
market,” he pointed out, and noted that the d rug's label
states: “Psychiatric adverse experiences have been reported
in patients treated with modafinil. Modafinil and
armodafinil (NUVIGIL) are very closely related. Therefore,
the inc idence and type of psychiatric symptoms associated
with armodafinil are expected to be similar to the incidence
and type of these events with modafinil.”

However, the
Фрейзер , Pennsylvania-based firm's Annual Report for 2009,
does not show Nuvigil as approved for use in any other
country besides the US.

Unprecedented Price Gouging

О
November 18, 2008, Pharmalot reported that Cephalon had
raised the price on Provigil by 28% since March 2008.
drug was then 74% more expensive than four years earlier,
with an average wholesale price of Ű.71 per pill.

price hikes were in prepa ration for the expected launch of
Nuvigil in 2009. By sharply raising prices, Ce phalon hoped
to convert patients to Nuvigil before cheap generic versions
of Pro vigil came on the market.

A year later, Dow Jones
reported that in November 2009 , Cephalon had raised the
price on Provigil by 29%, to $13.62 a pill, and that t he
cost of Nuvigil, launched in June 2009, with patent
protection until 2023, wa s $8.98 per tablet. Five years
earlier, “Provigil's cost was $5.53 per pill,” Dow Jones
noted on December 22, 2009.

Nuvigi l Launch

In launching
Nuvigil, in addition to promotional efforts in the field,
Cephalon “initiated patient sampling programs, discount
programs for patients, a significant n umber of key opinion
leader/speaker presentations, and a contracting plan with
C ertain health care payers,” Bob Roche, of Cephalon's
Worldwide Pharmaceutical Operations, said in an August 4,
썙 Earnings Call, posted by “Seeking Alpha.”

Sampling
programs included regular distribution of samples to doctors
and a free 7-day coupon for patients to print out from an
online web сайт.

Cephalon also implemented a “Co-Pay
Assistance Program,” which provides up to $50 of co-pay
assistance per prescription. “To make things easier for
patients, this program is administered automatic ally in many
pharmacies, making co-pay assistance coupons or cards
unnecessary,” Roche said.

H owever, patients covered by
government plans like Medicare and Medicaid do not q ualify
for the co-pay assistance, CEO, Frank Baldino, pointed out
in the call.

C ephalon also developed a data base of
approximately 50,000 individuals who reque sted information
on Nuvigil and mailed “these people a launch kit, with a
free seven-day coupo n and information on our Co-Pay
Assistance Program,” he said.

The company also planned to
impl ement an online, “Wake Information Support and Education
Program,” as part of a professional education and s upport
campaign designed for doctors in the sleep/wake field, Roche
reported. “In addition to information on sleep and
wakefulness issues, physicians can, with just a click o f a
mouse get information on NUVIGIL, order samples, request
coupons, ask questi ons, or request to see a sales
representative,” he explained.

In the first quarter of
2010, Ce phalon also launched a Nuvigil shift work disorder
campaign. There are “15 million shift worke rs in the United
States and approximately 1/3 of them suffer from excessive
slee piness associated with shift work disorder,” Baldino
reported in a May 4, 2010 Earnings Call.

A non-branded
radio campaign was launched “in select markets where shift
work is a significant part of the working population,” said
Robert Repella in the call. We “expect to see the benefits
coming out of that as we move through the
year.”

Cephalon also started a program with We bMD in the
first quarter, he said. We've had “over 7 million visits to
their website related to either NUVIG IL or disease area
content.”

Today it's doubtful that shift workers in the
US make enough mo ney to pay for Provigil or Nuvigil. В
August 2010, one hundred 250mg tablets of Nuvigil cost
$1,080, or $10.80 per tablet, and the price for 100 tablets
of 200 mg of Provigil was $1,855, or $18.55 per pill, at
DrugStore.com.

