Comments on: White House Backs Wyeth On Preemption

By: tm

tm — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 16:28:29 +0000

im not supprised that the doctors support preempention after all i heard they get a big kickback for using there drugs.
its not about the victims they could care less its about the almight buck

By: tm

tm — Wed, 27 Aug 2008 14:54:04 +0000

lol are we supprised that the bush admimistration would stick there noses into this preemption case after all money to money,
hasen’t he done enought damage since hes been in office now this.
no recorce for the people whos lives have been devastated by the drug companys neglegence.all you preemptions supporters be careful it might come back to haunt you someday.

By: Justice in Michigan

Justice in Michigan — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 17:50:38 +0000

For Dr. Sal especially - No time to go over all the reasons here, but the “chaos” theory has never had any basis in fact. As you do know, until the Bush administration, FDA (though both Reps and Dems) itself asserted that the state tort system generally strengthened and complemented its own regulations.

The Wyeth case is not a strong one for the anti-preemption argument, which is partly why it was pushed by the Admin (via the Solicitor General) toward the Court to take on. But they are not just deciding on Wyeth, but on the issue of preemption.

One last bit - For Dr. Sal and others - please read the uncompromising editorials in NEJM against preemption. NEJM not part of the trial lawyer conspiracy. They describe preemption as policy that would have cataclysmic consequences for public health, patient rights, and industry accountability.

Last bit. There is no deregulation. No tort suit can determine what’s on a label; only FDA can. And companies are both free, and obliged, to change their label to note signficant new safety data without waiting for FDA approval.

So what would actually be deregulated by preemption would be the industry. There are many who have wanted that since the FDA first became into being. The preemptors are direct descendants (including financial base) of those who wanted to roll back Kefauver Harris that created the modern FDA after thalidomide.

That is really what supporting preemption means. First you gut the FDA. Then you canonize it. Result: No reg.

By: Dr. Sal Giorgianni

Dr. Sal Giorgianni — Sat, 07 Jun 2008 13:51:27 +0000

I am cheering for the FDA position to prevail on this one. To essentially de-regulate Federal regulation of prescription drug labeling would insert cahos into the market. Those who advocate for this should remember that the pendulum of state, or municipality, mandated changes in information to consumers not only could chill access in some areas (tnink of the implications on prescriber liability in areas that have strong trial-lawyer lobbies) but also could could work in the opposite direction, more “liberal” labeling.

What happened to this woman is a tragedy but the proposed unraveling of a federally consistant and binding standard is not the solution.

By: ol cranky

ol cranky — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 20:58:49 +0000

You guys need to review the case. This isn’t one where preemption is even relevant. This is actually a valid medical malpractice case since, like the Quaid case, the injury was caused by HCP errors.

By: Rose Golden

Rose Golden — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 19:22:19 +0000

All too often products are approved by the FDA only to be taken off the market after too many injuries and deaths occur. It seems to me that the FDA is more concerned with the drug companies than any harm to consumers.However, allow any product to surface that is natural and effective and hear them howl. Could it be that natural products can not be prescribed and drug companies can not make obscene profits? By the way, fish oil which can be purchased in any health food store, can now be prescribed. It costs more because it is a prescription. Go figure! Colusion?

By: Dave Hamil

Dave Hamil — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 16:19:20 +0000

What’s the point of the FDA if not to set standards for safety and labelling?

By: BP MD

BP MD — Fri, 06 Jun 2008 14:39:12 +0000

This is so ridulous! Frequently, the FDA doesn’t know the whole story as drug companies try to hide or dismiss many safety issues. Sure, let them do whatever they want. If patients are harmed, it’s not their fault. W ewouldn’t want any of these poor, picked-on corporations to be held responsible for their actions! That’s expecting too much!