Replies to post #68172 on Biotech Values

[bladerunner1717]

You guys are getting too caught up in the trees to see the forest. "Pre-emption" is a red herring. Even a right-wing court will not save the drug companies on this one, but they will try (And the right-wing court wiil abandon its always phony ideological justification for right-wing causes--"states' rights"-- in order to support business interests, when necessary.

The point here is: Someone got injured. Someone has to pay. Who pays? Simple as that. Someone HAS to pay, because the State won't. In California--and I assume, in most other jurisdictions--the courts have to find the "deep pockets." That's the drug companies. (You can't sue the FDA--LOL)

If the Dems win, they'll legislate pre-emption away, if they have to. Are the States writing "friends of the court" briefs against pre-emption? Because you'd better believe that the States don't want to assume any of the burden of the costs of these injured parties.


Bladerunner

[DewDiligence]

>So my failings are not just "selective memory" if they do not follow. Nor do I see the "point" I am failing to address. If you want to state a question do so.<

Q: In your opinion, would a drug company run into resistance from the FDA if it wanted to add a warning to its drug label?

My contention is that, in most cases, a drug company would not run into resistance from the FDA. Based on the article in #msg-33326305, Justice Souter agrees:

>>
Justice David Souter said that “Wyeth could have gone back to the FDA at any time and said, either based on experience or just our rethinking of the data that we have, we think the label ought to be changed to say, 'Don't use IV push.'”
<<

But you said in #msg-33208603: “I do not agree.”

This goes to the heart of the Wyeth v. Levine case. If Wyeth could in fact have strengthened the warning against IV push by merely requesting such a change, the preemption defense is but a smokescreen.