If generic Pro vigil was to hit the market,
patients who converted to Nuvigil would likely be p ressured
by payers to switch back to a cheaper Provigil generic. В
the meantim e, the same drug, sold as Modalert, can currently
be purchased online from other countries for as low as $120
per hundred, at EuroDrugstore.

Off-Label Marketing
Схемы

Back on November 8, 2007, Ed Silverman's
Pharmalot reported that Ceph alon had struck a deal with the
US Attorney in Philadelphia to pay 蹉 million to settle
off-label marketing charges. He noted that the settlement
was no surpr ise because the firm had been under a microscope
for off-label marketing for som e time and had received an
FDA warning letter in February 2007, ordering an end к
promotional materials claiming Provigil could be used to
treat fatigue.

underlying lawsuits were filed in
2003, by three former employees, Bruce Boise, Майкл
Makalusky, and Lucia Paccione, and another whistleblower,
Joseph Piacent ile, in federal court in the Eastern District
of Pennsylvania, under the False C laims Act, arising from
false claims submitted to Medicaid, Medicare and other
F ederal insurance programs that do not provide coverage for
such off-label uses.

About six months after the
settlement became known, on April Ǿ, 2008, Cephalon
announced the hiring of Gerald Pappert, former Attorney
General of Pennsylvania , as Executive Vice President and
General Counsel. Pappert was First Deputy Atto rney General
from 1997 to 2003 and Attorney General from 2003 to
2005 год.

When he t ook over as attorney general, Pappert
“launched a vigorous fight to lower the cost of prescrip Тион
drugs for Pennsylvanians,” the AG's website states.

"Я
will ensure that prescription drugs are price d fairly, and I
will take action against those who defraud our Commonwealth
прога rams or cheat us through illegal pricing and other
schemes,” he promised, after being sworn in to office in
February 2004.

The same month, Pappert was appointed to
the Pharma ceutical Pricing and Prescription Drug Abuse task
forces, of the National Associ ation of Attorneys General,
“which were formed to ensure that pharmaceuticals are priced
fairl y and to prevent the illegal use and sale of
prescription drugs, respectively,” according to F ebruary 4,
2004 press release.

In May 2004, Pappert reported that
Cephalon's Actiq, a narcotic lollipop, was showing up in
illegal sales in Philadelphia under the street nick имя
“perc-o-pops,” according to the September 30, 2008
Philadelphia Inquirer.

In September 2004, the US at torney
in Philadelphia subpoenaed documents about Cephalon's sales
and marketing of Actiq, Pro vigil, and Gabitril, an epilepsy
drug, the Inquirer reported

During his tenure i n
Harrisburg, Pappert filed a lawsuit accusing 13 drug
companies of price-fixing in March 2004. “As Attorney
General, I am committed to doing everything I can to reduce
р rice of prescription drugs for the Commonwealth and its
citizens,” he said, in a March 10, pre ss release on the
suit.

He explained that many consumers purchase drugs,
либо by themselves or through a health plan or insurer,
and “are financially harmed when drug comp anies
intentionally raise the prices of their drugs to manipulate
the market.”

In part, the lawsuit accused the companies
of “the widespread practice of offering trips, con sulting
opportunities, seminars, gifts, meals and cash payments to
medical provi ders in return for prescribing their products,”
the press release noted.

“Several of the companies named
в my lawsuit,” Pappert wrote in a March 19, 2004, Oped,
“have already pled guilty to and/or agreed to settle federal
charges of having engaged in unlawful marketing and sales
practices with respect to certain of their prescription
drugs.”

“These companies have already paid more than $1
billion i n fines and civil penalties to the federal
government,” he pointed out.

“My pharmaceutical industry
иск focuses on the pricing practices, which I believe
are clearly illegal,” he told Insider. “If we ultimately
succeed, it is going to change the way the industry prices
pharmaceuticals, and stop the prices from continuing to
skyrocket, and reduce prices.”

