Pharmasutical Company Loses lawsuit, Ordered to Pay $63 Million - Polidicks

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39585964]How....can then even sell that stuff with the possibility of that happening? And weed is still illegal compared to these nasty pharmasuticals.[/QUOTE] Yeah man, because Ibuprofen is one of those "nasty" pharmaceuticals. How can they even sell weed when there's the possibility it may affect underlying mental health issues?

[QUOTE=daijitsu;39587181]looking at wikipedia, it's caused by reactions to certain drugs. Given it was named 'necrolysis' I thought it'd be more severe like that one russian drug (street, not pharma) that was causing people to necrotize, but it actually seems to be a number of things[/QUOTE] Krokodil? Yeah man, that's some pretty scary shit.

[QUOTE=kebab52;39587442]Yeah man, because Ibuprofen is one of those "nasty" pharmaceuticals. How can they even sell weed when there's the possibility it may affect underlying mental health issues?[/QUOTE] I never said it was a nasty one. And those arent the drugs Im talking about.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39587466]I never said it was a nasty one. And those arent the drugs Im talking about.[/QUOTE] Well it certainly seemed like that was the one you were talking about.

[QUOTE=kebab52;39587486]Well it certainly seemed like that was the one you were talking about.[/QUOTE] I meant under tested ant-depressants and blood thinners and the such, the kind that have a million side effects listed whenever you see an ad on tv.

might as well never eat ibuprofen again. hell, none of those mild pain killers work anyway. A little muscle cramp or an annoying itch somewhere, or a nasty-ass cold/headache, they never work. Simply waste of fucking money. And if I got seriously hurt and would have to go through a painful operation in the hospital, they would give me the stuff that knocks me out cold, not some bullshit mass-produced ibuprofen that only serves to line the pockets of some rich company asshole.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39587694]might as well never eat ibuprofen again. hell, none of those mild pain killers work anyway. A little muscle cramp or an annoying itch somewhere, or a nasty-ass cold/headache, they never work. Simply waste of fucking money. And if I got seriously hurt and would have to go through a painful operation in the hospital, they would give me the stuff that knocks me out cold, not some bullshit mass-produced ibuprofen that only serves to line the pockets of some rich company asshole.[/QUOTE] You're clearly not using it properly then. What do you expect? It to be like you're shooting up heroin?

this is good, if only as a means to remind the ACTUAL companies that don't give a shit of what could happen. also to anyone who says 63 million is a lot, i would rather NOT lose 90% of the skin in my body than get 63 million, it ain't worth it, she is probably gonna use that money for plastic surgery.

[QUOTE=Gekkosan;39587694]might as well never eat ibuprofen again. hell, none of those mild pain killers work anyway. A little muscle cramp or an annoying itch somewhere, or a nasty-ass cold/headache, they never work. Simply waste of fucking money. And if I got seriously hurt and would have to go through a painful operation in the hospital, they would give me the stuff that knocks me out cold, not some bullshit mass-produced ibuprofen that only serves to line the pockets of some rich company asshole.[/QUOTE] Ibuprofen actually works really well on muscle pain and stuff like sprains and strains. Not quite as well diclofenac, but it has less side effects. Also, TEN and the less severe condition Stevens-Johnson syndrome have been known to be caused by a wide range of medication for almost a century, but it's extremely rare and possibly a genetic condition.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39587499]I meant under tested ant-depressants and blood thinners and the such, the kind that have a million side effects listed whenever you see an ad on tv.[/QUOTE] None of which are involved in the article. So why you are trying to toss those into the discussion, and then bring up weed and act like it has no side effects?

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39587499]I meant under tested ant-depressants and blood thinners and the such, the kind that have a million side effects listed whenever you see an ad on tv.[/QUOTE] How are blood-thinners undertested? We know plenty about warfarin, heparin and aspirin work.

