Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

page: 1
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
+4 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits


www.whiteoutpress.com

In a 5-4 vote, the US Supreme Court struck down a lower court’s ruling and award for the victim of a pharmaceutical drug’s adverse reaction. According to the victim and the state courts, the drug caused a flesh-eating side effect that left the patient permanently disfigured over most of her body. The adverse reaction was hidden by the drug maker and later forced to be included on all warning labels. But the highest court in the land ruled that the victim had no legal grounds to sue the corporation because its drugs are exempt from lawsuits.
(visit the link for the full news article)




posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:07 PM
link   
I used the search and looked through the recent threads and did not see this posted.
I don't know how reliable the source, but if this is true, this is some pretty bad news. How can the supreme court in good conscious support such a decision? This is just ridiculous.
I have always been paranoid of the pharmaceutical companies and their products, but now its justified. I will be avoiding as much medication as I can.

www.whiteoutpress.com
(visit the link for the full news article)


+11 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:17 PM
link   
5 to 4, eh? Makes it easy to tell which 5 judges are in the back pockets of wallstreet and big money.

Wonder how much each of them were bribed for....

I think at this point, the corruption in America is nearing absolute completion. I just see no other alternate scenario occurring here.

Fascism isnt coming.

Its here.

edit on 7/9/2013 by CaticusMaximus because: grammar


+1 more 
posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:26 PM
link   
Still think it's possible to change the system from within and without any violence? I laugh at the people who think there is a way.
edit on 7/9/2013 by SpaDe_ because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
reply to post by halfmask
 


I found this from 2011 Supreme court decision from Forbes


The U.S. Supreme Court, in a busy day of opinion releases, protected generic drug manufacturers from lawsuits while rejecting a Vermont law that was designed to make generics more widely prescribed.


and from the OP's link


Now, nine years after the tragedy began, the US Supreme Court overturned the state court’s verdict and award. Justices cited the fact that all generic drugs and their manufacturers, some 80% of all drugs consumed in the United States, are exempt from liability for side effects, mislabeling or virtually any other negative reactions caused by their drugs. In short, the Court ruled that the FDA has ultimate authority over pharmaceuticals in the US. And if the FDA says a drug is safe, that takes precedent over actual facts, real victims and any and all adverse reactions.



The Court’s ruling a week ago on behalf of generic drug makers is actually a continuation of a ruling made by the same Court in 2011. At that time, the Justices ruled that the original inventors and manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, also known as ‘name brand’ drugs, are the only ones that can be sued for mislabeling, fraud or adverse drug reactions and side effects. If the generic versions of the drugs are made from the exact same formula and labeled with the exact same warnings as their brand name counterparts, the generics and their manufacturers were not liable.

The Court ruled, “Because it is impossible for Mutual and other similarly situated manufacturers to comply with both state and federal law, New Hampshire's warning-based design-defect cause of action is pre-empted with respect to FDA-approved drugs sold in interstate commerce."


This just sucks big time for those dependent on drugs and gives pharmaceutical companies a lot of leeway to do just about anything they want. There is something seriously wrong here. Trust me, I am the FDA.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:30 PM
link   
They've basically just given them permission to kill us legally.


One industry critic was quoted by Reuters after the verdict. "Today's court decision provides a disincentive for generic makers of drugs to monitor safety of their products and to make sure that they have a surveillance system in place to detect adverse events that pose a threat to patients," Michael Carome, director of Public Citizen's Health Research Group told the news outlet


Gives "just say no to drugs" a whole new meaning.

Another alphabet agency given control of our lives with no oversight.
edit on 9-7-2013 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:32 PM
link   
reply to post by liveandlearn
 


Interesting - so it doesn't protect "big pharma" at all then - the original "brand name" manufacturers CAN be sued, but the generic ones cannot because they are making a product that they have been told is OK to make.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:36 PM
link   
reply to post by halfmask
 

Oh 'Murica... your ways are getting funnier by the day.

I know the US gov. and the people are not to be lumped together... but recently more and more # becomes public and nothing ever happens.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:38 PM
link   
reply to post by Aloysius the Gaul
 


The generic brands can make it if the FDA says its okay, and they can't be sued. The problem for American citizens though is the can't sue the FDA if they say its okay when it is not, or if the companies used fraud to convince the FDA it was okay.

From the end of the article.



In other words, if the FDA says something is safe, it doesn’t matter if that decision is wrong or the result of lies, fraud or deception on the part of the world’s pharmaceutical companies. And there’s no way to sue the FDA for being wrong and costing millions of unsuspecting Americans their lives. That result leaves 240 million Americans unprotected from an industry responsible for more preventable deaths in the US than any other cause.