About five months after
Па ppert went to work for Cephalon, on September 29, 2008,
the US Department of Jus tice announced that the firm would
enter a criminal plea to one count of “Distribution of
Misb randed Drugs,” and pay $425 million to settle federal
and state charges and resolve allegation s that it marketed
three drugs, Provigil, Actiq and Gabitril, for unapproved
использования С.

Pappert signed off on the agreement as Executive VP
and General Counsel of C ephalon.

The government's
investigation began in January 2003, when Bruce Boise, a
sales rep resentative in Ohio, contacted the FDA about
Cephalon's sales practices. Boise agreed to wear a wire to a
company sales conference to help the government gather
evidence, acc ording to his attorney, Peter Chatfield, in a
September 29, 2008 press release b y his firm, Phillips &
Cohen. In November 2003, another sales rep, Lucia Paccione
of Philadelphi a, filed the first lawsuit. The complaints
remained sealed until the settlement was announced.

“What
makes this case unique is that it's the first time, in the
absence of substantial kickb acks, that the federal
government has used the False Claims Act to go after a
рН armaceutical company for marketing drugs for off-label
indications for which the re were no credible published
scientific research supporting these drugs' safety or
effectiven ess,” Chatfield said. “Not only were these uses
marketed by Cephalon not approved by the FDA, there was
abso lutely no literature published in any medical compendia
that supported them.”

While federally funded healthcare
programs “often will pay for off-label use of drugs
supported by credible me dical research and prescribed based
on the medical judgment of physicians, Cepha lon's marketing
efforts pushed well beyond those constraints,” according to
the press release.

From 2001 thr ough 2006, “Cephalon
improperly promoted Provigil to treat sleepiness, tiredness,
decreased ac tivity, lack of energy and fatigue,” the DOJ
sentencing memorandum reports.

“Cephalon continued its
illegal promotional activities after January 2002, when the
FDA specifically directed t he company to stop promoting
Provigil for off-label uses,” it states. For instance, in
Novembe r 2002, a Cephalon manager accompanying a sales
representative on calls to physi cians, told the sales
person: “Your best call of the day was with Dr. [a
psychiatrist] … Informing the phys ician of the transition
that we have made with Provigil from narcolepsy to the
V ariety of areas in which it is currently being used was
also effective.”

“Cephalon had its sales representat ives
call on doctors who would not normally prescribe the
defendant's drugs in the course of the doctors'
practice,” DOJ states. In fact, during a February 15, 2007
progr am, ABC's “20/20,” revealed a copy of a sales report
that showed allergists, internists, pediatricians and even
dentists w ere prescribing Provigil off-label to people with
depression, MS, hyperactivity and cancer.

Celaphon
marketed directly to psychiatrists after concluding that
й ey respond to a “lower threshold of scientific proof” than
other doctors. “In other words, Cephalon targeted physicians
й at would least object to their promoting Provigil for uses
with little clinical support,” says a September 29, 2008
press release by Connecticut's attorney general.

В
December 2002, Cepha lon sought to expand Provigil's label
to cover excessive sleepiness, without r egard to the
patient's underlying medical condition. However, in
January 2004, the FDA approved only a narrow expansion for
excessive sleepiness associated wi th obstructive sleep apnea
and shift work sleep disorder.

Harvard professor, Dr
Charles Czeisler, chief of sleep medicine at Brigham and
Women's Hospital, was lead investigat or in the shift-worker
study, which showed Provigil kept participants awake 1.7
minutes longer than a placebo. In September 2003, Czeisler
went before the FDA t o lobby for approval to treat
shift-workers on behalf of Cephalon.

The FDA form союзник
approved it for shift work disorder on January 23, 2004.
Less than four mon ths later, on May 21, 2ዄ, Science
Magazine reported that Cephalon was providin g $2.75 million
to fund an endowed chair at Harvard Medical School to be
named a fter Cephalon's founder and CEO, Frank Baldino, and
that Czeisler would hold the chair. Baldin o was also on the
advisory board of Harvard, Science noted.