[QUOTE=Camundongo;39587847]How are blood-thinners undertested? We know plenty about warfarin, heparin and aspirin work.[/QUOTE] Some of the blood thinners are pretty dangerous though. My dads doctor accidentally prescribed him the wrong blood thinner not knowing he was diabetic or something, his sugar kept dropping rapidly during the night and he was having seizures in his sleep and falling into a coma. Luckily his girlfriend was there and was able to call an ambulance in time. They figured out it was the blood thinner that they gave to him to control some of problems the diabetes was causing was ultimately causing him to loose control of his blood sugar levels. All the doctor had to say was ''whoops''.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39587499]I meant under tested ant-depressants and blood thinners and the such, the kind that have a million side effects listed whenever you see an ad on tv.[/QUOTE] Okay but that's not relevant to the discussion at hand is it? You posted it because you wanted ratings because you know Facepunch as a whole loves weed.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39588029]Some of the blood thinners are pretty dangerous though. My dads doctor accidentally prescribed him the wrong blood thinner not knowing he was diabetic or something, his sugar kept dropping rapidly during the night and he was having seizures in his sleep and falling into a coma. Luckily his girlfriend was there and was able to call an ambulance in time. They figured out it was the blood thinner that they gave to him to control some of problems the diabetes was causing was ultimately causing him to loose control of his blood sugar levels. All the doctor had to say was ''whoops''.[/QUOTE] That's an issue of him not telling his doctor he was diabetic.

[QUOTE=download;39588100]That's an issue of him not telling his doctor he was diabetic.[/QUOTE] Pretty sure he knew though. Its the only way I can justify it. He's had the same doctor for 20 years. Ill have to ask him what the full story was later.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39588029]Some of the blood thinners are pretty dangerous though. My dads doctor accidentally prescribed him the wrong blood thinner not knowing he was diabetic or something, his sugar kept dropping rapidly during the night and he was having seizures in his sleep and falling into a coma. Luckily his girlfriend was there and was able to call an ambulance in time. They figured out it was the blood thinner that they gave to him to control some of problems the diabetes was causing was ultimately causing him to loose control of his blood sugar levels. All the doctor had to say was ''whoops''.[/QUOTE] Are you sure it was anti-coagulants? At best Aspirin can have mild interactions with the stomach lining that can an impact on diabetes sufferers, but medicines like statins, beta blockers, diuretics and ACE inhibitors can be used to treat symptoms of diabetes, and have a whole range of side effects.

Ok fair enough, this girl had a massive reaction to the drug, and so has poor quality of life and needs constant care, which does warrant a large sum of money. However, I don't think the drugs company is to blame for the reaction she had to it. They can only do so much testing, if they tested for everything then drugs would never get to the public market. They undergo massive in vitro, animal, and human testing before even considering releasing them for consumers. Any drug can have a side effect, it depends entirely on the individual taking the drug. They try to list all the most common side effects known on the packaging, there is no way they are going to put "may cause blindness and all your skin to fall off" if potentially only one person in the world may have that side effect. If they had to write every possible side effect on the packaging, buying a pack of aspirin or paracetamol or whatever would require a billboard sized leaflet saying what they can potentially do to you if you got unlucky with your genetics. Sure, it's fucking terrible what happened to this girl, but you have to accept that there are always going to be risks, no matter how small, when taking any sort of drug.

[QUOTE=ultra_bright;39586692]I know that but some drugs of the drugs are poorly tested. Why do you think you have so many drug recalls in the U.S.? It takes a decade to fully research a drug and know the fullest extent of the long and short term effects of it.[/QUOTE] yeah man it's not like Ibruprofen has been around since the 60s

This is just another reason to stop R&D for new drugs. How the hell is some smaller company that has a great new idea supposed to have even a slight chance at staying afloat when any random person that get's a ridiculously rare reaction can sue for millions. These types of situations are one of the real reasons the government exists... to help people that can't help themselves.

[QUOTE=Sir M;39586008]Remember, weed causes you to be stoopid.[/QUOTE] you did it. quick, hide!

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39587808]this is good, if only as a means to remind the ACTUAL companies that don't give a shit of what could happen. also to anyone who says 63 million is a lot, i would rather NOT lose 90% of the skin in my body than get 63 million, it ain't worth it, she is probably gonna use that money for plastic surgery.[/QUOTE] That is some weird logic. How does one being willing to do something for an amount of money matter to the amount of money awarded and it not being a lot? And it couldn't possibly cost 63 million to do plastic surgery so I don't see how that has bearing either.

