“Don’t let the world around you squeeze you into its own mould, but let God re-mould your minds from within...”
Romans 12:2

No one logged in. Log in

Hilary's Desk

The high cost of protection

Hilary Butler - Wednesday, July 10, 2013

The Supreme Court in USA, in a case called Mutual Pharmaceutical v. Bartlett, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 12-142. has just ruled that drug companies are now exempt from lawsuits  even when the adverse reaction (toxic epidermal necrolysis)  was one of several hidden by the drug makers, and later forced to be included on all warning labels.

As this blog says, the Supreme Court “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,” and “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….”

The court 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.”

As the blog said, “Immediately upon the Supreme Court’s ruling, both drug manufacturers and Wall Street investors were celebrating. As one financial analyst pointed out, drug company profits should skyrocket going forward. Not only do the pharmaceutical companies no longer have to worry about safety or side effects, they are exempt from the multi-million dollar court-imposed settlements awarded to victims of their drugs.”

Remember this, the next time your doctor wants to give you a cheap generic.

Read the Reuter’s news item on this topic which amongst other things said:

"The generic industry dodged a bullet on this one," BMO's Maris said. "Had it gone against them it would have put a big cloud over the industry."

(BMO stands for Banque d’Montreal, which is a huge conglomerate industry with fingers in more pies than you can imagine…)

And even more important, remember THIS: If the companies don’t care about you, (even though they murmur platitudinous words to the contrary….,) and neither does FDA, ....  shouldn’t you be looking at other ways to fix “shoulder pain” -  or whatever the problem is that you have, instead of slapping a “band-aid” on, to simply suppress the symptoms accompanying a problem?  

Shouldn’t you be asking yourself, why it is, you would WANT to even take any non-steroidal anti-inflammatory? Particularly the drug this girl took, sulindac, which has been known since 2003, to carry a high risk of liver damage? Sulindac causes decreased kidney filtration with transient and permanent kidney problems  If you read the left column of this book page, you will see it causes proteinuria.  All red flags for anyone who thinks.

So why is it that people and doctors, reach first for a toxic drug like sulindac just for shoulder pain?  

And there is one more issue here: Sulindac, is the generic version of Merck & Co Inc's Clinoril, and we all know about the ways and means that Merck has, of weaselling out of drug and vaccine reactions!  Make no mistake… Merck took more than a passing interest in the outcome of THIS drug, since according to the extract above it is implied that Merck is really the one who should have been slapped with this court case, since apparently, they were the ones to first hide the nasty outcome data.

So why is anyone surprised that the Supreme court has yet again, conspired to protect Merck et al? The huge and varied vested interests know how to pull all the strings of protection: to manipulate and hide data, twist motives and the interpretation of “legal safeguards” so that the “justice system” covers their butt for them.

Bookmark and Share