Czeisler
опубликовано a paper in the August񎧕, “New England Journal
of Medicine,” and claimed night-shift workers remained more
alert with Provigil. “I would characterize [Provigil] as the
treatment of choice with patient s with shift-work disorder,”
сказал он.

However, in an editorial in the same issue, Dr
Robert Ba sner, director of Columbia University's
Cardiopulmonary Sleep and Ventilatory Disorders Center , said
the researchers' data showed only slight improvements in
workers wakefulness and produc tivity with Provigil, and the
drug seemed to exacerbate insomnia symptoms for so me patients.

“That's not a very robust endorsement of the drug coming
from the investigators themselves,” Basner wrote. “This drug
is l ittle better than nothing in terms of making them less
sleepy during shift work at night.”

For the February
2007 program, “20/20″ wanted to find out how well Provigil
worked in studies n ot funded by Cephalon, which led them to
the sleep labs of the US Army and resea rch psychologist,
Nancy Wesensten, who studies drugs to help soldiers stay
бодрствующий .

In studying Provigil for the army, Wesensten
compared it to caffeine in terms of how well soldiers
performed on tests, how alert they were, and side effects.
“In our hands, at the dosages we tested, modafinil did not
work any better than caffeine,” she told 20/20.

Cephalon
arranged for “case studies to drive growth for off-label
uses such as multiple sclero sis, adult ADD and depression,”
the DOJ press release charges. And in fact, a literature
Реви w, by Dr Jacob Ballon and Dr David Feifel, for an April
2006 paper in the “Journal of Clinical Psychiatry,” was
conducted on PubMed, with the search term modafinil OR
Provigil, and shows a total of 397 articles for on and
off-label uses.

“Cephalon employed sales representatives
и retained medical professionals to speak to doctors about
off-label uses,” the press release s aid. “The company funded
continuing medical education programs, through millions of
dollars in grants, to promote off-label uses of its
drugs.”

“Cephalon sent doctors to “consultant”
meetings at lav ish resorts to hear the company's off-label
message,” the DOJ reports. According to a Cepha долгота
document, these meetings “proved incredibly effective in
driving prescription growth among the attendees,” the memo
Примечания.

“Cephalon trained its sales representatives on
techniques to prompt the doc tors into off-label
conversations,” and “had its sales representatives tell
doctors how to document their of f-label uses of drugs to get
these uses paid by insurers, who often will not pay для
off-label uses,” the DOJ reports.

The drug maker “also
structured its sales quota and bonuses in such a way that
sales representatives could only reach their sales goals if
they promo ted and sold the drugs for off-label uses,” the
press release notes.

According to the sentenci ng memo, for
over six years, the very top levels of the company knew and
approve d of these efforts.

Cephalon’s sales reports
show the success of the off-labe l campaigns, with Provigil
sales rising from $146 million in 2001, to $691 milli on in
2006, to more than $850 million in 2007. Sales increased
more than a 1,000 % from 2000 to 2007, according to
Connecticut's attorney general and the government found more
than 80% were for off-label use.

It's difficult to see
where the off-label marketing has en ded because Provigil
profits have never fallen. SEC filings show sales of the
Д-р ug exceeded $988 million in 2ወ, the year the settlement
agreement was signed, roughly $138 million more than
2007 год.

In 2009, Provigil sales topped the billion доллар
mark, and Nuvigil earned $73,391 million. Combined, these
two products ha d an 11% increase in sales over 2008, and
made up 51% of Cephalon's total net sales for 2009.

With a
doubling of Provigil sales in the first 6 months of 2010,
totaling $547,2 ȱ million, sales could potentially beat the
record set in 2009. In comparison, sales in first 6 months
of񎧙 were only $515,430 million. Nuvigil had sales of ,
$75,890 million in the first 6 months of 2010, compared to
$16,786 million in the first 6 months of 2009.

