> John, Can I suggest to you, that this incident only indicates superficially
> what the real powers are in USA and everyone knows it. Whats equally
> disconcerting is the power that money and power does to its victims. Chances
> are the people in Philly are being more harmed from policies of the rich
> then most people know here, not just because of the way a relatively minor
> case like this is absolved but how people are being set up by pollution and
> other things and just maybe the health care companies know and health
> departments know why we are targeted so often with health care commercials
> ( like no other city I have been in the last 30 years) and nothing is done
> to immediately lower the causes we need those hospitals and meds. This is
> the real power of money.- Harming people greatly and thats what I know is
> happening to our area as we get little or no concern about things like
> getting less and less clean air and its affects .
>
> This is the power of hedge funds with judges who recently ruled legal to
> take you to the cleaners if you invested in stocks! This is the power of big
> oil that can rape you at will and credit card companies to charge you more
> fees then even the orginal charges you rung up just for being late in
> payments. The discrepency between the rich and poor keeps growing which is
> why companies that control the press here keeps wanting the ability to
> consolidate. Its not about race or religion or terror, its about the same
> things that have corrupted societies and led people to write books like the
> Tale of Two Cities..only this time its happening in the USA. The only places
> you can really expect people to write about it is on the net.
>
> "CarlSwanson" nospam.frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> news:0b5rr35ckcm4sjtt5efhi3gtlo2ksubjju@4ax.com...

>> ..I told you Christian Right dummies that you were being used by the
>> Republican Party to expand a Supreme Court not to overturn Roe vs Wade
>> or protect the constitution and individuals rights. The Supreme
>> Court is being restructured to prevent any backlash against the
>> greediest among us when they hurt people. Vote for any Republican
>> these days and you are traitor to your country.
>>
>> No one respects absurd lawsuits, but the facts are that " those that
>> have" can defend themselves...ask Erin Brockovitch
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erin_Brockovitch
>>
>> http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/21/washington/21fda.html?_r=1&th&emc=th&oref=
>> slogin
>>
>> News Analysis
>> Justices Add Legal Complications to Debate on F.D.A.'s Competence
>>
>> By GARDINER HARRIS
>> Published: February 21, 2008
>> WASHINGTON
>>
>>
>> Diana Levine won a suit against Wyeth over a drug she blamed for
>> gangrene in her hand and forearm. Wyeth appealed.
>> THE Supreme Court's ruling on Wednesday limiting lawsuits by patients
>> over medical devices comes just as independent groups have raised
>> questions about the Food and Drug Administration's ability to ensure
>> the safety of these products.
>>
>> The Institute of Medicine, the Government Accountability Office and
>> the F.D.A.'s own science board have all issued reports concluding that
>> poor management and scientific inadequacies have made the agency
>> incapable of protecting the country against unsafe drugs, medical
>> devices and food.
>>
>> A result, said David Vladeck, a professor at Georgetown University Law
>> Center, is that the public is facing the worst of both worlds: a
>> government health agency that cannot protect them and rules that block
>> them from winning compensation when injured.
>>
>> Randall Lutter, the F.D.A.'s deputy commissioner for policy, said that
>> the agency was responding to reports of its deficiencies and
>> improving. And advocates for the administration's position say that
>> regardless of the recent reports, the F.D.A. is a far better judge of
>> product safety than the courts.
>>
>> "Anyone who is in favor of a strong F.D.A. cannot also be in favor of
>> unlearned, unscientific state juries second-guessing F.D.A.'s
>> science-based decisions," said Daniel Troy, a former F.D.A. general
>> counsel who helped push the new policy.
>>
>> Before President Bush took office, F.D.A. officials said that courts
>> provided patients additional protection. In a 1997 brief, the agency's
>> chief lawyer wrote that "even the most thorough regulation of a
>> product such as a critical medical device may fail to identify
>> potential problems."
