It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Supreme Court rules Drug Companies exempt from Lawsuits

page: 4
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:17 PM
link   

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by neo96


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


Appears so, and I think that this is why the generics have law suit protection. BY the time any drug becomes available as a generic (which is identical in every way to the name brand original drug) a side effect such as "may cause flesh eating disease" would have already been discovered. I can't remember the last time I saw a generic drug involved in legal proceedings.

It's always the original name brand that gets sued.


The is some bull...

The generic manufacturer can now pump out sub par drugs and blame the original manufacturer.

This is what happens when you love business and money above humans.

Business and money

Business and money





posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 09:21 PM
link   

Originally posted by charles1952
reply to post by ThreeBears
 

OK, I understand. You want pharmaceutical companies to have more rigorous testing protocols. Got ya.

How do they compare to Monsanto, Abortionists, Jihadists, Westboro Baptist, and Obama. Or are pharmaceuticals so horrendous that nothing else on earth compares?


Oh, I see, because there are worse things by reckoning, that means that pharma is just fine being irresponsible
for poisoning people.

I get it now, if you are rich you abide to a separate set of legal principles.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by Cheesefleas

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by neo96


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


Appears so, and I think that this is why the generics have law suit protection. BY the time any drug becomes available as a generic (which is identical in every way to the name brand original drug) a side effect such as "may cause flesh eating disease" would have already been discovered. I can't remember the last time I saw a generic drug involved in legal proceedings.

It's always the original name brand that gets sued.


The is some bull...

The generic manufacturer can now pump out sub par drugs and blame the original manufacturer.


that's a fairly pejorative spin on it.

What the generic manufacturer can do is pump out drugs that are approved by the FDA, provided they meet the FDA's ongoing labeling and other requirements.


This is what happens when you love business and money above humans.

Business and money

Business and money


Or you might consider that the problem is that you can't sue the FDA for allowing the manufacture of such drugs - after all THAT is where the actual responsibility lies!



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 10:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul



that's a fairly pejorative spin on it.

What the generic manufacturer can do is pump out drugs that are approved by the FDA, provided they meet the FDA's ongoing labeling and other requirements.



There are several things that bother me...

This means that companies are not encouraged to be responsible for safety of the components they
use to concoct their products. In essence they can use poison and evade prosecution because the law has been INTERPRETED in a way that perverts common legal principles in the US.







Or you might consider that the problem is that you can't sue the FDA for allowing the manufacture of such drugs - after all THAT is where the actual responsibility lies!


Your logic seems to say that business in America is not responsible for their products or action, and that their
liability is in fact, to be laid at the tax payers feet.

IT is the perfect way to manufacture yet another avenue for big business to pass their costs onto the America people.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:01 PM
link   
reply to post by halfmask
 

Why can't they make up their minds? Corporations are people...... they can donate money to political campaigns. Corporations can't be sued? But people can be sued...... huh. I guess it just works in their favor. I guess those anonymous corporate political campaign donations do have their benefits, don't they?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:13 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aloysius the Gaul

Originally posted by Cheesefleas

Originally posted by usernameconspiracy

Originally posted by neo96


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


Appears so, and I think that this is why the generics have law suit protection. BY the time any drug becomes available as a generic (which is identical in every way to the name brand original drug) a side effect such as "may cause flesh eating disease" would have already been discovered. I can't remember the last time I saw a generic drug involved in legal proceedings.

It's always the original name brand that gets sued.


The is some bull...

The generic manufacturer can now pump out sub par drugs and blame the original manufacturer.


that's a fairly pejorative spin on it.

What the generic manufacturer can do is pump out drugs that are approved by the FDA, provided they meet the FDA's ongoing labeling and other requirements.


This is what happens when you love business and money above humans.

Business and money

Business and money


Or you might consider that the problem is that you can't sue the FDA for allowing the manufacture of such drugs - after all THAT is where the actual responsibility lies!


Hmmm, using That logic then,

"the Problem is that you can't sue the FDA for ALLOWING the manufacture of such drugs-after all that is where the actual responsibility lies"

Really, then, why we shall have to dismantle, Overthrow, Destroy, End the FDA and the entire Matrix it works within as it no longer serves any purpose other than acting as a middle collection agent for snake oil doctors and their wagon circus.

OK then, maybe Adam Kokesh was right after all...as was, Who was it???

Oh, yea, PAINE. I believe his name was Paine, Thomas Paine wasn't it???

As you say, the Federal Food and Drug Admin no longer works for us, we can't sue them, they don't serve us,

SO WHY THEY STILL HERE???