Note I can only figure out how to use the normal quote and not the offsite quote, sorry mods.
edit on 9-7-2013 by halfmask because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
reply to post by ColCurious
 


Who is Murica?
What does he/she have to do with this?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:41 PM
link   
Well, with the exception of some antibiotics used less than two weeks, I will never take long term meds. If it is a short duration pill and I do not have a natural remedy available, I will think about it. I have evidence that I am allergic to at least ten different meds if taken longer than a few weeks. I should get coppies of these medical records to keep as proof. I also still have problems with my body from taking these meds, but I am alive. Never again. My wife and daughters are aware of my wishes and know what happens.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:42 PM
link   
This 'decision' stands to reason.

The big drug companies have been getting klobbered by lawsuits.

The stockholders simply won't stand for it.

Three Biggest Pharmaceutical Lawsuits of 2012: Psychiatric Drugs Focus of All Three

Abbott Settles Marketing Lawsuit

Merck to pay $688 million to settle Enhance lawsuits

Merck to Pay $950 Million in Vioxx Settlement

there are 100's of these 'cases'.

maybe the Supreme Court is 'medicated' with that ancient Chinese miracle drug ...... silk paper with green and black ink


edit on Jul-09-2013 by xuenchen because:




posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:44 PM
link   

The court ruled Monday that generic drug makers could not be sued by patients over defective drug design because they're required by federal law to copy their brand-name counterparts.


What a loophole.

So while a plethora of new drugs enter the worlds recreational markets and everyone is told how evil and bad the slaves in lab coats in china are for forcing stupid kids to jump out of windows, it's OK if there is a federal law telling you that that "it doesn't matter if the drug boiled your head to a prune, it only did what the brand named drugs do. Stop complaining."

It's a world gone absolutely topsy turvy.




posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:46 PM
link   
reply to post by halfmask
 


Originally posted by halfmask
reply to post by ColCurious
 

Who is Murica?

The United States of A'murica...

Its slang alluding to US-redneck-accentuation of the word "America" AFAIK.
(*often used when "'Murica" does something really stupid.)
edit on 9-7-2013 by ColCurious because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:49 PM
link   

At that time, the Justices ruled that the original inventors and manufacturers of pharmaceutical drugs, also known as ‘name brand’ drugs, are the only ones that can be sued for mislabeling, fraud or adverse drug reactions and side effects


Makes sense to me the people who created the drug wouldn't necessarily disclose any problems with it.

So she still can sure the original name brand manufacturer.?
edit on 9-7-2013 by neo96 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:50 PM
link   
This is ridiculous. And relevant, because I found out that some generic drug companies are actually selling sugar pills to customers for things like SSRI's - which have heavy withdrawl effects.

I found this out because my dad works at a hospital where they were conducting tests with psychiatric drugs, and when they had anomalous test results, tested the drugs and found out they were placebos.

These were anti-depressants ordered from the legitimate drug companies! How can they not be held accountable for this??

I found out about it, because I had my mom do some research after receving a batch of anti-depressants that sent me into immediate withdrawls. Then my parents went to a conference and heard about this.

I was just about to get my pills shipped over to my parents to have them tested for content but now there is no point! WTF!

Sorry, in case anyone missed it,

there are currently drugs being shipped that have 0% drug content..

This is because people in the manufacturing line are stealing the real pills and replacing them with placebos, and this is very dangerous but with no incentive to fix the problem, it will continue.
edit on 9-7-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)
edit on 9-7-2013 by darkbake because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 10:51 PM
link   
www.scotusblog.com... link to the scotus blog incase any one didnt trust the original source im not sure i get this completely but i cant think that this can be a good thing right?



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:00 PM
link   
Could the plan here be to put the generics out of business because they will not be "safe" because they are not held to the same standards as the Corporate drug makers - The United States of Corporate America in action once again?

edit on 9-7-2013 by Maluhia because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:03 PM
link   
Nice class warefare loophole...... Most of us poor people can only afford generic, so you can only sue for adverse effects if you can afford brand name drugs. Wonderful.



posted on Jul, 9 2013 @ 11:04 PM
link   
Monsanto is exempt, big pharma is exempt, the Fed is exempt, none can be held accountable in court. You know what these people aren't exempt from? People taking to the streets, dragging them out of their homes and publicly lynching their asses.





new topics
top topics
 
37
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join