[QUOTE=Yellowamoeba;39589327]Ok fair enough, this girl had a massive reaction to the drug, and so has poor quality of life and needs constant care, which does warrant a large sum of money. However, I don't think the drugs company is to blame for the reaction she had to it. They can only do so much testing, if they tested for everything then drugs would never get to the public market. They undergo massive in vitro, animal, and human testing before even considering releasing them for consumers. Any drug can have a side effect, it depends entirely on the individual taking the drug. They try to list all the most common side effects known on the packaging, there is no way they are going to put "may cause blindness and all your skin to fall off" if potentially only one person in the world may have that side effect. If they had to write every possible side effect on the packaging, buying a pack of aspirin or paracetamol or whatever would require a billboard sized leaflet saying what they can potentially do to you if you got unlucky with your genetics. Sure, it's fucking terrible what happened to this girl, but you have to accept that there are always going to be risks, no matter how small, when taking any sort of drug.[/QUOTE] Maybe they should start making medicines specific for every patient.

[QUOTE=PollytheParrot;39586430]Sorry but this is a stupid lawsuit. It's near impossible to know every single possible side effect that could possibly occur with each person in the world having their own unique set of DNA and how their own body responds to the drug is unforeseen. Ibuprofen is pretty much the most common anti-pain drug there is (I use it all the time), its been tested to hell and back and its pretty safe. This is just absurd.[/QUOTE] If you sell a product that hurts people despite them using the product properly you should be responsible for it, regardless of how rare it was. Oil spills are relatively rare yet everyone thinks the bill should be paid for my the oil company that operated the rig, why's that so different

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39592459]If you sell a product that hurts people despite them using the product properly you should be responsible for it, regardless of how rare it was. Oil spills are relatively rare yet everyone thinks the bill should be paid for my the oil company that operated the rig, why's that so different[/QUOTE] And 63 million is a justified amount for a unforeseeable and unpreventable that was of absolutely no ones fault problem, unlike a oil spill which is a preventable and has an underlining fault running through it

[QUOTE=Wizards Court;39587808]this is good, if only as a means to remind the ACTUAL companies that don't give a shit of what could happen. also to anyone who says 63 million is a lot, i would rather NOT lose 90% of the skin in my body than get 63 million, it ain't worth it, she is probably gonna use that money for plastic surgery.[/QUOTE] I saw a documentary on this; apparently the skin grows back healthy and young and beautiful as that of a baby

[QUOTE=Zeke129;39592459]If you sell a product that hurts people despite them using the product properly you should be responsible for it, regardless of how rare it was. Oil spills are relatively rare yet everyone thinks the bill should be paid for my the oil company that operated the rig, why's that so different[/QUOTE] If a child eats peanuts and suffers a severe allergic reaction, is it the fault of the company who sold the peanuts? The family is suing J&J because they are contesting that the medicine was not properly labelled. My point of contention is whether or not it is reasonable for the company to list TEN as one of the possible side effects, given that it is such a rare reaction (I have only been able to find one prior case of TEN induced by ibuprofen).

[QUOTE=download;39588100]That's an issue of him not telling his doctor he was diabetic.[/QUOTE] uh no, he's a doctor and should have the persons medical history on file and should be checking it well if he filled out a medical history thing and excluded that he was diabetic it's his fault but whatever [editline]14th February 2013[/editline] [QUOTE=Headhumpy;39595084]If a child eats peanuts and suffers a severe allergic reaction, is it the fault of the company who sold the peanuts? The family is suing J&J because they are contesting that the medicine was not properly labelled. My point of contention is whether or not it is reasonable for the company to list TEN as one of the possible side effects, given that it is such a rare reaction (I have only been able to find one prior case of TEN induced by ibuprofen).[/QUOTE] because that's the same right your skin doesn't fall off and it does say it contains a possible allergen (peanuts) and allergic reactions can be treated before anything really goes wrong with antihistamines.

That family will be set for quite a long time if they conserve that money. $63 million seems like quite a lot though.

How do you lose 95% of your skin?

[QUOTE=laserguided;39595231]How do you lose 95% of your skin?[/QUOTE] Maybe it all just died and peeled off. Or just started peeling off like blisters.