Same goes for the Supreme Theater Show, the CooCoo House, and the "how many prostitutes can you pay for before the opposing side snitches on ya Senate, State Dept and the rest of the Flea Mongrels"

Oh, yea, and the New Kid on de Block, Department of CRIMINALS R Comfortable at Home Security where YOU TOO can get a Great job raping and trafficking kids, torturing dissidents, uh groping old ladies at airports if That fetish is your kind of thing or Smuggling narcotics while tasing ole grandpa Jo for kicks, as Mr. Alex Jones himself referred to and I whole heatedly agree with his analysis on the whole job/collage Mirage,

So again, WHY THEY STILL HERE???


Let me guess, they our practice for eternal hell or what? Because that woman in that Photograph with the no skin sure the heck looks like she's in bloody hell...so that's gotta be it right? Because HOW ELSE DO YOU EXPLAIN THIS

INSANITY???

WE HAVE A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF VIPERS! WHY THEY STILL HERE?



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:29 PM
link   
reply to post by halfmask
 


americans are living in a dream this is america.inc now who do u think runs this place? friggin banks and drug companies. no surprise. still friggin sad.



posted on Jul, 10 2013 @ 11:32 PM
link   
reply to post by ThreeBears
 


Did you mean to say "Oh - right - I see why you can't sue generic manufacturers" in there somewhere?



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 12:09 AM
link   
The Peoples' failure to understand Supreme Court rulings is getting old. The rulings are not always "they allowed this" or "they banned that". Sometimes, rulings are remanded, as in the Prop 8 ruling; meaning the petition had no legal standing to be even presented in the first place. Other times, they are ruling on a completely different question that is presented; such as a lower court's ruling or procedure.

In this case, Mutual Pharmaceutical Co. v. Bartlett, the Court was asked to examine if the First District court erred in its precedents with previous rulings. It also asked this: "Does federal law governing claims against generic pharmaceutical products preempt state law design-defect claims against the makers of those products?"

The question is not do people have the right to sue a "drug company" or are "drug companies exempt". The question is clear; does Federal law preempt State law in this specific manner.

In this opinion (PDF), that question was examined.

Straight from the opinion....contradicting your assumption and your title and your linked nonsense:

The dissent accuses us of incorrectly assuming “that federal law gives pharmaceutical companies a right to sell a federally approved drug free from common-law liability,” but we make no such assumption.


Read the opinion before you make an attempt at an informed decision.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 01:54 AM
link   
reply to post by ownbestenemy
 


Excellent posts! Wayyyyyy to bring rationality to a conversation.

I am not that familiar with the law but when I want to understand a recent supreme court decision I usually read the justices opinions to figure out the reasoning on what happened before getting outraged. Scalia usually gets it right.
edit on 11-7-2013 by pyramid head because: grammer



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 01:59 AM
link   
Post here because I am educated on this.Well patiently educated. Salt tablets made up of concetrated doses of animal urine and faeces do not cause flesh eating deseases on patients with low dose intakes. Imagin eating fatty food for 8 weeks. What is worse???



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 02:05 AM
link   
reply to post by FrankieGT
 


I am confused by your post but please clarify. I am interested in your "partially" qualified stance. Are you arguing the title, the story or the opinion?



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 02:08 AM
link   
Oh opinion only. I am not qualified only tht I know about the business. I laughed at the story because she was obviously not set up well enough to take down the big boys.My education would only be from trial and error. only. I am trying to argue that the lawyer never should have allowed her case to go public. I am terrified for the patient, but agree on the ruling.

edit on 11/7/2013 by FrankieGT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 02:18 AM
link   
reply to post by FrankieGT
 


Fair enough. I myself am still reading through the opinion and all the cited case law.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 02:36 AM
link   
yeah. corruption and greed are common place, routine.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 02:58 AM
link   

Originally posted by ThreeBears


Herring question, but I'll give it a go. first of all, how they Compare, let's see,

1. They all earn a Profit in one form or another, Westboro via tithes, book sales perhaps, though Interesting to earn via tithes they would have to appeal to the same types, thinking wise. Abortionists, earn profit obviously, though That is a loaded issue which in of itself would have to be separated from preventative abortions (where mothers life is in danger) to late term etc. depending on Where you sit looking at that issue, etc., there is a host of issues there However IF just looking at the Upper echelon of engineers behind abortionists aka Eugenics/population control I would say they are of the same Ideology of the philosophy that is behind Big Pharma, though in a different means. Monsanto would be similar, as would Jihadists, and Obama..



I may have misunderstood some of what you say here, I have trouble following your ranting style- the bold makes it seem rather lunatic.

But as you proclaim that you feel these "engineers" sin is having an idealism they are trying to impose upon us all through various venues, you also propose your own ideal world that you would impose if you had the power to?

We all want to make the world a better place, and unfortunately, we don't all agree on what that means.


Commenting more generally on many posts in the thread-
I find that the ranting about pharmaceauticals being out to KILL US ALL and how THEY SHOULD ALL BE MURDERED..... stop yelling and think for a second!