Since the
launch of Nuvigil on June 1, 2009, Cephalo n has been aiming
at approvals for additional indications, including people
с jet lag and traumatic brain injury, as well as
adjunctive therapy for schizophr enia and bipolar disorder,
and fatigue associated with cancer treatment. “We expect
NUVIGIL to be a much bigger drug than PROVIGIL ever was in a
long run,” CEO, Baldino, said in a February 11, 2010
Earnings Call.

However, in March 2010, the FDA nixed
approval for jet lag, which Cephalon was counting on because
it would have allowed sales reps to hit virtually every kind
of physician that might treat jet lag, instead of only
doctors who treat sleep disorders, according to market
analysts.

In the last wee k of June, Cephalon filed a
formal response to the FDA's non-approval. The FDA
“classified t he response as a class two resubmission
requiring a six-month review with a PDUF A date of December
30,” Baldino said in a July 27, Earnings Call.

Also, in
Июн e 2010, the results for a study of Nuvigil, in
conjunction with antipsychotics, for schizophrenia showed
the drug failed to meet its primary endpoint, and in th e
July 27, Earnings Call, Dr Lesley Russell, Cephalon's Chief
Medical Officer, said the compan y had “decided not to move
forward with cancer related to fatigue for
NUVIGIL. "

Hammered Again in Court

On the same day that
the FDA refused approval of Nuv igil for jet lag, a federal
judge refused to dismiss the antitrust lawsuits file d
against Cephalon by the Federal Trade Commission and
другие.

In 2005 and 2006, Cephalon entered into
settlements with the generic drug makers, Barr, Mylan, Te va,
and Ranbaxy, and agreed to pay the four companies a combined
total of more t han $200 million, in return for agreements
that would keep generic versions of P rovigil from coming on
the market until April 2012, instead of 2008.

In March
2 006, when announcing the settlements, CEO Baldino told the
Philadelphia Business Journal: “We were able to get six more
years of patent protection. That's $4 billion in sales that
no one e xpected.”

Later in 2006, a class of direct
purchasers (such as health plans and pharmacies) fi led a
lawsuit against Cephalon and the generic companies, followed
soon after by a class of end-payers of Provigil, and Apotex,
another generic firm. They all a lleged that Cephalon, and
the generic makers were engaged in anticompetitive con проток
in violation of the Sherman Antitrust Act.

Pay-For-Delay
Предложения

The so-calle d “pay-for-delay” agreements (also known
as “reverse payments”) are settlements of patent litigation
in which a brand-name company pays a potential generic
competitor to abandon a patent challenge and delay entering
the market with a generic.

Brand-name companies “can delay
generic competition that lowers pri ces by agreeing to pay a
generic competitor to hold its competing product off th E
market for a certain period of time,” the FTC explained in a
January 2010 report titled, “Pay-for-Delay: H ow Drug Company
Pay-Offs Cost Consumers Billions,” which summarized the
savings lost to US con sumers through such deals during the
previous six years.

The FTC found the numb er of
pay-for-delay agreements had increased from none in 2004, to
a record 19 i n the fiscal year of 2009. On average, these
agreements precluded generic entry for 48 months, the agency
докладов.

Most of the deals reached since 2005 were st ill
in effect, and were protecting at least $20 billion in
brand-name sales from generic competition. “These sweetheart
deals are being done on the backs of consumers,” FTC
chairman, Jon L eibowitz, told the New York Times in January
2010 год. “From the perspective of the Federal Trade Commission,
these deals are one of the worst abuses across the board in
health c are and should be stopped.”

The FTC estimates
the agreements currently cost A merican consumers $3.5
billion a year in higher prescription costs when they mis s
out on generic prices that can be as much as “90 percent
less than brand prices,” according to the study.

“Based on
PR eliminary analysis, already, in the first nine months of
FY 2010, there have bee n more brand-generic settlements
involving some sort of compensation – 21 – than in any prior
full fiscal ye ar,” Leibowitz reported in July 27, 2010
testimony before the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Суды
and Competition Policy.

