.
Have you ever heard the phrase "stand alone"? Well when it comes to the multi-billion
dollar pharmaceutical field, everyone in America is standing alone,
abandoned by your representatives in Congress and the Administration of
President Obama.
If you should happen to have serious injury from taking FDA
approved drugs, or even death, the Obama Administration, Congress, the Supreme
Court, and the FDA, are your enemy. They
ignore the need to fix liability on behalf of the consumers, and have built a
shield of protection around the billions of dollars taken from consumers by
industry giants.
In case there is any confusion, pharmaceutical company
revenues reached about $750 billion in 2014, and will exceed $1 trillion in
just five years according to the FiercePharma web site. Here are some revenue and lobbying charts
showing the extent of political influence in politics in America. Note how over the years both parties receive
about the same amount of money.
Here
is a good description of how the pharmaceutical companies got this
multi-billion dollar shield of protection by the US government. Obama and Congress can fix this regulatory
quirk at any time but are they rushing to help the consumer by holding drug
companies liable, of course not, and that means Democrats and Republicans
alike.
Filing Dangerous Drug Lawsuits for Harmful
Side Effects
If you've suffered a serious illness or injury from taking a dangerous drug,
whether prescription or over-the-counter, you may be wondering what legal
rights you have. Who do you file a drug lawsuit against? Common questions
include:
- Can I sue the pharmaceutical
company who made the drug?
- How about the U.S. Food and
Drug Administration for approving it?
- Is my doctor liable
for prescribing the drug?
- Does the pharmacy share any
responsibility?
Let's discuss the options...
U.S. Food and Drug Administration
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) is
"responsible for
protecting the public health by regulating human and animal drugs, biologics
(e.g. vaccines and cellular and gene therapies), medical devices, food and
animal feed, cosmetics, and products that emit radiation."
Most people think the FDA approves all drugs on the market today, but that's
not true. Some drugs are not subject to FDA approval (ex.
"compounded" drugs), and others are only reviewed
after
they're put on the market. Read more about the FDA approval process
here.
Since the FDA was created, thousands of dangerous drugs have entered the
market and caused harmful side effects, including serious illnesses and wrongful
deaths. While the FDA has become better at finding potentially dangerous drugs,
many have slipped through their fingers and made it to market.
You might think that if the FDA approved a dangerous drug which caused you
harm, you'd be able to sue the FDA for their
negligence.
Unfortunately, the FDA is a government agency, therefore it has sovereign
immunity. Sovereign immunity is a legal privilege stating government agencies
can't be sued (unless they allow it, which rarely occurs).
Pharmaceutical Drug Companies
Before 2013, drug companies could be sued if their drug caused serious
adverse side effects, injury, illness, or death. They paid out hundreds of
millions of dollars in drug lawsuit settlements and
jury
verdicts.
In 2013, the U.S. Supreme Court made a historical decision. In the case of
Karen Bartlett vs. U.S. Merck and Co. and Mutual Pharmaceutical Company, the
Supreme Court ruled that once the FDA approves a drug, individuals are
prohibited from suing the drug's manufacturer, even if it's proven that the
drug caused harm!
In the
Bartlett
case, the plaintiff took the drug Sulindac, which allegedly caused her to
suffer gangrene in her right arm as a result of "toxic epidermal
necrolysis." The Supreme Court ruled that, because the FDA approved the
drug Sulindac, the manufacturer has immunity from private and class action
lawsuits.
Basically, the ruling stated drug manufacturers have a right to rely on the
FDA approval system, and once a drug is FDA approved, pharmaceutical companies
can't be sued. Otherwise, the court said, why does the FDA exist at all?
What this means to you is, if you've suffered a
serious
side effect or illness from an FDA approved medication, you are barred from
filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer. (Supreme Court rulings are rarely overturned,
but in the future it may happen.)
Doctors and Pharmacists
While you may not be able to file a lawsuit against the FDA or a drug
manufacturer, you can sue your doctor or pharmacy if they prescribed a
dangerous drug which caused you harm.
Physician Liability
There's a difference between drug lawsuits and medical malpractice lawsuits.
A lawsuit based on illness or injury caused by a doctor's negligence in
prescribing medication, falls under the category of
medical
malpractice.
By law, doctors are held to a very high standard of care in the medical
community. When a doctor deviates from the medical standard, and as result a
patient is injured, the doctor is considered negligent, and therefore liable
for any resulting injuries.
When a patient can prove a doctor's negligence was the direct cause of his
injuries, the patient may be entitled to compensation for his or her
damages.
In extreme cases of negligence, an injured or deceased patient's family may be
entitled to punitive damages.
