JULY 26, 2004. Since Bush moved into the White House, articles have appeared here and there detailing his connection to drug companies, naming people appointed by Bush to serve in his administration who are former drug-company execs (Mitch Daniels, Don Rumsfeld et al).
The NY Times article below reveals the latest step by the White House to protect drug companies from consumer suits.
Suits based on what? DAMAGE DONE BY THE TOXIC DRUGS.
It appears the White House is trying to set a new standard for judges: IF THE FDA HAS CERTIFIED A MEDICAL DRUG (OR DEVICE) AS SAFE AND EFFECTIVE, THE DRUG MANUFACTURRER IS HOME FREE.
No law suits. No judgments in favor of patients. No cash awards. No ability to rake the drug company over the coals.
“If the government (FDA) says a drug is safe and effective, then it is.”
Nutritional manufacturers take note. If this bogus, alarming, and completely brain-dead piece of fascism can take root in the courts, what’s to stop the feds from declaring: “If we say a nutritional supplement is dangerous or ineffective, it is, and we can remove it from the market, and there will be NO APPEALS.”
Actually, that’s pretty much what happened to ephedra.
I never tire of mentioning that, every year in the US, 100,000 people die from the correct administration of FDA-approved (toxic) pharmaceuticals. Apparently that reality will have no bearing on the disposition of lawsuits, if this White House has its way.
“We don’t care how many people die or why. Once the FDA says a drug is safe and effective, that’s it. It’s an edict. That’s what the FDA is for. Issuing edicts.”
It’s 1984. “Let’s see. The patient died. Tests reveal there could have been only one cause. The drug he was prescribed. The drug is FDA-approved. Therefore, the patient’s family cannot sue. There is no fault. It just happened. There is no cause and effect. Even if there was.”
And so much for the mountain of evidence that the FDA has functioned as a revolving door for drug-company employees, that the agency has been riddled with conflict of interest, outright lying, and suppression of negative data about drugs.
And who cares if drug companies have been routinely hiding studies that reveal the toxic nature of their new drugs? Once the FDA issues its seal of approval for a new drug, the game is over. Let the deaths begin.
In case you haven’t made the leap, 100,000 deaths every year is a much more dire situation than September 11th.
THE FDA IS A CRIMINAL AGENCY. THE WHITE HOUSE IS A CRIMINAL GROUP.
Here is the Times piece:
In a shift, Bush moves to block drug suits
Consumer lawsuits would under- mine public health, government says
By Robert Pear, New York Times
WASHINGTON -- The Bush administration has been going to court to block lawsuits by consumers who say they have been injured by prescription drugs and medical devices.
The administration contends that consumers cannot recover damages for such injuries if the products have been approved by the Food and Drug Administration. In court papers, the Justice Department acknowledges that this position reflects a "change in governmental policy," and it has persuaded some judges to accept its arguments, most recently scoring a victory in the federal appeals court in Philadelphia.
Allowing consumers to sue manufacturers would "undermine public health" and interfere with federal regulation of drugs and devices, by encouraging "lay judges and juries to second-guess" experts at the FDA, the government said in siding with the maker of a heart pump sued by the widow of a Pennsylvania man. Moreover, it said, if such lawsuits succeed, some good products may be removed from the market, depriving patients of beneficial treatments.
But Rep. Maurice D. Hinchey, D-N.Y., said the administration had "taken the FDA in a radical new direction, seeking to protect drug companies instead of the public." Hinchey recently persuaded the House to cut $500,000 from the budget of the agency's chief counsel as a penalty for its aggressive opposition to consumer lawsuits.
In its briefs in the Pennsylvania case, the administration conceded that "the views stated here differ from the views that the government advanced in 1997," in the U.S. Supreme Court.
At that time, the government said that FDA approval of a medical device set the minimum standard, and that states could provide "additional protection to consumers." Now the Bush administration argues that the agency's approval of a device "sets a ceiling as well as a floor."
Allison M. Zieve, a lawyer at the Public Citizen Litigation Group who represented the plaintiff in the Pennsylvania case, said, "The government has done an about-face on this issue."
If courts accept the administration's position, Zieve said, it would amount to a backdoor type of "tort reform" that would shield manufacturers from damage suits.