[QUOTE]July 7, 2013. Washington. In case readers missed it with all the coverage of the Trayvon Martin murder trial and the Supreme Court’s rulings on gay marriage and the Voting Rights Act, the US Supreme Court also made a ruling on lawsuits against drug companies for fraud, mislabeling, side effects and accidental death. From now on, 80 percent of all drugs are exempt from legal liability.
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.[/QUOTE]
[IMG]http://www.whiteoutpress.com/files/cache/25767172fc4184582f5edb82108782a8.jpg[/IMG]
[url]http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articles/q32013/supreme-court-rules-drug-companies-exempt-from-lawsuits/[/url]
Oh god that picture is disgusting!
Why would you put that in the op!?
I really don't know what to say to this, it's that bad.
I guess she DIED a little bit inside when she couldn't sue them.
[editline]12th July 2013[/editline]
aight i'm done with these goddamn puns
[editline]12th July 2013[/editline]
aight I'm done trying to be funny
[quote]Recent Whiteout Press articles:
Michael Bloomberg accused of illegal Gun Trafficking
Plot to assassinate Occupy Leaders exposed further
7-Eleven raids prove US Slavery alive and well[/quote]
I don't think I trust this website
what the fuck
This isn't a trustworthy source OP.
[QUOTE=TorrentR;41422516]I guess she DIED a little bit inside when she couldn't sue them.
[editline]12th July 2013[/editline]
aight i'm done with these goddamn puns[/QUOTE]
that isn't even a pun
nice pic op
[QUOTE=TorrentR;41422516]I guess she DIED a little bit inside when she couldn't sue them.
[editline]12th July 2013[/editline]
aight i'm done with these goddamn puns[/QUOTE]
That isn't even a pun; you're just a total tool.
The world is crumbling beneath us gentlemen, the end may be near. I pray for our families, friends, well-being and souls during these trying times.
Can you find a better source than white-out press?
Considering the front-page has a small box dedicated to finding out about the illuminati I think its not a particularly great source.
[QUOTE=sHiBaN;41422671]
The world is crumbling beneath us gentlemen, the end may be near. I pray for our families, friends, well-being and souls during these trying times.[/QUOTE]
Never really thought the world would end just because I made a terrible attempt at being funny.
Anyway, so a drug company could get away with infecting half of US with HIV? Sounds like something they would do so they could make more profit off antiviral drugs.
[QUOTE=TorrentR;41422516]I guess she DIED a little bit inside when she couldn't sue them.
[editline]12th July 2013[/editline]
aight i'm done with these goddamn puns
[editline]12th July 2013[/editline]
aight I'm done trying to be funny[/QUOTE]
maybe you should PUNish yourself for making a really bad joke
[QUOTE=XD!;41422742]Can you find a better source than white-out press?
Considering the front-page has a small box dedicated to finding out about the illuminati I think its not a particularly great source.[/QUOTE]
I'll forward Gary Savage's contact info to them. Don't tell Bob Page.
[QUOTE=XD!;41422742]Can you find a better source than white-out press?
Considering the front-page has a small box dedicated to finding out about the illuminati I think its not a particularly great source.[/QUOTE]
however i would tend to believe that this is what a corporation would do, look at Monsanto corporation they passed a protection act so they can't get sued for their product containing things that crops should not contain
[QUOTE=Katatonic717;41422484]Oh god that picture is disgusting!
Why would you put that in the op!?[/QUOTE]
Because that is what happened, and is what companies are no longer liable for thanks to our legal system. That is, assuming the dubious source is half-correct at least.
That's disgusting. (Well, being immune to legal actions, I mean)
This is the decision the article refers to.
[url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-142_8njq.pdf[/url]
It is nothing to do with the conspiracy bollocks the "source" in the OP claims, it is specifically a conflict of state and federal laws that was ultimately resolved by the supremacy clause.
"In the instant case, it was impossible for Mutual to comply with both its state-law duty to strengthen the warnings on sulindac’s label and its federal-law duty not to alter sulindac’s label. Accordingly, the state law is pre-empted."
"This case arises out of tragic circumstances. A combination of factors combined to produce the rare and devastating injuries that respondent suffered: the FDA’s decision to approve the sale of sulindac and the warnings that accompanied the drug at the time it was prescribed, the decision by respondent’s physician to prescribe sulindac despite its known risks, and Congress’ decision to regulate the manufacture and sale of generic drugs in a way that reduces their cost to patients but leaves generic drug manufacturers incapable of modifying either the drugs’ compositions or their warnings. Respondent’s situation is tragic and evokes deep sympathy, but a straightforward application of pre-emption law requires that the judgment below be reversed.
It is so ordered."
[QUOTE=Sgt Doom;41423823]This is the decision the article refers to.
[url]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/12pdf/12-142_8njq.pdf[/url]
It is nothing to do with the conspiracy bollocks the "source" in the OP claims, it is specifically a conflict of state and federal laws that was ultimately resolved by the supremacy clause.
"In the instant case, it was impossible for Mutual to comply with both its state-law duty to strengthen the warnings on sulindac’s label and its federal-law duty not to alter sulindac’s label. Accordingly, the state law is pre-empted."
"This case arises out of tragic circumstances. A combination of factors combined to produce the rare and devastating injuries that respondent suffered: the FDA’s decision to approve the sale of sulindac and the warnings that accompanied the drug at the time it was prescribed, the decision by respondent’s physician to prescribe sulindac despite its known risks, and Congress’ decision to regulate the manufacture and sale of generic drugs in a way that reduces their cost to patients but leaves generic drug manufacturers incapable of modifying either the drugs’ compositions or their warnings. Respondent’s situation is tragic and evokes deep sympathy, but a straightforward application of pre-emption law requires that the judgment below be reversed.
It is so ordered."[/QUOTE]
So what does this mean for their liability in regards to their product side effects that are not properly reported?
[img]http://i.imgur.com/Uly7wgw.png[/img]
Presented without comment.
[QUOTE=Dr. Ethan Asia;41466748][img]http://i.imgur.com/Uly7wgw.png[/img]
Presented without comment.[/QUOTE]
As a Satanist, I can confirm that Lady GaGa actually could fit the religion rather nicely.
[QUOTE=amdX2;41466663]So what does this mean for their liability in regards to their product side effects that are not properly reported?[/QUOTE]
That you either need to target the original developer of the drug, not a company the sells a generic derivative, since those are bound by the decisions of the original maker.. Or that you have to target the FDA with your lawsuit which approved the sale even though it knew about the risk and didn't demand an extra warning label.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.