Pharmacy Liability
Pharmacists have a legal
duty of care
when prescribing medications. They receive extensive training in pharmacology
and must be familiar with every drug they dispense. This includes knowing about
potentially harmful interactions between drugs when taken together.
It's up to the pharmacist and doctor to work together to make sure a
prescribed drug will not injure the patient. In today's day and age however,
communication between a doctor and pharmacist is often limited. The one who
suffers most is the patient.
As a patient and customer, you have a right to rely on the expertise of your
doctor, and the pharmacist who filled your prescription. When they fail to
protect you from harm and you suffer injuries, you have a right to seek
compensation.
Example: Doctor and Pharmacist Negligence
Vic was previously diagnosed with celiac disease, which means his body can't
metabolize gluten. When gluten is introduced to someone with celiac disease,
they can suffer nausea, vomiting, diarrhea, and even life-threatening
intestinal damage.
Vic went to see Dr. Neglushent complaining of weakness and lethargy. Vic was
very careful and lived a gluten-free lifestyle, and the doctor knew Vic
suffered from celiac disease.
Dr. Neglushent prescribed the drug Palagluden. Vic asked Dr. Neglushent if
Palagluden contained gluten, and was told it did not. When Vic went to pick up
his prescription, he asked the pharmacist if Palagluden contained gluten, and
was told no. There was also no indication on the pill bottle that the drug
contained gluten.
After taking Palagluden for 3 months, Vic collapsed and was hospitalized due
to a ruptured large intestine. It turned out the drug Palagluden in fact did
contain large amounts of gluten, used as a binding agent.
Vic successfully sued Dr. Neglushent for medical malpractice and the
pharmacy for negligence. In the lawsuit, the pharmacy blamed the doctor, and
the doctor blamed the pharmacy. The court said both defendants knew, or should
have known the drug Palagluden contained gluten, and ruled in Vic's favor.
The Role of Attorneys
Any kind of drug lawsuit requires
professional
legal representation. Doctors and pharmacies rarely admit to fault, and are
often defended by large insurance companies with deep pockets. Only an
experienced personal injury attorney has the skills to handle a case like this.
An attorney can take depositions, subpoena records, hire expert witnesses, and
more.
If you've suffered a serious side effect or illness due to a drug, seek the
counsel of an attorney in your area as soon as possible. Save the pill bottle,
your receipts, and your medical records (to verify the treatment you required
as a result of the drug). Bring all your evidence with you when meeting with
attorneys.
Case Study:
Dangerous
Medication Interaction
Here we look at a case where the victim suffered harmful side effects from
taking two drugs together. Although a doctor prescribed the medications,
liability falls on the manufacturer because of inadequate warnings.
Media On Right And Left Ignore The Truth
About Vaccines
Cliff
Kincaid, February 5, 2015
They bash each other over vaccines, but
ignore what's really at stake.
NBC accuses Republicans of accepting bad “science” on vaccines, while Fox
News fires back, accusing liberals of spreading bad “science” on vaccines. Each
side is trying to score partisan political points. The message from both sides
is that vaccines are completely safe. But that message is absolutely and
demonstrably false.
As I noted in a recent column, the National Vaccine Injury Compensation
Program exists to compensate victims of vaccines. The latest
Statistics Report shows nearly 4,000 claims were awarded
financial damages.
Why do both sides of this “debate” pretend that vaccine-related injuries do
not occur? Why not just report the facts? It doesn’t take a lot of work to dig
them out.
Barbara Loe Fisher of the
National
Vaccine Information Center (NVIC) tells me that she has given more than 100
interviews in the last two weeks on the subject of the measles outbreak, but
that the media simply will NOT report on the existence of this federal program
and the implications for the subject of vaccine safety.
“Vaccines are the only pharmaceutical products that government mandates and
completely indemnifies,” she notes. She is referring to federal legislation
that takes legal responsibility for their actions away from the companies
making the vaccines.
“I’ve been talking about it in every interview I do and I have been bringing
it up. But whenever I talk about liability protection for the companies—that
this is the only pharmaceutical product that is mandated by government and
indemnified by government—they [the media] don’t want to talk about it,” she
said.
Observers believe the glaring omission reflects the power of pharmaceutical
companies or their advertising agencies in the major media. It is in the
interest of these companies to make pariahs out of those favoring vaccine
choice by playing down—or even suppressing—questions about vaccine safety.
Simply put, the evidence and history show that the vaccine makers have been
given total liability protection for injuries and deaths caused by
government-mandated vaccines. Vaccine safety is not “settled science,” as we
have been hearing repeatedly in the media. To the contrary, for purposes of the
law, vaccines are considered sometimes unsafe, even deadly.