Those settlements protect $9
billion in drug sale s from generic competition. "Это
almost an epidemic,” he told lawmakers, “and left untreated,
these types of settleme nts will continue to insulate more
and more drugs from competition.”

The FTC joined the
Cephal on antitrust litigation on February 13, 2008, by
filing a lawsuit against Cephal on, but not the generics
makers, alleging violations of the Federal Trade Commis sion
Act. Cephalon's anticompetitive scheme “denies patients
access to lower-cost, generic v ersions of Provigil and
forces consumers and other purchasers to pay hundreds of
millions of dollars a year more for Provigil,” the agency
stated in a press release the same day.

On March 29, 2010,
a federal judge in Philadelphia denied a defense motion к
dismiss the FTC €™s case (and related cases) against
Cephalon. The case is no w in the discovery phase, according
to the FTC. However, nobody better look for a resolution and
cheap generic Provigil anytime soon because Cephalon has
каждый intention of dragging out this litigation as long as
possible and is geared up f or round two of delay and motion
filing.

In a May 4, 2010 Earnings Call, Georg e Pappert,
the former champion of lower drug prices for citizens of
Пенсильвания , informed listeners that the discovery process
“will take us to roughly the middle of񎧛.”

“And then
we will be filing our dispositive motions, our motions for
summary judgment,” he said. “I believe the court has a
schedule se t for July of 2011, and then the court will
consider those motions at that time.”

Being the fi rst
batch of motions took years to resolve, generic Provigil
will likely enter t he market in 2012, exactly as specified
in the pay-for-delay deals, and long bef ore the litigation
ends. Providing the drug is still allowed to be sold at all
T hat is.

Also see The Rise and Fall of Provigil: Part
Я

Evelyn Pri ngle
epringle05@yahoo.com

(Evelyn Pringle
is an investigative journalist focused on exposing
corruption in government and corporate
America)

DETROIT, Michigan – General Motors is handing out political contributions contributions to both political contributions parties, but so far incumbent Ohio Goveror Ted Strickland is not one of those candidates.

In fact, federal election records show that GM's political contributions action committee has donated five-thousand dollars to republican candidate for S enate Rob Portman, who's running against democrat Lee Fisher.

Those records also show a two thousand dollar contribution to incumbent Ohio Democratic Senator Sherrod Brown who faces GOP c hoice Mike DeWine.

By Josh Mitchell

General Motors Co. has resumed contributing to political contributions campaigns, lifting a self-imposed ban on political contributions spendin g adopted during the auto maker's bankruptcy restructuring last year.

GM gave $90,500 to candidates running in the November elections, Federal Election Commis sion records show. The beneficiaries include midwestern lawmakers, mostly Democr ats, who have traditionally supported the industry’s legislative agenda on Cap itol Hill, including Sen. Debbie Stabenow and Rep. John Dingell of Michigan and Sen. Sherrod Brown of Ohio.

The list also includes House Republican Whip Eric Ca ntor (R., Va.), who would likely assume a top leadership post if Republicans win control of the House in November.

While it's hardly unusual for big companies like GM to make political contributions contributions, GM's situation is diff erent because it is majority-owned by the US government. GM is planning to ret urn to the public stock markets later this year, allowing the US to begin to s ell off its roughly 61% stake in the company.

GM spokesman Greg Martin said the company stopped making political contributions contributions in spring 20ǩ to f ocus on its taxpayer-financed bankruptcy reorganization.

“As we've emerged a sa new company, weâ ™re not going to sit on the sidelines as our competitors an d other industires who have PACs are participating in the political contribution s process,” Martin said. He said the company's politcal action committee is “an effective means for our employees to pool their resources and have their c ollective voice heard.”

He said the company has supported members of both part ies who “approach issues thoughtfully € and “support a strong auto industry ".