One minute we want the right to have treatments for our suffering, for our sickness- for some people, the capacity to heal is part of that "ideal world". The problem is that anything that will have that power will have other effects on the body. All of our technology has some sort of backlash when it comes to messing with Mother Nature.
Our body is a system, when we touch that system and fiddle with it, the influence travels to other parts as well.

I don't think any pharma company is out to harm us, but all medicines are poisons as well, it all hangs on dosage, and varying associations- combinations with other drugs or food, and the individual.

If we wiped out this business, to create this ideal world without pharmaceuticals,
then we would definately get rid of the over population problems in the world, and we would each be very intimately familiar with suffering and death, our own and that of those close to us.

Don't you think that in a few generations, the people would start to say amongst themselves- "These MoFo's that keep us all sick, in pain, dying, out of their desire to impose their own ideal world upon us! -When the possibility of medication and treatment exists, but they hide it and repress it from becoming a reality!"

Even if one said, "Yeah but, I heard that back when they allowed that, there were sometimes side effects, that they couldn't always predict.......sometimes bad ones that would happen to one out of two thousand who took something, for example.They could even die!"

I bet the answer would be- now the two thousand die. You're telling us it would be worse to have only one of those die, because of a side effect from what saved all the others???

No matter what idealism you use in an attempt to control completely your world,
it's bound to have a negative side to it somewhere, for someone.

edit on 11-7-2013 by Bluesma because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 03:11 AM
link   
- By the way,

something not many people know.....

Sometimes,
The company that developed and marketed the original brand name medicine,
are owned by the same company that produces the generic version as well.


There's a company here in France that has been under terrible scrutiny in the last year, with a law suit, which made many people decide they would no longer buy anything from that company- they buy the generic instead, which they don't know is owned by the same company!

It bothers me that in many cases, the doctor and the patient are rarely held responsible for their choices-
The warning was there, in this case- the doctor and patient didn't read it.
In the case I refer to in France, the doctors were prescribing a medication to be used as a weight loss aid, when it was not made for that, and despite warning against using it that way from the reps!

But I guess holding the doctors responsible for their choices would mean less money to be won- and god knows every one wants more money....



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 03:38 AM
link   
Just to add to my prev post, I think doctors are like politicians and can be obscured by people who think they are incurable, but this was not enough in this case to sway the judge's upper hand.Medicine shouldn't be messed with by people who don't even know what they are taking or even what it is doing medically. My grandfather died of throat cancer because of a late diagnosis. He suffered and withered and died right in front of us and we could do nothing about it except endure and be with him through it.I don't doubt that people receive medication for beficially purposes. But that doctor's don't know what they are prescribing either. What they do know is how it afffected the last patient. DO you see what I am getting at? Not all associations have handled themselves this way.I think it is cetered around small rurall populations where everything is out of reach.He died and we watched him die and lost him. If we were medically equipped to handle what ravages the body to the point of it dying the I would give FULL credit to our medical associations the world over, but it is still infancy and most are not well equipped to take on big diagnoses.

You are correct to doubt your physicains use of medicine ,but not to the pojnt where you are living without any help at all.
edit on 11/7/2013 by FrankieGT because: (no reason given)


Hail rise of the white ammy.
edit on 11/7/2013 by FrankieGT because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:24 AM
link   
If the person had a bad reaction that's what a doctor's malpractice insurance is for. If the doctor were to sue the pharmaceutical company, maybe that ruling would be different. Doctors do have the rights as medical authorities to call a company and ask for chemical compositions of, well anything, in order to ascertain if a substance would affect their patients. For example the doctor that calls a soda company to make sure the anonymized natural flavoring poses a risk to his patient.

The generics are exempt. So if you take a generic aspirin, and your head pops off, you can't do anything, as that's what life insurance is for.

Snake oil is starting to look safer than what is under the USFDA packaging. Seems like another crack in the system to eventually break apart the cleanliness in competitive capitalism and opens the door to black market consumerism.

Well it's all good unless someone makes a ruling that name brand drugs are luxuries and are off limits to consumers on certain prescription plans.

I started doubting that the government knows its way around drugs when I looked at a deodorant label where it started with "Drug Facts", and that stuff is made for everyday use. Drugs, everyday, it's not so special anymore.



posted on Jul, 11 2013 @ 05:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by darkbake
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)


I don't think what you're saying would be held to this decision. The decision is stating that you cannot sue copy cat drug makers. Not drug makers that are completely commiting fraud by advertising that it's the same drug when it's really not the exact copy of the brand name drug. You would definitely sue a company for fraud if you can prove that the two products are not the same with different labeling.




top topics



 
37
<< 1  2  3    5 >>

log in

join