The “
Vaccine injury table” associated with the legislation
includes a list of the injuries, disabilities, illnesses, conditions, and
deaths resulting from the administration of such vaccines.
But why is it so difficult for the media to report on the existence of these
health problems?
The vaccines that are
covered
include:
- diptheria and tetanus vaccines
- pertussis vaccines
- measles, mumps, and rubella
vaccines
- polio vaccines
- hepatitis A vaccines
- hepatitis B vaccines
- Haemophilus influenza type b
polysaccharide conjugate vaccines
- varicella vaccines
- rotavirus vaccines
- pneumococcal conjugate
vaccines
- seasonal influenza vaccines
- human papillomavirus vaccines
- meningococcal vaccines
As I reported in
my column, the one exception to this drumbeat of misleading
and inaccurate coverage about “vaccine safety” is on the local level, where
correspondent Michael Chen of ABC 10 News in San Diego, Calif., noted
a case of a boy who suffered serious injuries, including
fever, seizures, nervous tics, and autism, as a result of two vaccines. The
mother, almost in tears as she described what happened to her son, was paid
$55,000 in damages through the federal program. But the damage award didn’t
cover the autism diagnosis. She said she wished she had more thoroughly
researched the safety of vaccines.
The National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program grew out of the 1986
National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act. Fisher explains what happened: “The
companies threatened Congress that they were going to leave the people without
any childhood vaccines if they did not get liability protection. The companies
wanted this liability protection and it was mainly for losses at that time for
DPT and oral polio vaccine. MMR (Measles, Mumps, and Rubella) vaccine at that
point was a relatively new combination vaccine.”
The DPT vaccine had been associated with brain inflammation and brain
damage, while polio paralysis can be caused by the vaccine.
Fisher explains what the federal protection means for the companies: “Nobody
who makes or profits from the sale of the vaccine, nobody who regulates the
vaccine, who promotes the vaccine, who votes to mandate the vaccine—nobody is
accountable or liable in a civil court of law in front of a jury of our peers
when we get hurt because we’ve been told we have to take it, or when the
vaccine fails to work.”
The compensation program, with total liability protection for injuries and
deaths caused by government-mandated vaccines, was upheld by the Supreme Court
in a 2011 case in which vaccines were acknowledged to be “unavoidably unsafe.”
My column actually underestimated the total financial damages paid through
the program. The figure is actually $2.8 billion to the victims or the families
of victims themselves.
Liberal and conservative media are trying to make political points over
who’s right and wrong about vaccine safety. But Fisher says people who support
her group and vaccine choice come from across the political spectrum and
include Democrats, Republicans, libertarians, and independents. In the media,
however, each side is trying to smear the other side, as if there is a partisan
divide.
The coverage has led to cases of strange bedfellows, such as the George
Soros-funded blog Think Progress running a story praising Megyn Kelly of Fox
News under the headline, “
Megyn Kelly Speaks Up For Mandatory Vaccination On Fox: ‘Some
Things Do Require Big Brother.’”
Indeed, Kelly defended mandatory vaccines, saying, “…some things do require
some involvement of Big Brother.”
What she and many others in the media have consistently ignored is the role
of Big Brother in shielding the companies making the vaccines from the side
effects of their products.
As I asked in my column: If there are no problems associated with vaccines,
then why did Congress pass the National Childhood Vaccine Injury Act of 1986,
which created a national Vaccine Injury Compensation Program?
The media on the left and right have no answer to this question. So they
pretend there is no debate or dispute over the safety of vaccines. They simply
point fingers about one side or the other being guilty of ignoring what they
pretend is settled science.
The only thing “settled” about the science is that while vaccines work for a
large majority of people, they can also cause serious health problems, even
death, for some.
The commentators who ignore the truth are either lying or so utterly
ignorant that they should not be in a position of offering “news” on a national
basis. Whatever the case, the public is being denied the facts about decisions
affecting the lives of their children. Fortunately, the public can go to sites
like
www.aim.org and
the
National Vaccine
Information Center for information that is being denied to them.
A troubling aspect of the current debate is how people in the media act like
experts on subjects that they know so little about. They seem to think that by
huffing and puffing and sounding authoritative, they will be taken seriously.
They have large staffs which seem incapable of making phone calls or doing
elementary research.
If news organizations on the left and right can’t even dig out the facts in
life-and-death matters involving children, then what can they be trusted to
report accurately on?
Read more at
http://www.westernjournalism.com/media-right-left-ignore-truth-vaccines/#DORlMDtShYacYZMs.99
.