>>
>> But the administration argues that the courts interfere with rather
>> than bolster agency oversight and it has undertaken a concerted effort
>> to protect drug and device makers from lawsuits by filing briefs in
>> the Supreme Court and other courts and changing rules to limit
>> companies' liability.
>>
>> With Wednesday's ruling, those efforts proved successful for device
>> makers. Two more cases, one to be argued Monday and the other in
>> October, will determine whether drug makers will benefit as well. In
>> his majority opinion, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that the F.D.A.'s
>> interpretation of its rules deserves "substantial deference." Since
>> the administration now interprets those rules to provide similar
>> liability protection to drug makers, Justice Scalia's opinion suggests
>> that the court may soon provide a liability shield to pharmaceutical
>> companies, too.
>>
>> The politics of these cases are bewildering, said Susan P. Frederick,
>> federal affairs counsel for the National Conference of State
>> Legislatures. Republican administrations generally advocate limited
>> regulation and deference to state oversight, Ms. Frederick said. But
>> in what she said was its push to reduce court damage awards, the
>> administration has written a blizzard of rules that do just the
>> opposite.
>>
>> "This is shocking to us because usually Republicans align quite nicely
>> with our federalism policy," she said.
>>
>> The administration has undertaken similar efforts in other regulatory
>> areas, including highway and consumer safety, contending that
>> strengthened federal regulations trump, or pre-empt, the decisions of
>> state courts.
>>
>> Diana Levine's suit, which will be argued in October, illustrates the
>> debate.
>>
>> In April 2000, Ms. Levine, a professional guitarist in Vermont,
>> suffered a disabling migraine and went to a health clinic for a shot
>> of Phenergan, an anti-nausea medicine. The drug was inadvertently
>> injected into her artery, where it caused an arterial spasm that led
>> to gangrene. After slowly turning black, Ms. Levine's hand and forearm
>> were amputated.
>>
>> Ms. Levine sued Wyeth, arguing that the drug's label should have
>> forcefully warned of this known risk. She won a $6.8 million judgment.
>> Wyeth appealed, contending that federal drug regulators did not call
>> for such a forceful warning and instead approved a label that simply
>> stated a preference for a less risky method of administering the drug.
>>
>> The question is who controlled the drug's label, the lengthy listing
>> of the drug's uses, dosages and risks.
>>
>> F.D.A. rules had long allowed companies, which know their products
>> better than the government and usually learn of new or worsening risks
>> first, to change labels without federal approval. Indeed, the labels
>> initially approved by regulators were seen as setting minimum safety
>> standards that companies could then bolster.
>>
>> But in January, the agency issued a proposed rule to limit when
>> companies can list new warnings without federal approval, which Mr.
>> Lutter said "improves and strengthens our control of the label."
>>
>> The administration argues that a product's approved label represents
>> not only the least but the most that the drug agency allows in
>> warnings, "both a floor and a ceiling for labeling," its brief in the
>> Levine case states.
>>
>> "If you put too much junk in the label, people don't understand it in
>> the right way," Mr. Lutter said. "There is a risk of overreaction and
>> ignoring it."
>>
>> For the administration, an unstated warning is a deliberate decision
>> by the F.D.A. to protect against undue alarm, and companies cannot be
>> held liable for such nonwarnings. Citing this argument, Wyeth contends
>> that Ms. Levine's suit punishes the company for failing to issue a
>> warning that the F.D.A. implicitly rejected.
>>
>> Ken Johnson, senior vice president of the Pharmaceutical Research and
>> Manufacturers of America, said that the F.D.A. oversees drug safety
>> and labeling because its "expert staff is the most qualified to make
>> such highly scientific and technical judgments."
>>
>> Andy Vickery, a plaintiffs' lawyer in Houston, said that without the
>> threat of litigation, companies would be less careful and patients
>> would suffer.
>>
>> "Many of the problems with drugs have been found out only because of
>> vigorous litigation," Mr. Vickery said. Phenergan's label now includes
>> a lengthy warning about the dangers of intravenous injections.
>>